Abstract
While there may be some broad agreement about the purposes of primary physical education, there is dramatic variance in how these purposes are prioritised and enacted. Primary physical education consequently focusses on multiple, often competing, priorities. To gain a better understanding of this issue we review how different stakeholders view the purposes of primary physical education. We analysed 95 qualitative studies published between 2000 and 2017 that focussed on the views of different stakeholders. Across all stakeholders, the main purposes of primary physical education were identified as being physically active and learning physical, social, and emotional skills. Teachers and pupils were the most represented stakeholders, while the limited representation of school principals and policy makers was noted. The review indicates a need to examine the perspectives of those underrepresented stakeholders, serving as an entry point for bridge-building to shape the future direction of primary physical education.
Introduction
Primary physical education has received renewed attention in the literature, with special issues of Education 3-13 and the European Physical Education Review that focus on primary physical education being published alongside the first Routledge Handbook of Primary Physical Education. While these texts showcase innovative practices and provide insights into primary physical education across different contexts, Petrie and Griggs (2018: 397) warn that ‘governments internationally are interested in “exploiting” physical education as a space to achieve a range of political goals’. Discourses related to health (Powell, 2018), sport (Ward, 2018), education (Griggs, 2018), and neoliberalism (Macdonald, 2014) dominate the ‘contested terrain in which primary physical education is situated’ (Griggs, 2018: 45). As governments dictate physical education policy, accusations that physical education is trying to achieve too much across learning domains has led to a field that is ‘increasingly disconnected and fragmented’ (Carse et al., 2018: 498). Confusion has been created and promises made that cannot be kept (Bailey et al., 2009). As such, Lawson (2018: 141) calls for a complete redesign of school-based physical education that requires ‘conceptual clarity and precision’.
At the heart of this contestation evident in health, sport, education, and neoliberal discourses (Griggs, 2018), Carse et al. (2018: 487) identify different stakeholders from educational, political, sport, health, commercial, and community contexts who hold ‘differing and sometimes contradictory views’ about the purposes of primary physical education. The aim of this review is therefore to achieve some clarity about stakeholders’ views of the purposes of primary physical education. A stakeholder is viewed as an individual, group, or organisation with a specific interest or stake with the potential to influence aims, decisions, and actions within a given context (Bryson, 2004).
In addition to defining what a stakeholder is, it is also prudent to consider what is meant by the purposes of physical education. It is challenging to find an agreed-upon definition of the purposes of physical education because the perceived benefits and outcomes are shaped by the prominent discourses mentioned previously (i.e. health, sport, education, neoliberalism). We believe that major reviews of the value, aims, benefits, and outcomes of physical education offer a succinct way to think about what we mean by purposes. For example, in their major review Bailey et al. (2009) analyse the extent to which claims can be made that physical education and its practices support the achievement of a range of its purported benefits, namely those that address physical, social, affective, and cognitive learning domains. Our view therefore is that the purposes of physical education are tied to the value, benefits, and/or outcomes of the subject for its pupils. Yet, while it is common to read researchers’ perspectives of the purposes of physical education, it is less common to read the perspectives of other stakeholders. In this review, we ask: What is empirically known about stakeholders’ perspectives on the purposes of primary physical education?
There are several potential outcomes that come from conducting this research. First, taking stock of what is known about the perspectives of different stakeholders can help identify commonalities, which, in turn, might allow for more connected thinking and alignment across stakeholder groups. We see this as one way of attending to Lawson’s (2018) call for bridge-building across stakeholder groups that he believes is necessary in any type of systemic reform or redesign in education. Second, the review may allow important differences to be seen across stakeholder groups, which may highlight how and why ideas about primary physical education are being accepted or rejected by those stakeholders. Drawing from Lawson (2018) again, this outcome may allow particularly teachers and teacher educators to understand, identify, and interpret differences in stakeholder priorities so they may be responded to, and which enable a more intimate involvement in reform and redesign agendas.
