‘But in PEH it still feels extra unfair’: students’ experiences of equitable assessment and grading practices in physical education and health (PEH)

ABSTRACT

Assessment has been identified as an ongoing problem in physical education (PE). Since the student perspective on assessment is often neglected in research, in this paper, we will report on a study that explored students’ experiences of assessment in the Swedish school subject physical education and health (PEH). In particular, the aim of this study was to examine the students’ experiences of having equal opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge and skills when being assessed in PEH. Data was collected by conducting focus group interviews with a total of 38 students from four different upper secondary schools in southern Sweden. Data analysis was conducted by drawing on Scott’s ([2008]. Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interest. Sage) institutional theory in order to demonstrate how regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive conditions shape assessment practices and students’ experiences of these in PEH. The results show that both teaching and assessment/grading practices in PEH are shaped more by cultural-cognitive conditions as associated with the norms and values of competitive and club sports rather than the regulative and normative conditions outlined in the Swedish Education Act and PEH curriculum that put emphasis on equal opportunities, equitable learning outcomes and explicit assessment criteria. The results also demonstrate how both teachers and students are actively involved in reproducing such teaching and assessment practices in PEH. To conclude, we, therefore, call for further work to be done with students, teachers and teacher educators of PEH to draw more attention to and more successfully implement the learning and achievement objectives of the curriculum. In addressing the ongoing problem of assessment in PEH we in particular need to better align assessment processes with the curriculum intentions of an equal quality education and teaching for equity.

KEYWORDS:

• Physical education
• assessment
• equity
• institutional theory
• vignettes

Introduction

Assessment has been identified as an ongoing problem in physical education (PE) (Dinan-Thompson & Penney, 2015) and by some seen as ‘one of the most fraught and troublesome issues physical educators have had to deal with over the past 40 years or so (López-Pastor et al., 2013, p. 57). Assessment in PE should be aligned with curriculum and pedagogy (Hay & Penney, 2013). However, previous research has, for instance, highlighted how assessment is based on aspects that are beyond the scope of the official curriculum such as the students’ physical fitness (Harris & Leggett, 2015), the wearing of ‘suitable’ clothing for physical activity (Michael et al., 2016) and the ‘effort’ made during class (Borghouts et al., 2017). Tolgfors and Öhman (2016, p. 153) further highlight that ‘students have a right to know what they are supposed to learn and what the standards are in advance, so that their learning can be fairly assessed’ and ‘the importance of formative assessment in which teachers’ recurrent feedback is based on the goals and assessment criteria’. In doing so, a better alignment between curriculum intentions, pedagogy and assessment can be achieved (Redelius et al., 2015; Redelius & Hay, 2012).

Considering that quality assessment practices can lead to improved student learning in PE (Hay & Penney, 2013; Lorente & Kirk, 2013; Tolgfors, 2018) and thus more equitable learning outcomes for all students, there is still a need to better our understanding of (in)equitable assessment practices in PE. By ‘equitable assessment’ practices, we mean that the students know what is being assessed, how it is being assessed, how they can achieve the assessment expectations and have an equal opportunity to both learn and demonstrate these knowledge and skills. Since the student perspective on assessment is often neglected in research (Zhu, 2015), although there are some exceptions (see e.g. Aarskog, 2020; Chan et al., 2011; Redelius & Hay, 2012; Wiker, 2017; Zhu, 2015), in this paper, we will report on a study that explored students’ experiences of assessment in the Swedish school subject physical education and health (PEH). In particular, the aim of this study was to examine the students’ experiences of having equal opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge and skills when being assessed in PEH. The research question at the core of this study thus was: What are students’ experiences of equitable assessment and grading practices in PEH? In our discussion of the findings, we draw on Scott’s (2008) institutional theory to elucidate how regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive conditions shape assessment practices and students’ experiences of these in PEH.

The Swedish PEH curriculum and assessment practices

According to the Swedish Education Act (2010) all students should receive an equal quality education regardless of background. The Swedish School Commission’s report (2017) further points out that ‘A teaching that is adapted to students’ different needs and conditions and a good learning environment benefits all students’ learning and well-being’ (p. 23). In the aims of the current Swedish PEH curriculum for upper secondary school (age 15–19) (Swedish National Agency for Education [SNAE], 2012) it is stated that:

Teaching in the subject of physical education and health should aim at helping students develop their physical ability, and the ability to plan, carry out and assess a variety of physical activities that promote all-round physical capacity / … / Teaching should consist of physical activities designed in such a way that everyone can participate and develop based on their individual circumstances. It should help students develop their ability to adapt physical activities based on their needs, aims and goals. (p. 1 italics added for emphasis)

