Conference Agenda

Our society is influencing schools and education in different ways and the school subject physical education is no exception (Welch et al., 2021). In the past decades has environmental sustainability appeared as an important part that influences most sectors in our society. Environmental sustainability is nothing new to education, environmental education builds on work and thoughts from known philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Dewey, and Maria Montessori, who have integrated environmental issues with school and education. More lately have organization’s such as UN´s and UNESCO contributed to made environmental sustainability obligatory in schools within European Union (Faville et al., 2014). How physical education is progressing towards environmental sustainability and what curriculums in physical education that include environmental sustainability might look like, have only started to be investigated (Dingle & Mallen, 2021). There is a lack of research with regards to environmental sustainability in pedagogy, especially within the school subject physical education and physical education teacher education (PETE) (Taylor et al., 2016, 2019; Welch et al., 2021; Dingle & Mallen, 2020).

Environmental sustainability is often included in general school curriculums and in the overarching educational statements for many different school subjects. However, this is rarely expressed in the curriculum for the subject of physical education. Based on a study of the Swedish educational context, therefore, we have investigated the impact formulations regarding environmental sustainability in general school curriculums can have for the implementation of teaching practice in physical education. More specifically, the purpose was to analyse the relationship between the representation of environmental sustainability in Swedish school policy documents and Swedish physical education teachers’ perceptions of the relevance of implementing environmental sustainability in a physical education context.

Data taken from a questionnaire conducted with 143 Swedish physical education teachers has been analysed. The quantitative and qualitative analysis we carried out on this data followed a version of a mixed method approach called the explanatory sequential approach (Creswell, 2003). And by using Bernstein’s (2000) concept of classification, the data was discussed in relation to how environmental sustainability is formulated and included in the Swedish school system, particularly in the physical education context. This will enable us to contribute to the discussion of how physical education teachers enact the requirements of governing school documents concerning environmental sustainability.

The result of this study shows that environmental sustainability has the potential to gain a stronger classification in physical education in the future. Of the different educational stakeholders who are involved in the process of reproducing knowledge in one way or another (Bertram, 2020), such as physical education teachers, policy writers, textbook writers, teacher educators, producers of research, and politicians, some have more power and interpretive precedence than others and are therefore more able to influence what environmental sustainability becomes when it is enacted in physical education.

Can we expect environmental sustainability to be taught in physical education if it does not exist in the students' PETE studies? Research shows that teacher education in environmental sustainability is often given in general courses or in independent courses without a direct connection to physical education (Isgren Karlsson & Backman, in press). PETE can therefore be seen as gatekeepers for what is being done and what should be done in physical education.

There is a growing internationally research interest in how Physical education (PE) and PE teacher education (PETE) may contribute to Education for Sustainability (EfSD), and the vision set out by the 2030 agenda and the SDGs (Fröberg & Lundvall, 2022; UN, 2015). In teacher education, EfSD is generally embedded as a component of a compulsory subject, or as an essential part of school policies, practices and activities (Stevenson et al., 2017). As positioned at the heart of the micro-level in education as those being responsible for educating future generations to address the global challenges that humanity is facing, teachers play a critical role to deliver EfSD (Boeren, 2019). If any changes are to take place in school, teacher education is one critical point of departure as it can contribute to the development of critical knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Abilities are needed for teachers to become active change agents. Recently, researchers suggested that PE may contribute to the 2030 agenda and some SDGs, such as “Good health and well-being”, “Quality education”, “Gender equality”, “Reduced inequalities”, and “Climate action” (Baena-Morales & González-Víllora, 2022; Lohmann et al., 2021).

If EfSD and orientation towards the 2030 agenda and the SDGs are to be realized, more attention should be given to professional development in PETE and especially what PE teacher training educators (PET-ed) perceive to be critical aspects. Professional development is one way of preparing PET-ed to encounter and embrace curriculum changes of different kinds (Lambert & Penney, 2020). A systematic professional development may allow for a re-thinking and re-orientation of courses within PETE in terms of how to understand what possibilities in theory and practice that a perspective of sustainability may offer. Even though it has been suggested that some of the contents of PE are related to sustainable development (SD), one critical question is that of prioritizing teaching and learning of content and challenge the way it is taught. More research is, however, needed, especially with focus on PETE.