Methods
Stakeholder analysis aims to generate knowledge about individuals and organisations ‘to understand their behaviour, intentions, interrelations and interests, and [to assess] the influence and resources they bring to bear on decision-making or implementation processes’ (Varvasovszky and Brugha, 2000: 338). Analysing different perspectives can support in understanding how stakeholders prioritise issues, make decisions, and subsequently identify opportunities to influence these decisions (Brugha and Varvasovszky, 2000). Varvasovszky and Brugha (2000) recommend stakeholder analyses consider the aim, time dimension, and context of the analysis. They suggest that stakeholder characteristics such as involvement and interest in the issue, degree of influence or power, position, and the impact of the issue on practice might also be considered. Because we did not collect primary data from stakeholders, this review is not considered a full stakeholder analysis. Instead, we drew on processes and principles from stakeholder analysis to guide the review and gain insight about stakeholders’ perspectives of the purposes of primary physical education. We were also guided by reviews of stakeholders’ perspectives on the role of the primary school in preventing childhood obesity (Clarke et al., 2013) and inclusion in physical education (Qi and Ha, 2012). Specifically, we aimed to gather stakeholders’ perspectives on the purposes of primary physical education. There is no specific time dimension as the authors of papers reviewed might have gathered data from stakeholders with views to the past, present, and/or future. We considered the international context of primary physical education, though our implicit focus is on English-speaking countries. Based on their interest, involvement, and degrees of influence on the subject of primary physical education, the stakeholders we identified were teachers, principals, pre-service teachers, teacher educators, policy makers, sport coaches (which we felt represented one type of ‘outsourced provider’), pupils, and parents.
Search
Peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 2000 and December 2017 were included. We chose January 2000 as a lower boundary due to the publication of the Handbook of Physical Education in 2006 (Kirk et al., 2006). Hunter’s (2006) chapter represented one of the first reviews of primary physical education, addressing literature to the end of the 20th century. Focussing on work conducted from the turn of the century might therefore reduce overlap and provide a better sense of relatively current perspectives of stakeholders. December 2017 was chosen as the upper boundary because we commenced the first phase of the literature search in early 2018, with the analysis ongoing throughout that year. We only included empirical studies reporting qualitative data because we felt that qualitative approaches were best aligned with research questions related to stakeholder perspectives about the purposes of primary physical education. For example, like Allender et al. (2006), we did not feel that quantitative survey data could appropriately reflect the important contextual, social, and cultural factors that might inform stakeholders’ perspectives, and which shape the discourses around primary physical education. Qualitative studies mainly generate data from focus groups, interviews, observations, open-ended surveys, reflective entries, and visual methods (e.g. draw-and-write or photovoice).
There were three main search phases. Search 1 included scanning two electronic databases, SportDiscus and Education Source, for a combination of terms. Specifically, we looked for combinations of research focus (primary physical education), research methods, and stakeholder groups. The specific terms used in Search 1 are presented in Table 1. Searches 2 and 3 involved additional scans (one other database and a manual search) for studies not appearing in Search 1. In Table 2 results are presented from the three main search phases. Table 2 shows Search 1 yielded 1166 results, from which 239 duplicates were removed. The remaining 927 studies were screened by title and abstract for inclusion. During this process, 801 studies were excluded, mainly because the articles did not yield empirical data, were not focussed on primary physical education, and/or did not focus specifically on stakeholders’ perspectives on the purposes of primary physical education. This led to an initial database of 126 studies. To ensure rigour and limit the number of missed papers, Search 2 was completed using the same search terms as Search 1 but within the Web of Science database. This resulted in 988 studies being identified, of which 210 were duplicates. In comparing the results of Searches 1 and 2, 778 studies were screened based on title and abstract, of which 746 were excluded. As such, 32 new papers were added to the main database. Because the specific language of the search terms might not have been used in the article titles or abstracts, Search 3 involved a forward/backward search of citations in studies in the database, leading to 12 more studies being included. No additional stakeholders were identified throughout the search process. This led to the final 170-paper database for screening.
Search terms and their combinations.
PHE: Physical & Health Education; AfPE: Association for Physical Education.
Results from three main search phases.