In the curriculum, it is further mentioned that ‘Teaching in the subject of physical education and health should give students the opportunities to develop … the ability to plan and carry out physical activities which consolidate and further develop physical ability and health’ (SNAE, 2012, p. 1). Furthermore, in the Swedish curriculum, the students are assessed in relation to a set number of ‘knowledge requirements’. The A grade, for instance, states that:

Students can with certainty and with good quality of movement carry out a range of activities, also of a complex nature that improve physical ability. In connection with this, students can in detail and in a balanced way describe the importance of activities and lifestyle for physical ability and health. The description contains explanations related to relevant theories. (SNAE, 2012, p. 5)

In this study, we were interested in exploring how the students’ perspectives of assessment in PEH practice articulate with the aims and knowledge requirement of the current Swedish PEH curriculum. This research interest arose since previous studies conducted in Sweden indicate that the link between the goals in the curriculum for PEH and assessment/grading is not clear (Annerstedt & Larsson, 2010; Redelius et al., 2009; Redelius & Hay, 2009) and the content is partly taken from the Swedish sports movement (Ekberg, 2016). According to Ekberg (2016), the PEH subject does not have a clear content, which means that it is extra vulnerable to external influences. When it comes to the curriculum, the impact of the health education field is ever growing but what actually happens in the PEH classroom is still mainly influenced by club sports (Ekberg, 2016). Indeed, it has been shown that the competition logic of club sports is the norm for how both knowledge and students are valued in the teaching of PEH (Londos et al., 2016). Assessment of movement is often based on traditional competitive sports and these traditional sports are probably seen as easier to assess and grade because there are well developed ways to measure ability within them (Larsson, 2016). For higher grades in PEH, studies show that physical performance is seen as important with measurable sporting results such as time and length (Redelius et al., 2009; Redelius & Hay, 2012). A major dilemma and critical aspect are that results based on physical performance in, for instance, orienteering, fitness tests and strength tests are still used as key indicators for assessing and determining grades by many PEH teachers (Londos et al., 2016). Furthermore, competitive sports norms affect teachers’ interpretations of what movement skills and abilities entail. Difficulties in describing movement skills/abilities in words can lead to a focus on what is measurable and quantifiable (Svennberg et al., 2018). In this vein, Backman et al. recently (2020) argued that movement should be valued through assessment tasks without necessarily making the movement performance the only focus of the assessment.

In the next section, we provide an overview of previous studies on students’ experiences of assessment in PEH.

Students’ experiences of assessment in PEH

Previous studies on students’ experiences of assessment in PEH have demonstrated how students (as well as teachers) seem to have difficulty expressing the purpose of PEH (Kirk, 2010; Redelius & Hay, 2012), what they should learn and what skills/abilities the teachers end up assessing (Zhu, 2015). For instance, Redelius and Hay (2012), in their study of Swedish students’ perceptions of assessment in PEH, concluded that a contradictory picture emerges, on the one hand, the students believe that the criteria are important, on the other hand, they cannot say what they consist of. Based on their interviews with students in Australia, Chan et al. (2011) stated that students believed that assessment in PEH is primarily about assessing their skills in a range of physical activities as well as the ability to work in teams. In Dyson et al.’s (2009) study, the students answered the question of how they are graded, that it is all about getting changed and participating. However, participating does not have to mean that they are active, some students get changed into PEH gear so that their grades are not affected but they do not actually participate in any activity, instead, they just sit in the stands and talk to their friends (Dyson et al., 2009).

In PEH, there are thus many students who still do not understand what they are supposed to learn in the subject (Redelius et al., 2015). Hay and Penney (2013) call for forms of assessment that are authentic which should be directed towards learning and in a study by Tolgfors (2018), it is shown that assessment for learning can contribute to making the connection between curriculum goals, content and assessment clearer. Aarskog (2020) who recently investigated how Norwegian students themselves participate in the assessment processes that occur in PE, further argued that teachers need to employ more reflective feedback in their (formative) assessment in order to engage the students into more reflective assessment processes. He concludes that ‘if PE teachers design and communicate tasks in PE that align with curriculum stated learning outcomes, student learning will likely move in the desired direction … even if students are unable to communicate what they are supposed to learn in PE in general’ (p. 12). If teachers have difficulty communicating what knowledge and abilities the students should learn, it is likely that the subject’s curriculum goals do not form the basis for the assessment of the students and there is a risk that the students focus on what is assessed instead of the achievement objectives in the PEH curriculum (Redelius & Hay, 2009). It is also likely that neither teaching nor grading will be conducted in an equitable manner (Svennberg et al., 2018).

