Conference Agenda

Internationally, there is much debate about the place and purpose of physical education (PE) within the educational landscape (Ekberg, 2021; Gray et al., 2022). Though there is recognition within the field that PE has much potential for supporting learning across multiple domains (Hooper et al., 2020) and can contribute to the holistic development of young people, concerns continue to be raised about the precarious and, often, marginalised position of the subject (Kirk, 2010; Luguetti & Oliver, 2020). Moreover, many researchers have reported that, in a world of cultural, economic and social diversity/change, PE as a curriculum subject has remained remarkably constant (Gray et al., 2022a; Penney, 2009). That is, at its core, it remains a subject for the development of sports skills and/or to provide opportunities for engagement in physical activity for the development of lifelong physical activity habits. This form of PE has been criticised for being narrow, neoliberal, gendered and ableist (e.g., Camacho-Miñano et al., 2022; Evans, 2014). However, recent work exploring PE curricula across the four nations of the UK (Gray et al., 2022b, 2023), has demonstrated that whilst there are certainly persistent features of PE, there can also be notable differences in how PE is conceptualised and enacted across country contexts. Moreover, in creating opportunities for cross-border curriculum dialogue – between both researchers and practitioners - spaces can be opened up for valuable critical debate and discussion that can inform perspectives of local curricula and practice (Gray et al., 2023).

Building on this body of work, and recognising the value of cross-border curriculum dialogue as a space for critical reflection, this study places a specific focus on the Spanish PE curriculum and, in particular, on how health is conceptualised within it. The Spanish context offers a distinctive curricular landscape shaped by successive educational reforms and, more recently, by a reconfiguration of the role and purposes of PE. The current reform (LOMLOE, 2020), marks a significant shift through its competence-based orientation, its emphasis on transversal educational priorities, and its alignment with broader European educational frameworks. Within this policy context, PE has gained renewed curricular visibility, particularly in relation to health education. Whereas earlier curricula largely framed health in terms of physical fitness and performance, the LOMLOE promotes a broader understanding centred on active and healthy lifestyles. This orientation is reinforced through cross-sector policy initiatives that conceptualise health as a multidimensional construct encompassing physical, psychological and social dimensions. In PE, this perspective is most clearly articulated through the content area Active and Healthy Living, where health is framed both as curricular content and as a competence linked to autonomy, wellbeing and citizenship. At the same time, the decentralised organisation of the Spanish education system generates diverse interpretations of national curriculum frameworks (Bonet-Forteza et al., 2025), making Spain a particularly productive context for dialogue and critical examination.

Given the context outlined above, the aim of this project was to extend this line of research by facilitating cross-border dialogue among PE researchers from both the four home nations of the UK and Spain, with the aim to share reflections on curriculum analyses in each context, identify points of similarity/difference and consider the implications for creative, future-focused curriculum design and PE practice.

A substantial body of research has examined physical education (PE) teachers’ reflections on the purpose and function of PE, ranging from studies with a narrow focus (e.g., Anttila et al., 2018; Gano-Overway & Guivernau, 2014) to those addressing broader perspectives (e.g., Barrie et al., 2016; Bjørke et al., 2023). Several reviews have also explored various practices within PE and PE teacher education (e.g., Eugénia et al., 2022; Moon & Lee, 2022). However, only a limited number of comparative studies have considered how PE is perceived in different national contexts (e.g., Alcalá et al., 2019), and comparative work examining teachers’ reflections on the role of sport in PE across regions is largely absent. This gap restricts opportunities for cross‑cultural exchange, slows contextually relevant development of PE practices, and overlooks diverse perspectives on the aims and content of PE. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine and compare how primary‑school PE teachers in Finland and in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) reflect on the role of sport within PE.

Previous studies from several countries have identified a strong influence of sport on PE (e.g., Grahn, 2014; Hakala & Kujala, 2015; Kirk, 2010; Svendsen & Svendsen, 2016). To interpret differences in how teachers conceptualized the role of sport, Kirk’s (2010) notion of “physical education as sport techniques” offers a useful theoretical lens. This concept characterizes an approach in which instruction is centered on isolated, decontextualized sport‑specific skills, often at the expense of broader educational aims such as autonomy, relatedness, competence, health promotion, and personal and social responsibility. While competitive sport holds a strong cultural position and schools inevitably reflect societal values, scholars argue that an overly sport‑driven approach may limit the broader educational benefits of PE (Kirk, 2010; Quennerstedt, 2019). Kirk (2010) identifies three central issues arising from the dominance of sport-oriented practices within PE. The first concerns the need for curricular reform to shift PE away from a narrow sports focus. The second highlights the responsibility of physical education teacher education (PETE) programs to prepare reflective, critically minded teachers capable of driving change within the field. The third warns that, when curricula lack clear guidance on content, PE risks losing coherence and direction. In the present study, PE teachers’ reflections on the role of sport in PE are examined through these three viewpoints.

Internationally, in Physical Education (PE), there has been an increasing interest in outdoor education (OE) as a contribution to the holistic development of the individual and its potential to foster sustainable human-nature relations (Beames, 2023; Kokkonen et al., 2025). Despite the growing interest, OE is not part of the PE curriculum in many countries (Dania et al., 2025). In Norway, as an example of the opposite, OE is culturally embedded and enacted within PE, closely connected with the broader tradition of friluftsliv. The philosophy of friluftsliv values nature experiences and emphasize connectedness to nature and sustainability. First mentioned in a poem by Henrik Ibsen in 1859, friluftsliv has become an umbrella term for outdoor life and activities in the Scandinavian countries, including OE in schools. The first references to friluftsliv in the Norwegian curriculum date back to 1939, and since 1974, friluftsliv has been an integral part of the Nor¬wegian PE curriculum (Leirhaug & Arnesen, 2016).