Screening and data extraction
Titles and abstracts of 170 studies were screened independently to identify those that potentially met the inclusion criteria (i.e. the paper’s focus was on stakeholders’ perspectives of the purposes of primary physical education). Based on the inclusion criteria, we independently marked each paper on a spreadsheet as ‘green’ for inclusion, ‘red’ for exclusion, and ‘orange’ if unsure. Papers marked ‘orange’ and those that were marked differently by the authors (e.g. a paper marked ‘green’ by three authors and ‘red’ by one author) were discussed on Skype. In the ensuing discussions we focussed on each author’s interpretation of our main research question. This approach was common for papers that addressed, for example, teachers’ experiences of implementing an approach to teaching physical education, such as implementing sport education or game-centred approaches (GCAs). To continue with this example, if, through outlining a stakeholder’s experience of implementation, no light was shed on that stakeholder’s views of the purposes of primary physical education, the paper was excluded. When no consensus was reached from analysing the title or abstract, we included the paper. This was because we could make a final decision on inclusion/exclusion from reading the entire paper in the final analysis. From the main database of 170 studies and our process for inclusion/exclusion, we retained 126 papers for the main analysis.
Analysis and synthesis: step 1
Data from these 126 studies were extracted as follows. The full text of each paper was saved to a shared online folder and its details entered in a data extraction form. Data included title, author/s, year of publication, country/region, research question, context and characteristics of stakeholder, theoretical framework, methodology and data collection methods, main findings, and recommendations. Each study’s details were reviewed independently and assessed for eligibility. Any disagreement was resolved through consensus by following the processes engaged in during screening and data extraction (outlined in the previous section). Following data extraction, a further 28 studies were excluded. As with the initial data extraction process, most of these papers were excluded because they did not help us address our research question. For example, several offered exemplars of certain approaches used for primary physical education or considered pupils’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities in physical education but did not focus specifically on stakeholders’ perspectives of primary physical education. This left a total of 98 papers in the main database. Following a full review of the 98 papers, three more were removed because they did not address the research question. Therefore, 95 papers were included in the final analysis.
Analysis and synthesis: step 2
Next, we made sense of these data organised by stakeholder. Similar to Sperka and Enright (2018), each paper was assigned a number (1–95) (see Online Appendix 1, available at: https://journals-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/suppl/10.1177/1356336X19856381) and these numbers have been used within the text (indicated by superscript) to enhance readability. When a paper included multiple stakeholders, each was considered separately. For example, a paper that addressed perspectives of pupils and teachers was included in both the ‘pupils as stakeholders’ section and the ‘teachers as stakeholders’ section. For each stakeholder group, data were coded according to the following sub-headings. Demographics: number of studies, location, number of participants. Research focus. Methodologies and data collection methods. Analytic/theoretical frame. Findings about findings related to the purpose of physical education. Similarities and differences across papers. Anything noteworthy (e.g. noting predominant methodologies, lack of longitudinal studies, attention to certain theoretical frames or absence of others).
Similar to other reviews (Hastie et al., 2011; Sperka and Enright, 2018), this coding scheme generated a mini-thematic analysis for each stakeholder group. Once data for each stakeholder were analysed, we compared all stakeholders for similarities, differences, and omissions.
Trustworthiness
Through our process we aimed to consider how research on stakeholders’ perspectives of the purposes of primary physical education was conceptualised and presented, so we might better understand how researchers arrived at their interpretations. Certainly, what we review is actually researchers’ interpretations of stakeholders’ perspectives on the purposes of primary physical education. It is almost impossible to avoid this shortcoming due to our reliance on peer-reviewed research as data for the review. This point should be considered by readers when judging the trustworthiness of our interpretations of researchers’ interpretations. Other factors that might be considered when judging the trustworthiness of the review include the requirement that papers be written in the English language, which has likely resulted in some papers being excluded that may otherwise be relevant. We also acknowledge that in attempting to capture a breadth of perspective that depth of analysis was sacrificed. For example, it could be argued that the high number of papers in the teacher category merited a separate review. We made the decision to present all the stakeholders in one paper in order to share an overall, descriptive picture. We hope that others may use our findings to conduct research that will provide additional depth of insight on some of the gaps identified.