Students’ experiences of assessment in PEH have also been found to be influenced by their previous involvement in sports outside of school (Zhu, 2015). Indeed, students often find it difficult to differentiate between PEH and competitive sports in their leisure time (Larsson, 2016). Students believe that it is important for their grades to be active in club sports (Redelius & Hay, 2012). A large proportion of the students have experience of competitive sports and thus content that is not directly linked to traditional club sports can provoke resistance among the students. Although teachers express a belief that school PEH is different from the organised sports movement, this is not always clear to the students (Redelius et al., 2009). Participation in sports in their leisure time seems to affect students’ attitudes and also their grades in PEH (Svennberg, 2017). Furthermore, there is an indication that there is a connection between the students’ birth month and grades in PEH, which shows that the earlier in the year you are born, the higher the probability of getting a high grade (Svennberg, 2017). In such cases, this means that students who are active in organised sports as well as students who are physically mature early are rewarded in PEH grading practice.

Students’ experiences of assessment in PEH also draw attention to how they do not have time to practice what they are assessed on. Indeed, PEH has been criticised for not giving students the opportunity to develop their knowledge and abilities/skills (see. e.g. Aggerholm et al., 2018), instead, it is more about trying a range of different activities. The lessons can be likened to a ‘smorgasbord’ of activities where students are supposed to gain knowledge and experience of activities that they can then devote their leisure time to (Larsson & Karlefors, 2015). The assessment and grading practice is thus perceived as ‘unfair’ because they must already have the ability they end up being assessed and graded on before the PEH lesson has even begun. According to Wiker (2017) students:

… experience a requirement to have the ability for the subject in advance. According to the students, this leads to those who have sporting talent and/or participate in club sports, and who thus more easily ‘know everything from before’ – are those who are privileged and thus also finally get a better grade. (pp. 176–177 authors’ own translation)

The fact that the students must possess a certain degree of movement ability/skill even before entering the PEH classroom begins means that a distinction is created between the students ‘who can’ and those ‘who cannot’ (Wiker, 2017).

The aim of this study was thus to further examine students ‘perceptions of (un)equal assessment and grading practices in PEH. In the next section, we will discuss how we in this study have drawn on Scott’s (2008) institutional theory to elucidate how regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive conditions shape assessment practices and students’ experiences of these in PEH.

Theoretical framework

Scott (2008) defines an institution as being ‘comprised of regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive elements that together with associated activities and resources provide stability and meaning to social life’ (p. 48). These regulative, normative and cultural elements or conditions constitute the rules, norms, values, and collective or individual culturally and cognitively determined perceptions of society that together influence the social construction of institutions such as schools. Institutional theory, as a theoretical framework, offers an analytical tool for understanding how regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive conditions both enable and constrain PEH teachers’ teaching and assessment practices. In particular, institutional theory helps us to recognise that rather than solely focusing on how an individual teacher enacts teaching and assessment practices in their classroom, we need to examine how these three conditions interact to constitute PEH practice (Scott, 2008).

The school as a social institution is governed by laws and ordinances (regulative conditions – i.e. the Education Act), but to enable all citizens to be given an equal education, there is also an ideological governance in the form of common school and subject curricula (normative conditions – i.e. the PEH curriculum). As previously pointed out, the Swedish Education Act (2010) prescribes that education must be ‘equivalent’ and the curriculum specifies what an equivalent education entails. An equivalent education does not mean that teaching practices must be designed in the same way everywhere or that the school’s resources must be distributed equally. Consideration must be given to the students’ different conditions, needs and level of knowledge. There are also different ways to reach the curriculum goals. Special attention must be paid to those students who for various reasons have difficulty achieving the goals of the education. Teaching for equity therefore goes beyond the mantra of equal opportunity and is about recognising that there are some students who may require more resources to give them the same opportunity to be as successful as other students (Evans & Davies, 2017). These students might include those from low socio-economic and immigrant backgrounds or students with different forms of disability. Therefore, teaching can never be done equally for everyone (Swedish Education Act, 2010). A fair and socially just education system and teaching context is one where all students are provided with equitable opportunities to participate and learn in ways that are appropriate to their needs. It can be about equity of access, equal opportunities to learn and develop, achievement of equitable outcomes, or equity in the grading process (Wahlström, 2014).