The overall aim of this participatory action research (PAR) study is to explore what PET-ed perceive to be critical aspects on EfSD in PE and PETE. The specific research questions are:

•How do PETE educators perceive and conceptualize sustainability and how PE and PETE relate to, and impact on, the SDGs , and what arguments and support are put forward in relation to this?

•What aspects on EfSD do PETE educators perceive to be critical to implement in PETE courses, and what arguments and support are put forward in relation to this?

•What lessons can be drawn from using a PAR study to initiate discussions about processes of change and an implementation of EfSD in PETE courses?

SD involves several ontological and epistemological layers, such as what is to be sustained, how, for whom, and by whom, when and where? Challenges related to SD may be fluid and uncertain, and social constructivism is needed to capture the complexity of the phenomenon (Kalsoom, 2019). Therefore, this PAR study draw on the principles of collaborative learning (CL) representing a broad, integrated approach to facilitate group learning, and relates to social constructivism, assuming that knowledge is produced in social contexts. Furthermore we are inspired by pragmatism and transformative pedagogy as one way of analyzing and understanding transactions, meaning making and learning.

CL is positively related to engagement and personal development and may involve positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, group processing, and social skills (Barkley, 2014; Bjørke et al., 2022). This will allow for the PET-ed to increase their knowledge, and share their experiences related to EfSD as a way of deepening their understanding and capability.

The global challenges that humanity faces including inequality and climate change, is the point of departure in the sustainable development (SD) agenda. Perhaps the most broad and ambitious action plan for SD is the 2030 agenda that comprises 17 intertwined SD goals (SDGs). These goals cover social, economic, and environmental dimensions of SD.

Education has the potential to empower people with SD competences to make responsible decisions in pursuit of a just society in the present and future generations, and to realise the 2030 agenda. School physical education and health (PEH) may not only be an important cornerstone to the holistic development of students but may also contribute to the SD agenda. Even though scholars such as Lake et al. (1) discussed issues around sustainability already at the beginning of the 2000s, this perspective has received limited attention in research about PEH.

Recently, however, there has been a growing interest in exploring links between PEH and the SD agenda, including links to the 2030 agenda and the SD goals. This may be important because the unique subject characteristics of PEH, such as movement education and health, can have distinct contributions to the SD agenda. In Sweden, PEH cover areas such as movement, health and lifestyle, and outdoor life and activities (outdoor visits). The core content includes movement activities, both indoors and outdoors, different aspects of health and training methods, and safety and consideration in connection with various activities. Although there are no explicit statements related to SD in the PEH syllabi (2), the Swedish National Agency for Education’s (SNAE) curriculum for the compulsory school include some explicit statements related to SD that is common to the school in general and all subjects. For example, “teaching should illuminate how the functions of society and our ways of living and working can best be adapted to create sustainable development” (p. 8) (3).

Some research to date suggests that PEH may already be implementing content to promote SD competences without making explicit references to the SD agenda (4, 5). In relation to the 2030 agenda and the SDGs, however, relatively little is currently known about the distinct role of PEH, and how SD can be understood, framed and integrated in PEH (6). Although not all may be relevant, targets from several SDGs could be addressed through PEH, including good health and well-being, gender equality, and reduced inequalities, together representing social, economic, and environmental dimensions of SD (4, 7, 8). Importantly, rather than additions of content to an already overcrowded curriculum, SD perspectives in the field of PEH should be interpreted as an overarching teaching approach and tie to core areas of the subject, such as physical activity, movement education, and health and well-being (4, 5). This may, however, necessitate novel teaching approaches, and professional development education (4).

Although PEH may have unique characteristics that can contribute to the SD agenda, most research to date has been theoretical and we lack empirical studies with focus on PEH teachers. Little is therefore currently known about SD from the perspectives of PEH teachers and students. The present study adds to the literature by exploring SD competencies among certified PEH teachers in Sweden.