Despite these limitations, there were several steps taken to strengthen the review process. For instance, the team approach added rigour to the analysis because judgement is a critical component of stakeholder analysis (Varvasovszky and Brugha, 2000). Also, our respective backgrounds and areas of expertise indicated an ‘insider’ status in terms of primary physical education, which allowed us to draw on our experiences when considering contextual and cultural factors (Varvasovszky and Brugha, 2000). We heeded the advice of Varvasovszky and Brugha (2000) in recognising our own roles, perspectives, and potential biases as ‘insiders’ with investment in influencing the future direction of primary physical education. For example, we considered how the broader physical education landscape, the levels of influence of particular stakeholder groups, and various priorities may have shifted across the temporal period of the review. Again, the value of a team-based approach was useful in how our interpretation of findings was shaped by discussion and debate of the evidence within the data. The large number of papers and participants included in this review also gives confidence in the findings.
Findings and discussion
Table 3 presents an overview of each stakeholder group represented, the number of papers and research participants in each group, and the location of studies. Within the findings about findings, we include relevant themes. Because teachers, pre-service teachers, and teacher educators are all involved in teaching practice, we have listed them consecutively, followed by pupils, principals, and parents. Teachers (64) and pupils (31) are the most represented, while parents, principals, and teacher educators are largely underrepresented in comparison. Policy makers and outsourced providers (e.g. coaches) are not represented. Most studies were conducted in Canada and the USA (n = 54), followed by Europe (n = 39). The scarcity of papers from Asia and Africa is likely affected by the criterion of papers being in English.
Overview of stakeholder representation.
*The number of participants was not included in all papers. The number presented is the minimum the authors deduced from the information analysed.
In the following sections we present the analysis of each stakeholder’s perspectives of the purposes of primary physical education, incorporating a brief overview of the profile of the studies and findings about findings.
Teachers
There were 64 studies addressing teachers’ perspectives of the purposes of primary physical education. These included 44 focussed on the teacher alone, while 20 included teachers’ perspectives alongside those of pupils, principals, or parents. Thirteen focussed on classroom teachers’ experiences of professional development, while all others related to teachers’ practices that addressed the quality of teaching and learning. These included teachers’ perspectives on the purposes and practices of physical education, their experiences of implementing an innovation, and the challenges of particular contexts (e.g. urban schools). Most studies used interviews and focus groups with teachers as a primary data source (n = 60). Observation of teaching, open-ended questionnaires, drawings and photographs, written reflections, and document analysis provided additional data sources. Significantly, conversations with teachers about their perspectives and experiences are the dominant data source, indicating a willingness to promote teachers’ voices in research related to the purposes of primary physical education.
Findings about findings
Based on the focus of each study, the 64 papers were organised thematically into three sub-themes. The prevalence of certain foci supported sub-theme development. For example, half of the papers (32) addressed teachers’ perspectives on the purposes of physical education based on either the practices they employed or the barriers they faced in achieving those purposes. A number of papers (19) focussed on the use of professional development or pedagogical innovations (13) to inform teachers’ perspectives on the purposes of primary physical education. Our interpretation of innovation is that it represents practices that diverge from those described as ‘traditional’ (e.g. multi-activity programming focussed on learning sport techniques).
Practices and purposes
Thirty-two studies directly addressed teachers’ perspectives on the purposes of primary physical education (6, 8–12, 26, 42, 44, 46, 47, 49, 53, 54, 60–63, 67–69, 71–73, 75, 76, 82, 85, 91–93, 94). Most teachers identified physical education as a place for learning about and through physical activity participation. Many emphasised being physically active and involved (6, 9, 10, 47, 53, 63, 68, 69, 75, 76, 85, 91, 93, 94), learning physical skills (12, 46, 53, 60, 63, 67, 68, 71, 72, 76, 92) and also social and emotional skills (46, 53, 54, 63, 68, 76, 92, 94). For example, qualities such as playing fairly, getting along with and helping others (92), and enjoyment of physical activity participation (53) were cited. Other purposes identified included the achievement of holistic (49) and health and fitness benefits (26, 68), playing games (44), and enjoyment (26). Teachers recommended that physical education practices should be flexible to promote participation in different environments (e.g. urban schools (44)) and with different populations (e.g. children with disabilities (46, 91)).