Teaching, assessment and grading practices are thus governed by certain laws, rules and norms, but also by cultural traditions (cultural-cognitive conditions) that influence the practices of PEH. The variation that occurs in both the overall teaching of PEH but also the assessment and grading of students can be seen to be based on the practice as it is understood and realised by individual schools and teachers. Cultural-cognitive conditions can, for instance, involve teachers and students perceptions of what the role and focus of PEH should (not) be as influenced by their socio-cultural background and previous experiences. These socio-culturally constructed values and beliefs can help promote and/or hinder equitable teaching, assessment and grading practices in PEH since there can be confusion about which values and norms should apply in a particular institution (Thornton et al., 2012).

Since more studies to date have focused on teachers’ views on assessment and grading practices in PEH, this study focuses on the students’ experiences. According to Scott (2008), ‘actors’ (in this case the students) are important both in terms of reproduction and production of institutional patterns of action, which means that different conditions are both limiting and promoting for individuals. Students can influence grading and in this way they can influence how the system works by either supporting or resisting assessment and grading practice (Svennberg, 2017). In the following section, we will describe how we went about collecting data to explore students’ experiences of equitable assessment and grading practices in PEH.

Methodology

In order to investigate and understand how students perceive PEH through the assessment practice they experience, this study employed a qualitative approach (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018) involving focus groups interviews and the use of vignettes. Focus groups were chosen over other data collection methods since the hallmark of a focus group is ‘the explicit use of the group’s interaction to produce data and insights that would be less accessible without the interaction found in the group’ (Morgan, 1998, p. 12). The focus group format also allows different student perceptions to be set against each other. The use of vignettes importantly meant that potential sensitive moments were avoided that could have arisen if direct observations and individual interviews had been used since the vignettes took focus away from the students’ own assessment and grading. In using vignettes, it also became possible to draw attention towards areas of assessment and grading in PEH that, based on our own experiences and previous research, appeared critical (Jergeby, 1999; Skilling & Stylianides, 2020).

Research context and participants

The research participants consisted of students doing an obligatory PEH course at upper secondary schools in Sweden. To get a variety of students, a mixture of schools with different profiles and in different socio-cultural and socio-economic areas were chosen. One school was located in an affluent area, with students primarily being born in Sweden and coming from middle- to high income families whereas another school was situated in a lower socio-economic area and predominantly consisting of students from an immigrant background. The other two schools were characterised by a multicultural school demographic with students coming from diverse ethnic and socio-economic background. The purpose of this selection was to get a multifaceted picture of different students’ perceptions of assessment and grading in PEH. Both the participants’ involvement in physical activity and sport outside of school and attitudes towards PEH ranged from ‘love it’ to ‘hate it’. Approximately, half of the participant students were actively involved in organised (competitive) sport outside of school with an equal proportion of males and females. No information on the participants grades in the subject was made available to the researchers.

In total 38 students (ages 16–18; 21 male and 17 female) from four different upper secondary school in southern Sweden were included. A participant information letter was sent to the schools, teachers and participant students who also signed consent forms. Since all participants were older than 15 and no sensitive personal data about the participants was collected, ethical approval was not needed (SFS, 2003:460). All names referred to in this paper are pseudonyms.

Data collection

The students’ perceptions of assessment practices in PEH were explored with the help of focus group interviews and with inspiration from three different vignettes. Vignettes are short stories that describe a person, a situation or an event that has been provided with characteristics that the researcher has decided are important and decisive when making a decision or assessment in a particular situation (Jergeby, 1999). The purpose of the vignette ‘is to elicit information through inviting responses, encouraging discussions, and probing for understandings to gain insights to participants’ beliefs, emotions, judgments, attitudes and values about the particular phenomenon that lies at the heart of the research’ (Skilling & Stylianides, 2020, p. 542). Vignettes have occurred most frequently in research based on quantitative data, where they are followed up with fixed response alternatives but the method is also used with more open questions (Jergeby, 1999). In this study, the vignettes were used in a qualitative sense as they served as a source of inspiration in the conversations about grades and assessment with the students. The purpose of the interviews was not for the participant students to agree, but for them to be given the opportunity to express different views on an issue (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018) in this case PEH and assessment practices. In the interviews, discussion topics were introduced based on the vignettes, and with the help of these, students’ views and perceptions could be explored and subsequently analysed.

The fictitious situations described in the vignette were constructed so that they would be as realistic and meaningful as possible for the students to engage with (Jergeby, 1999). The vignettes cohered around a number of key pedagogical dilemmas as inspired by previous research on assessment and grading practices in PEH. These pedagogical dilemmas included: ‘Activity subject – knowledge subject’; ‘Behaviour criteria – knowledge criteria’; ‘Do your best – does not meet the goals’; ‘Practical knowledge – theoretical knowledge’; ‘Physical education – health’; ‘Club sports – physical education and health’; ‘Content as a goal – content as a vehicle’; ‘Physical and mental obstacles’. Below are two short excerpts from the vignettes that were shared with the students at the beginning of the focus group interview.