At a different level, OE remains marginal within the Greek PE curriculum, often constrained by dominant sport-oriented traditions and one-size fits all practices. Particularly, the Greek PE curriculum does not include OE as a separate learning area at any grade. Although broader goals that align with the scope of outdoor learning or nature-based education (i.e., lifelong physical activity, social and emotional growth) are included within the Greek PE curriculum, these are not explicitly articulated with OE strands. This leaves OE to each PE teacher’s initiative in Greece, restricting its implementation to after school or recess programs. This was one of the main reasons that brought two PE teacher educators, from Norway and Greece into a cross-cultural dialogue on whether and how friluftsliv can afford opportunities for embedding the values of OE within the Greek PE curriculum via practices of friluftsliv-ing. Such practices would allow PE in Greece to be experienced as a context that promotes experimentation, relationality, and pedagogical becoming.

This study was guided by the question: What may become possible when friluftsliv is used as a concept for enhancing the pedagogical potential of the Greek PE curriculum? Our intention was to experiment with the different ways to rework friluftsliv as a pedagogical idea within the sociocultural, curricular and environmental realities of Greek PE.

With our experience as teacher educators living and working in Norway and Greece, we used our knowledge of the different contexts in a reflective dialogue to explore the possibility of culturally adapting practices and philosophy of friluftsliv into Greek PE. During a period of two weeks, our dialogue focused on the challenges and possibilities encountered in translating friluftsliv across PE cultures, including risk, climate, and educational purpose. For both, transferring knowledge and pedagogical practice between contexts involved engagement in processes of decontextualization, translation, and re-contextualization. We used Fullan (2025) to frame our exploration and considered transfer as a social process that involves strong interpersonal communication with the prospect of knowledge and practices being modified and adapted in a new educational setting.

The analysis of our dialogic accounts showed that friluftsliv could open alternative ways of thinking about movement and learning within Greek PE. Τhe non-negotiables for its cultural adaptation were close contact with nature, and stimulating nature experiences including elements of individual sensory and dwelling. Thus, it was important for friluftsliv to be utilized as a conceptual and pedagogical provocation within the Greek curriculum rather than a replication of an idea that could lead to educational transformation. This could enable the redesign of the Greek PE curriculum to be experienced as an open space for alternative understandings within which pedagogical ideas could move, be resisted, or be reimagined.

Increasingly, Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) is positioned as a key site for preparing future teachers to enact pedagogies that promote inclusion, participation and social justice in school Health and Physical Education (HPE). A substantial body of research has shown that HPE is a context in which social hierarchies related to gender, ethnicity, ability and social class are routinely reproduced, but also where they may be contested through pedagogical practice (Forestier & Larsson, 2023; Gerdin et al., 2021; Haase & Kastrup, 2025). At the same time, PETE and HPE are shaped by changing conditions associated with contemporary “polycrises” (Morin & Kearn, 1999), including widening social inequalities, intensified accountability and performativity, curriculum reform and growing expectations for education to respond to broader societal challenges (Lambert & Penney, 2020). Within this context, there is a need to better understand how social justice is conceptualised and positioned within PETE curricula, given the central role of teacher education in shaping future teachers’ pedagogical orientations and professional responsibilities.

While commitments to equity and inclusion have become increasingly visible in HPE policy and curriculum discourse, international research continues to identify tensions between curricular aspirations and everyday pedagogical practice (Gerdin et al., 2024; Gray et al., 2024). Dominant discourses of performance, athleticism and normative bodies continue to limit the scope of socially just pedagogies in school HPE, even where policies explicitly promote inclusion (Forestier & Larsson, 2023; Hemingway et al., 2025). Less attention, however, has been paid to how such commitments are structured upstream within PETE programmes, where understandings of justice, difference and responsibility are initially formed. Research in teacher education suggests that beliefs about equity and fairness are often shaped by personal biographies of schooling and sport and may remain unchallenged if not explicitly addressed within teacher education curricula (Curtner-Smith et al., 2008; Garbett & Ovens, 2012). PETE therefore represents a critical site for examining how pedagogical practices are framed in relation to social justice and how future teachers are prepared to engage with inequity.

This paper examines how social justice is conceptualised and embedded within PETE programme documentation in two national contexts, Aotearoa New Zealand and Sweden. These contexts provide a productive comparative case, as both articulate strong commitments to equity and inclusion in education, yet are shaped by distinct sociocultural and political traditions that shape how social justice is understood, prioritised and rendered pedagogically meaningful within teacher education.

Analytically, the paper draws on Nancy Fraser’s three-dimensional theory of social justice, which conceptualises justice in terms of recognition, redistribution and representation (Fraser, 2009). This framework provides a way of examining which inequities are named or silenced within PETE curricula, how responsibilities for addressing injustice are framed, and whose interests are prioritised through curricular and institutional arrangements. By applying Fraser’s framework to PETE programme documentation, the paper explores how social justice is positioned not only as a moral or pedagogical aspiration but as a structural and political project embedded in curriculum design.

By focusing on PETE programme documents as pedagogical and policy texts, this paper contributes to research on teacher education by illuminating how social justice is framed as a form of professional responsibility within PETE. In doing so, the study responds to ECER 2026’s focus on knowing and acting by examining how PETE curricula shape what future teachers are prepared to know about social justice and how they are positioned to act upon inequity in school HPE under changing and contested conditions.