Alongside the purposes of primary physical education, teachers also identified barriers to achieving those purposes. The barriers included the low status and priority of physical education (47, 61, 73), lack of support and resources (8, 26, 44, 47), time (62), and challenges related to management and instructional issues such as culturally and contextually relevant teaching (44, 82). Using coaches to replace classroom teachers was criticised by many teachers because they felt learning was neglected and it promoted a narrow view of physical education-as-sport (42, 53, 69).
Continuing professional development (CPD)
To achieve the purposes many teachers identified in the previous sub-theme, 13 studies (2, 5, 7, 43, 45, 50, 51, 55, 56, 65, 70, 74, 95) focussed on the ways CPD informed teachers’ perspectives of the purposes of physical education. Following CPD, teachers more strongly identified physical education as a space for learning (65) and expressed a commitment to improve children’s physical education experiences (70, 74). Areas of priority articulated by teachers included children’s health and physical activity levels (2, 51), physical skill, and positive affect (51). However, some teachers expressed caution about the sustainability of CPD initiatives that lack the ongoing support needed to embed changes to practice (7, 43, 56). Overall findings suggest that CPD can influence teachers’ knowledge and understanding of the purposes of physical education, particularly in relation to improving the quality of teaching and learning.
Innovation
There were 19 studies (13, 25, 48, 57–59, 64, 77– 81, 83, 84, 86–90) focussed on ways pedagogical innovations could support teachers to achieve the purposes of primary physical education. Teachers’ experiences of implementing curriculum models or similar (e.g. physical literacy) enabled them to more readily realise physical education as a time for learning (78, 80, 83, 86, 87, 89, 90). Areas of learning identified as a result of engagement with an innovation included social and personal skills (48, 79), psychomotor skills (48, 79), increased physical activity involvement and fitness (58, 59, 84), and enjoyment of physical activity (57, 83, 88). Increased attention to assessment also reinforced these ideas (64, 77, 81), although an understanding of the subject-specific nature of assessment is needed to ensure intended outcomes (13). These findings suggest innovation in physical education can help teachers see the achievement of several learning outcomes (across domains) as a main purpose of primary physical education.
The involvement of over 3000 teachers in 64 research papers suggests that the voices of practising primary teachers are strongly represented in the literature. Despite the variety of foci in the papers, there is some consistency in teachers’ perspectives of the purposes of primary physical education. Specifically, physical education was identified as an enjoyable, physically active learning time where children can learn skills for their physical, social, and emotional development. There was, however, little mention of cognitive skills. Teachers face numerous challenges in achieving these identified purposes, including lack of knowledge, support, resources, time, and professional development. A level of intervention (e.g. an innovation or CPD) appears to magnify and crystallise the purposes of physical education identified by teachers and emphasise the importance of the quality of teaching and learning. The extent of the challenges described by teachers, however, indicates that having a clear purpose is necessary but not sufficient for quality experiences for pupils. The extent of intervention indicates that teachers’ experiences are still being shaped by a search for ways to work towards better alignment between the purposes and practices of physical education.
Pre-service teachers
Pre-service teachers’ (PSTs) perspectives on primary physical education were addressed in 13 studies (14–24, 52, 76). Of note, 11 of those looked at the perspectives of generalist teachers while the remaining two considered specialist teachers (both in the United States). This is perhaps indicative of the trend towards generalist teachers of primary physical education around the world (Blair, 2018). The main data sources were semi-structured individual interviews and written reflections. Across these studies, there was a strong emphasis on PSTs’ beliefs about physical education. In particular, attention was given to their experiences of learning about and engaging in practices that align or misalign with their beliefs (20, 21, 76), as well as considering ways to disrupt their beliefs (15, 17, 22–24, 52). Others focussed on PSTs’ identities as physical education teachers, and ways in which their coursework and practicum led them to think differently about themselves and their roles as physical education teachers (e.g. from sports coach to curriculum implementer) (14, 16, 18, 19, 21).
Findings about findings
All 13 studies examine PSTs’ perspectives on the nature and purposes of primary physical education. Four studies (20, 21, 23, 76) focussed specifically on PSTs’ beliefs about the nature and purposes of primary physical education. These studies reported generally favourable outcomes in that PSTs tended to view physical education as an important part of the primary curriculum and pupil experience. Nine of the 13 studies (14–21, 52) described PSTs’ experiences of physical education from the time they were pupils in schools. Many experienced a traditional, sports-based, or multi-activity form of physical education and recalled experiences of humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, or alienation (14, 15, 21, 76). However, others with strong sporting backgrounds tended to view their experiences positively, albeit often conflating physical education with youth sport (14, 23, 76).