Vignette 1 – Emma

Emma is an ambitious student and is doing really well in all theoretical subjects … . She is not a ‘sporty girl’ and has almost no sports experience. She has some coordination difficulties, but has made great progress since year one … 

Vignette 2 – Markus

Markus big interest is football. He is very good at all sports … When he participates in different activities in PEH he is always doing well, but he often has a bad attitude during lesson time … he refuses to be in the same team with students who cannot play football … He thus finds it difficult to collaborate and work in groups … 

Each focus group consisted of 3–4 students and in total 12 focus group interviews were carried out. All interviews were carried out by the lead author, recorded and lasted from 30 to 70 min.

Data analysis

In order to analyse the data, the first step involved to form a content analysis (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2018) where the interviews were listened to and the transcripts read several times to get an overview of the interviews. The next step involved writing down codes in the margin of the interview transcripts based on the overall research question: What are students’ experiences of equitable assessment and grading practices in PEH? These initial codes were then merged into a number of categories with subcategories which included: important knowledge in PEH; basis for assessment and grading; and equal opportunity and equity in PEH. In this paper, we report on the third category since the other two categories are reported on elsewhere (Modell & Gerdin, in press).

Subsequently, the data was ready for an in-depth analysis, which was done with the help of institutional theory (Scott, 2008) and in particular the concepts of regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive conditions. With the help of a theoretically informed analysis of the interview data, interpretations can be deepened and new dimensions discovered (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018). In the analysis work, the purpose of understanding the students’ perceptions of assessment and grading practice in PEH was foregrounded. For this purpose, the students’ perceptions were set in relation to the education acts (regulative conditions), school and PEH curriculum documents (normative conditions) and previous research (cultural-cognitive conditions). In the analysis of the data, the interest was specifically directed towards the students’ perceptions of assessment and grading in the school subject from an equity perspective. In the students’ perceptions, it emerged that some aspect and parts of PEH are more valued than others in assessment and grading. An important part of the analysis, therefore, involved drawing on Scott’s (2008) concepts of regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive conditions to identify and represent both what is privileged and not when assessing and grading in PEH. By creating contrasts and comparisons, a clearer and new understanding can be established (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018).

Trustworthiness of this study was ensured by including participants from different schools and with different attitudes towards the subject, engaging in conservations among the researchers that challenged one another’s perspectives and interpretations, providing information about the research participants, clearly describing the data collection and analysis process, and drawing on the work of others to discuss the general implications of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Findings

In the following sections, we present the students’ responses from the focus group interviews related to the third main category established during the content analysis, ‘equal opportunity and equity in PEH’. The findings are further presented in three different sub-categories: the ‘sport experts’ and the ‘others’, the importance of leisure time and assessing and grading individual development. In these findings sections, we focus on the students’ own interpretations whereas in the subsequent discussion we draw on Scott’s (2008) institutional theory as well as previous research to make sense of these findings on an analytical level.

The ‘sport experts’ and the ‘others’

The students in the study make a division between those who know sports and those who do not know sports. Some of the students point out that it is good that there is a school subject where practical knowledge is assessed and graded in order to recognise those students who have difficulty with theory. People are different, some are theorists and others are practitioners, so it is fair according to the students that there is also a practical subject like PEH.

– It is a chance for those [who are not theorists] to really be good at something. Those who are really good at sports, it should perhaps be noticed. (Tommy, 17)

– I have thought about it a bit before that it was unfair that you can’t get an A if you are not good at fitness or something like that. But really, it is actually the same with the theoretical subjects, because you have different [conditions]. So, it’s really fair. People are either theorists or practitioners, of course there are those who are good at everything but there are not many. (Lars, 18)

But at the same time, other students believe that it is ‘extra unfair’ in PEH because you have such different physical conditions. There are certain things that cannot be developed in sports if the physical conditions do not exist.

– I think like this, that on the other hand I may have some advantages in more theoretical subjects that others may not have. So, in that way, it’s not really unfair either, although some may think so. Sometimes I probably think it’s unfair. (Emma, 17)

– It is difficult with subjects like PEH because you have such different physical conditions. Actually, you have it in all subjects, but in PEH it still feels extra unfair. (Oskar, 18)

Since everyone has different physical conditions, the students believe that it will be an injustice to be assessed and graded on how fast they swim or how well they perform different gymnastic exercises.