Physical education teacher education (PETE) coursework often helped PSTs think about, see, and do physical education differently from their prior experiences (14–20, 22, 24, 52). Participants mostly echoed the espoused emphases of PETE programmes, viewing physical education as a holistic, educative learning area, expressing an emphasis on effort and participation. For example, in one study (21) PSTs shifted from thinking about physical education-as-sport to physical education-as-educational subject. Several papers noted a misalignment between coursework and practicum experiences (16, 18), which highlights the need for school–university partnerships where there is a coherent vision of physical education. Furthermore, only one longitudinal study (76) tracked PSTs beyond graduation. More studies of this longitudinal nature are needed to help better understand PETE’s degree of influence related to the purposes of primary physical education. There is also scope to develop deeper understanding of how PSTs are socialised into physical education and the strong socialising factors and discourses in today’s society that shape PSTs’ thoughts about the purposes of physical education.
Teacher educators
Only one study (3) generated data from teacher educators about their perspectives on the purposes of physical education, focussing on online physical education. Participants in Daum and Woods’ (2015) study (3) rejected the use of online approaches to primary physical education, deeming it unsuitable to the development of motor skills. The absence of teacher educator voices about the purposes of physical education is striking, particularly as teacher educators are often identified as the lynchpins of educational reform and quality teaching practice (Goodwin and Kosnik, 2013). Analysing their perspectives on the purposes of primary physical education may be helpful in identifying competing, congruent, or consistent purposes, which can provide a platform for debate and striving towards a coherent agenda.
Pupils
There were 31 studies (27–41, 77–89, 90–92) addressing pupils’ perspectives on primary physical education. Of these, 15 focussed specifically on pupils’ perspectives, while another 16 focussed on pupils alongside teachers and/or parents. Several sought pupils’ perspectives on ways physical education led to engagement in healthy behaviours, such as physical activity participation, sport involvement, and healthy eating (28, 40, 90). Five studies addressed the physical education experiences of pupils with various types of disability (27, 32, 39, 80, 91). In line with numerous teacher studies, many inquiries addressed pupils’ experiences of interventions, such as district- or nation-wide programmes (36, 81, 92), integration with other subjects (41, 77, 78, 86), and motivational climates (34, 88). A large number focussed on how pedagogical models contributed to the ways pupils came to experience or see value in physical education (29–31, 33, 34, 36, 83, 84, 87, 89, 79). The most commonly studied model was sport education (33, 34, 36, 83, 84, 87, 89), followed by GCAs (29–31).
From these studies, 22 generated multiple forms of qualitative data from or ‘on’ pupils; there were, however, no studies representing research done ‘with’ pupils. The triangulation of multiple forms of data generated by children is important, as this helps build trustworthiness and minimise the possibility that pupils were telling researchers what they believe should be heard. The main data sources were semi-structured individual and focus group interviews, observations of pupil participation, pupil drawings, artefacts and work samples, and photos by pupils. It is worth noting the dominant role of pupil interviews, where researchers have tried to access and represent pupil voices. There remains potential for interviews to be conducted in other ways, where, for example, pupils might interview each other, leading to more authentic types of pupil-led inquiries. Also interesting is the role of other ‘non-conventional’ approaches to data collection that may be particularly suited to children (e.g. drawings). The value of including children in the research process has been highlighted recently by several other researchers (e.g. Enright and O’Sullivan, 2012), particularly in acknowledging children as experts of their own lived experiences and giving them agency in the research process. Enright and O’Sullivan (2012) highlighted the benefits of participatory methods not only for the participants but also for their research. Despite the clear potential benefits of these approaches, there are also myriad ethical considerations that researchers need to be mindful of when working with children.