– Well, they [the teachers] have certain [time] limits in swimming and it is the same in gymnastics as well. (Fredrik, 17)

– I think that is also stupid. They have certain things that you have to manage to do to get an A but all bodies are built differently, you can be slim and clumsy. You have such different physical conditions. And for example me, I do not want to do the bar anymore because I fell off it once when I was younger and injured myself so I have become afraid of it. And then I feel that I have no chance of getting an A anymore. (Louise, 17)

The importance of leisure time

According to the students, PEH is needed for those who are not active in their leisure time. The problem is that those who do not engage in sports in their spare time are not always present at the lessons in PEH. For those who are active in sports in their leisure time, the lessons can also sometimes feel hard because they already exercise so much.

– But they [who are not active in their leisure time] are not usually here so often. (Tommy, 17)

– But I feel it a little now, although now I compare a little with my free time, but I train 4 times a week. I know I have chosen it myself, I know it. But sometimes I feel when I get there, no I do not bring PEH gear, I can’t take it, well I have to, but I do not participate fully. You feel that you do not have the strength. (Jonas, 17)

Engaging in sports in leisure time can, however, be a help in grading because the students then become better and more positive about sports.

– If you exercise at home, you will be better at school PEH. (Tommy, 17)

– So, it becomes natural that if you do something in your free time, you get higher grades, so that you may become more skilled and more positive about sports. You should try to do something in your free time. Sports is not just about what you do in school, it is about that you should understand that you feel good by doing exercise. (Sophie, 17)

But the students do not believe that leisure time is something that should be directly included in the assessment and grading, it is what you do during the lessons in PEH that should be in focus. If sports are practised in your leisure time, it is important to show your knowledge and ability also in PEH and not just tell the teachers that training takes place in your leisure time.

– Yes, it gets better [if you train in your free time] and then you have to show this at school, not just say that I train in my free time. (Patrik, 17)

– I was actually involved in such a thing once. A girl received a high grade because her coach said she was good at her sport. And it is very unfair to do so. No, that [training in my spare time] I do not think has anything to do with school PEH. What you do here in the PEH classroom, that is what should be assessed. (Oskar, 18)

The students still believe that the teachers perceive their sport participation in their leisure time as important when doing assessment and grading in PEH.

– It seems that they [the teachers] also go a bit on what you do in your free time. If you are doing sports, it seems to matter quite a lot, because ‘we know that you are playing a lot of sports, well then you should have good grades’. (Mats, 18)

– Yes, it is still so visible [what you do in your free time]. The teacher knows well what we are doing in our free time and it can be seen here [at school] as well. Ok he is a football player but he can also do ice-skating, then that is a bit of a plus. That you know many things it is positive [for the grade]. (Tommy, 17)

Some sports are valued higher than others. If sports in leisure time are important for the grade, it is about which sport the student engages in.

– But it is also about which sports, horse riding is not as highly valued. Badminton, football and floorball are good. (Robert, 18)

– It is really like this, if you are not good at ball sports then you are not good at sports at all. Then if you’re good at, I do not know, shooting or swimming or anything, it’s like not worth as much. Because if you are good at football, it matters the most. (Emma, 17)

It is perceived as unfair that some are not given the opportunity to show everything they know at school, for example, the students who do horse riding emphasise that it feels unfair. It is in ‘regular’ content that students are given the opportunity to show their knowledge and ability, such as handball and basketball. If leisure time is to be included in the grading, which it now is, everything the students do must be included according to the students. It must not be the case that if you engage in certain sports, these are included in the grading while others are not included. In order for it to be fair, the teacher must assess everything that happens in the students’ leisure time or nothing.

– So, as it is now [leisure time is included], some things matter and other things do not and that is very wrong. You have to decide that it should be either or. Either it should do it and then they should count everything, all sports and everything that you do. If it is bird watching and you walk 30 km to watch a bird, then you should count that in the same way as football. You have to look at all the sports, all that stuff. Or you should not look at anything, it is either or. You can’t have a mixed system as it is now. (Oskar, 18)

– Yes exactly, you have to look at everything or nothing so it will be fair. (Louise, 17)

According to the students, a problem with what you do in your leisure time influencing assessment and grading practices in PEH, is that it is not easy to show your skills at, for example, horse riding in school and that the teacher may not have the competence to assess this.

– There are a lot of people who ride, but how many get to show it at school, that you can ride? Of course riding is not easy to assess here in school, it is not so easy for the teacher to grade it. (Sophie, 17)

– No, they may not have received training in it either, to become a PEH teacher you probably only learn certain things. (Emma, 17)

Assessing and grading individual development

The students believe that it is not fair to compare those who do sports and train in their leisure time with those who do not. Those who engage in sports in their leisure time have it much easier from the beginning. Since everyone does not have the same conditions from the beginning, individual development becomes important for assessment and grading. Some students point out that if a student starts at a certain level and develops a lot, it should show in the grade.

– Not everyone has the same conditions from the beginning, so I think the most important thing is that you develop when you decide the grades on the students. (Lars, 18)

– Individual development is very important. How much you try and develop because those who do sports in their leisure time, they have it much easier from the beginning and that makes them end up at a much higher level. But it depends on their leisure time interests, while those who do not [engage in sports in their leisure time] may develop much more, although they still do not reach the same level. I think the whole [should be judged] in some way. (Oskar, 18)

However, the students also point to injustices in assessing and grading individual development. It becomes more difficult for those who already know sports to reach a high grade because these students cannot develop so easily when they start at a higher level, compared to those who have no sports background.

– But if you do not have a sports background then maybe you do not have great stamina. But then it’s easier for her [Emma – name of student in one of the vignettes] for example than someone who has competed in athletics since she was 6 years old. Then it is much easier for her to show the teacher how much she has developed. (Tommy, 17)

– You can’t say in English, yes you may not know any English from the beginning but you have kind of learnt and developed lots, so now you can say a few sentences. It can’t generate an A just because you started at a lower level, it is really the same thing [in PEH] I think. (Sandra, 18)

One way to compensate for this injustice, that those who already are skilled sports find it more difficult to develop, is that they can develop other things than physical ability such as cooperation.

– Then you have to check Markus’ [name of student in one of the vignettes] conditions. He has come further than others because he is playing sports in his spare time, yes he can do better. Then you have to raise his zero level [starting point] a bit. Yes you might play football but then you have tougher demands on you. Or he has to show that he can handle a little more. So that he learns to cooperate. (Oskar, 18)

Another way for those who are skilled at certain sports to develop is that they can show development in some content that they do not already know.

– I hope that it [dance] is graded so that she sees me, that I am at zero from the beginning and develop, what I learn. Because it really applies to everything. You [a friend in the interview group] do not think football is fun. But I hope that if you can go from here and complete a good football pass, then I think she [the teacher] should see that you developed at that as well. (Patrik, 17)

In summary, it can be said that students perceive PEH as an ‘unfair’ subject when it comes to assessment and grading because everyone has different physical conditions. Students also perceive it as unfair that some students are given the opportunity to show their knowledge and skills in PEH while others are not given this opportunity. Neither the students who perceive themselves as non-sporty nor those who perceive themselves as sporty believe that they are graded fairly in PEH.

Discussion and conclusions

According to the Swedish National Audit Office (2011), the fact that grading is not perceived as fair may mean that the grading system risks losing its legitimacy. This study shows that students largely perceive assessment of their knowledge and skills and grading in PEH as unfair. These inequitable assessment practices mainly seem to stem from a lack of equal opportunity to learn and demonstrate knowledge/skill in PEH which in turn can be seen as a result of cultural-cognitive conditions having more impact on PEH practice than regulative and normative conditions (Scott, 2008).

The activity focus (Redelius & Hay, 2012) that emerges in this study has the consequence that the students perceive that they do not get the opportunity to learn anything in PEH, because it is mainly about trying and ‘ticking off’ a list of activities. There is a frustration that there is no room to get better at, for example, football. Instead, students should show that they can already play football. The students’ previous experiences of sports then become a prerequisite for being able to achieve high grades, which is perceived as unfair (Wiker, 2017). In addition, the students perceive that since it is a matter of showing their knowledge and skills in the ‘right’ sports in PEH, this also entails an injustice. As an example, the students highlight how it can be difficult to show how good you are at horse riding, which means that the students who do get the opportunity to show off their skills in PEH are privileged. That is, some sports are given a higher value when grading than others. The most privileged competitive sports abilities constitute some form of ball game, which are seen as the ‘right’ sports where it is about being the fastest and best. Achieving high grades in PEH become a proof of whether or not you are good at the ‘right’ sports. According to the students in this study, the regulative and normative conditions (Scott, 2008) in the form of curriculum assessment and grading criteria are thus not particularly important, but instead, it seems that these criteria are subordinate to the logic of (competitive) sport (Larsson, 2016). In this sense, the findings of this study add to previous research that shows how assessment and grading is based on criteria not found in the curriculum (e.g. Harris & Leggett, 2015; Michael et al., 2016; Borghouts et al., 2017) which in this case involves ‘being good at the right sports’.