Findings about findings
These studies shed light on how pupils experience primary physical education, and how those experiences help them describe and make sense of its purpose to their education and lives. Pupils valued physical education as a fun time (31, 83, 88) to engage in physical activity (33, 34), learn new things (83), and make connections to other classroom activities (41) and their lives outside school (90). It also provided opportunities to learn the social and emotional skills needed for effective collaboration and teamwork (36, 79, 84). Curriculum models helped children see new value in physical education learning (29–31) through approaches that provide autonomy-supportive conditions, and fostered authentic and/or structured play situations.
It is encouraging to observe many examples of pupils’ views of primary physical education using diverse qualitative methods. Although many studies provided insights into pupils’ experiences of a specific aspect of physical education (e.g. a particular innovation), few studies, with the exception of some conducted on children with disabilities (27, 32, 91), provided overall descriptions of pupils’ perspectives on the purposes of physical education. For example, we did not locate studies that have revisited ideas from Carlson’s (1995) seminal paper on pupil alienation, where a spectrum of opinions might have been generated. For instance, we do not know if many pupils feel the purpose of primary physical education is to humiliate or alienate children, and we did not locate studies where pupils could not identify any clear purpose because they view physical education as irrelevant or meaningless. We suggest, therefore, a need for deeper consideration of the general perspectives of pupils across contexts about their experiences, their learning, and their enjoyment in primary physical education. In addition, when content was considered, most studies focussed on traditional team or games units, and there was limited pupil voice about other content areas. A renewed focus should be placed on gathering primary pupils’ perspectives of the purposes of physical education and its value to their lives when they experience a breadth of content areas.
Principals
Only four studies (2, 25, 26, 66) included primary principals’ perspectives of physical education. Through interviews, these studies focussed on how primary physical education is, and can be, supported and funded. The main finding from these studies is that increased support and funding can result in shifts in prioritisation of physical education and subsequent improvements in how it is taught. The main purpose of physical education identified by principals was a focus on health benefits for children through access to regular physical activity. The priorities for primary physical education that can be extrapolated from these studies relate to provision of a range of activities, and more inclusive activities through the purchase of equipment and increased time spent on physical education. Only one (66) study considered the principal’s role in shaping how the curriculum is implemented or aligned with the purposes of primary physical education. Findings reveal that primary physical education is not a priority, highlighting numerous barriers related to time, personnel, and resources. Given the acknowledgement of the influence of principals on the priorities and practices within schools (Orphanos and Orr, 2014), the principal as stakeholder in primary physical education merits urgent attention.
Parents
Four studies (1, 4, 91, 92) examined parents’ perspectives on aspects of physical education through interviews. Parents saw the value of physical education in contributing to physical, social, and emotional development in children (92). Several parents also valued the opportunity for children to be physically active (1, 92) in inclusive ways (1, 91). In one study (4), parents used the school’s grading system for physical education to infer that the subject was ‘non-academic’, which translated to a lower perceived value of physical education. From these few studies, parents did not appear to be invested in knowing about or learning about their child’s physical education experience. The role of schools and teachers in advocating for physical education with parents seems to merit further investigation to explore how this might lead to greater investment, interest, and valuing of physical education.
Taken together, the studies represent the voices of only 38 parents from two countries (the US and Canada). Given the role of parents in children’s education and the influence they impart on children’s educational decision-making (e.g. course selection if and when physical education becomes elective), it is important to hear more from this group in different contexts and cultures.
Conclusion: towards a research agenda
The aim of this review was to identify and synthesise stakeholders’ perspectives on the purposes of primary physical education, presenting a descriptive analysis of the current state of the field. Across the six stakeholder groups there was some agreement on a small number of purposes of primary physical education, particularly in relation to being physically active, and learning physical, social, and emotional skills. Within this, however, we note the absence in recognising how physical education can support learning cognitive skills. Certainly, the focus on ‘skills’ themselves was a prevalent pattern and it could be argued that this focus carries implications for how other purposes are or are not addressed (Thorburn, 2018), and for the types of purposes that are privileged. For example, what we see as legitimate purposes of primary physical education expressed elsewhere, such as learning to value the cultural role movement plays in societies (Penney and Dinan Thompson, 2018) or to develop socio-critical consciousness, were largely absent. With that said, several patterns across the data are encouraging, indicating some consensus on the main purposes of primary physical education. These purposes also seem to fit within the dominant overarching discourses related to purpose: health (Powell, 2018); sport (Ward, 2018); education (Griggs, 2018); and neoliberalism (Macdonald, 2014). A narrowing of focus from these wider discourses to concentrate on learning in physical education as a holistic endeavour that has application to pupils’ lives inside and outside of school may help to better align the purposes of primary physical education with its practices. To be clear, we are not arguing for a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to primary physical education (Kirk, 2010); however, recognising commonly held views on how to achieve these purposes in ways that are contextually relevant might then help to promote dialogue across stakeholder groups and reduce the current fragmentation of understanding and purpose in primary physical education.
The findings highlight that not all voices are being heard in shaping the purposes of primary physical education. All key stakeholders should have the opportunity to make a contribution to the development of a shared vision (Carse et al., 2018). This is not to suggest that all stakeholders should have equal input or that all purposes should carry equal weight; however, inviting contributions from a wider range of stakeholders may lead to a richer set of perspectives to contribute to shaping new ideas about the nature and purposes of primary physical education based on the needs and interests of pupils. We suggest that a focus should be placed on including stakeholders whose voices are currently limited (e.g. parents, principals, and teacher educators), and those voices that are completely absent (i.e. policy makers and wider interest groups such as sport and health organisations). Given the influence policy makers have in creating physical education curriculum guidelines that have the potential to shape the nature of what physical education may look like in primary schools, it is crucial to hear their voices so they may be critiqued, and spaces of agreement and disagreement with other stakeholder groups may be identified. In analysing and paying attention to the perspectives and relative influence of each stakeholder, Varvasovszky and Brugha (2000) recommend considering the following characteristics: involvement in the issue; interest in the issue; influence/power; position; impact of issue on the actor. The underrepresented stakeholders in this review score high in these characteristics, yet we understand little of their perspectives. Given their influence noted elsewhere (Orphanos and Orr, 2014), we see particular value in conducting research within and across contexts to understand the perspectives of principals and policy makers, and how they might be influenced to best complement the purposes of primary physical education.
Carse et al. (2018) propose that cross-stakeholder dialogue is needed to design, articulate, and share a clear vision for primary physical education. Our findings indicate a level of consistency of purpose as a potential springboard from which to initiate conversations, particularly with the underrepresented stakeholder groups. These findings may provide a shared language to spread coherent messages across stakeholder groups. In particular, consistency of purpose in teachers’ perspectives may provide a starting point from which to build dialogue with other stakeholders.
Both Lawson (2018) and Carse et al. (2018) identify collaboration across stakeholders as one important way to shape the future of physical education. Our review indicates that, regardless of purpose, there continues to be a significant gap between the identified purposes of primary physical education and the resources and support needed to achieve these outcomes with high quality practices. While innovations and CPD for teachers seem to enhance a sense of focussed purpose, a lack of knowledge, support, resources, time, and professional development all conspire to hamper achievement of purpose in physical education. In light of the fact that stakeholders can have a significant influence on decision-making processes by how they take up and implement ideas, better understanding of positioning, influence, and resources (Varvasovszky and Brugha, 2000) across stakeholders may help to lever new resources and better direct available resources to align with the purposes of primary physical education. Again, parents, principals, and policy makers are key stakeholders that merit attention in this regard.
These findings provide an important description and general insight into what is known about some stakeholders’ perspectives on the purposes of primary physical education. The commonality of focus, with emphasis on physical activity participation to promote children’s physical, social, and emotional learning, can provide a starting point to achieve coherence across stakeholder groups. The review also highlights gaps in what is known from the perspective of some important stakeholders, including principals, sport coaches/outsourced providers, and policy makers. Attention to the perspectives of all key stakeholders is recommended to capitalise on the potential influence and resources of all stakeholders and promote better alignment between the purposes and practices of primary physical education.
Supplemental material
Supplemental Material, Appendix_1 - A major review of stakeholder perspectives on the purposes of primary physical education
Supplemental Material, Appendix_1 for A major review of stakeholder perspectives on the purposes of primary physical education by Déirdre Ní Chróinín, Tim Fletcher, Mike Jess and Méabh Corr in European Physical Education Review
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