Individual development is another aspect that the students in this study mention in connection with assessment and grading practice in PEH. According to the students, this also contributes to an injustice because those who already have knowledge and skills in the ‘right’ sport have a harder time making any significant development compared to those who have little to no knowledge and skills from the beginning. However, based on regulative conditions in the Swedish PEH curriculum documents, it is goal fulfilment that should form the basis for the grades. Grading is thus not about the students being graded on their own development. The fact that the students in this study make a comparison with themselves, if they have developed (or not) can therefore be seen as further deviations from the regulative and normative conditions (Scott, 2008).

There are also perceptions among the students in this study that it is also about a comparison with the others in the group when grading. This can also be related to the logic of competitive sports where it is a matter of comparing oneself with others (Guttmann, 2004). The students thus compare themselves and with the others in the group, but on the other hand, the students do not seem to know the assessment and grading criteria and what (curriculum) goals they are expected to achieve. The Swedish Education Act (2010) emphasises that the education must be equitable, but then it is required that the national curriculum is a starting point and that there is an understanding of the connections between goals, knowledge content and assessment/grading. Although there are some studies which indicate that Swedish PEH teachers are more aware of and better at enacting the curriculum documents (see e.g. Håkansson, 2015; Seger, 2014) other studies also highlight that the curriculum documents are not influential in teaching and assessment practice (Londos et al., 2016; Wiker, 2017) which means that the regulative and normative conditions are to some extent still not governing practice (Scott, 2008). Indeed, the results of this study demonstrate how the regulatory and normative conditions do not seem to have permeated into the beliefs systems of teachers or their teaching and assessment of PEH.

In Sweden, the freedom of school choice and decentralisation reforms over the last decades have led to greater differences in results between schools and led to increased socio-economic school segregation, which in turn has increased inequalities (SNAE, 2014). In PEH, it has been shown that, among other things, socio-economic background and lack of previous experience from the Swedish sports movement affect grading (Svennberg, 2017). In this study, the students have expressed what they perceive to be rewarded and what is not rewarded in the PEH subject when grading. A kind of ranking of different (sporting) content emerges that the students perceive they need to be good at and what behaviours that they perceive to be desirable in PEH. Some contents and behaviours are valued higher than others in the grading. The content and behaviours that are rewarded can to a large extent be linked to the cultural-cognitive conditions (Scott, 2008) as largely influenced by the Swedish sports movement and club sports. In this sense, it seems that there still exists some confusion in Swedish PEH practice about which values and norms should apply (Thornton et al., 2012). In the long run, this ‘ranking’ can contribute to what students perceive as fair or unfair when it comes to assessment and grading practice in PEH. However, it also seems that it is both teachers and students who are active in reproducing these values and norms (Scott, 2008) related to assessment and grading in PEH.

Based on the findings of this study, it is clear that normative, regulative and cultural-cognitive conditions do not always align and they compete for domination (Scott, 2008). We further agree with Scott (2008) who argues that although regulative and normative conditions contain strong official messages about desirable practice, they can also be weaker than cultural-cognitive conditions in actually shaping practice. These findings thus reinforce the importance of the culture-cognitive in the realisation of equitable teaching and assessment practices in PEH where both the culture and teachers of this school subject despite curriculum intentions continues to be shaped by narrow images of ‘PEH as sport’ (see e.g. Gerdin & Pringle, 2017; Kirk, 2010). Challenging this culture-cognitive domain during initial PEH teacher education and in-service learning therefore seem to be as important as ever. Following Scott’s (2008) argument, we assert that the culture-cognitive conditions, the beliefs, values and dispositions of PEH teachers, are key to supporting the enactment of equitable curriculum and assessment practices.

In conclusion, this study has further highlighted how Swedish PEH practice is permeated by an activity focus where unequal opportunities for students to learn and achieve grades are still prevalent. Both teaching and assessment/grading practices appear to be shaped more by cultural-cognitive conditions as associated with the norms and values of competitive and club sports rather than the regulative and normative conditions outlined in the Swedish Education Act and PEH curriculum that put emphasis on equal opportunities, equitable learning outcomes and explicit assessment criteria. Finally, the study has demonstrated how both teachers and students are actively involved in reproducing such teaching and assessment practices in PEH. To conclude, we, therefore, call for further work to be done with students, teachers and teacher educators of PEH to draw more attention to and more successfully implement the learning and achievement objectives of the curriculum. In addressing the ongoing problem of assessment in PEH we in particular need to better align assessment processes with the curriculum intentions of equal quality education and teaching for equity.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).