Enacting a new physical education curriculum: a collaborative investigation

ABSTRACT

Previous research shows that enacting a new curriculum is a complex process. Teachers can be enthusiastic and committed to new curricular objectives, but they can also experience frustration and disappointment. Scholars have suggested that teachers who perceive lack of support, or tensions between their personal philosophies and the educational principles underpinning a new curriculum, struggle to enact new curricula in line with their intent. Our purpose in this article is to illustrate how two Physical Education (PE) teachers experienced the enactment of a new official curriculum. An action research approach was used as design of the study. Researchers cooperated with two PE teachers for 18 months. The empirical material consisted of 50 sets of field notes from the two teachers’ teaching lessons, transcripts from one semi-structured qualitative interview with both teachers following the completion of the school year. The material also consisted of reflection logs produced by the teachers containing written notes about their experiences of the curriculum enactment. We used literature on educational change (Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What's worth fighting fore? Working together for your school. Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation) as our theoretical framework. Our findings show that the teachers experienced the curriculum enactment in contradictory ways. Shifting from previous PE practices that focused on sports activities and emphasized teacher instruction, to pedagogical practices informed by the new PE curriculum (including sociocultural perspectives of learning and assessment), led to uncertainty, surprise, satisfaction, as well as distrust. Our findings also showed that the teachers’ experiences of the enactment were influenced by perceived gender biases. We argue that teachers’ beliefs and the teaching culture were particularly influential dimensions regarding the two PE teachers’ experiences of the curriculum enactment. Practitioners and researchers attempting curriculum enactment in the future should pay careful attention to such dimensions, especially given that tensions and uncertainty often occur during any educational change.

KEYWORDS:

• Curriculum enactment
• Fullan
• educational change
• action research
• teacher beliefs
• teaching culture

Introduction

Most teachers will experience national curriculum reforms during their professional careers. Enacting policy reforms is a complex task, often characterized by tensions and challenges (O'Sullivan et al., 2022). Indeed, research suggests that attempts to enact new curricula can pose difficulties for teachers, who are often expected to change their conceptions of education and teaching practices, sometimes in considerable ways (Fullan, 2001). In this paper, we consider two teachers’ attempts to enact a new physical education (PE) curriculum in Norway. The specific purpose of this paper is to illustrate how two PE teachers experienced the enactment of the new official curriculum. To achieve this purpose, we present findings from an action research investigation (Posch, 2019) where one of us (the first author) collaborated with and supported two teachers at one school over a period of 18 months in their attempts to enact a new PE curriculum. Guided by Zimmer and Keiper (2020) who suggest that researchers utilizing the principles of action research should employ various data collection methods throughout the study, data was produced in the form of field notes, semi-structured interview transcripts and reflection logs during the 18 months of the study. Fullan’s conceptualization of educational change was used as a framework to interpret the findings (Fullan, 2001; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991).

Background

A great deal of time and effort goes into developing educational policy. This has contributed to an increased scholarly interest in the enactment of new curricula (Penney et al., 2009; Priestley, 2011). In this section, we focus on what existing research can tell us about (i) the intent of PE policy in different national contexts; (ii) the ways in which the enactment of new PE policy is initiated; (iii) teachers’ experiences and responses to the introduction of new curricula and; (iv) successful implementation of new curricula.

Defining curricular intent in one national context, let alone across several national contexts, is challenging. As Stirrup et al. (2023) contend, curricula are created in relation to the needs of society, often as perceived by those in power. This means that curricula can be seen as responses to specific social circumstances. As Penney (2013) and others have suggested more broadly, curricula are always the result of different groups vying to have their interests represented (Gray et al., 2022b; Penney & Alfrey, 2022). In this sense, a curriculum is more accurately described as an amalgamation of intents than the expression of an intent. It should come as no surprise then that despite some broad and persistent aims to improve students’ physical abilities and health (Gray et al., 2022a), aims vary between and within official PE policies. This variation is expressed, for example, in different understandings of health that underpin PE curricula (Aldous et al., 2022; MacLean et al., 2015), the diverse weightings placed on motor skills (Ha et al., 2004), and the diverging importance assigned to critical perspectives (Alfrey & O’Connor, 2020). Similarly, while many PE curricula emphasize the importance of learners and student-centered approaches, and increasingly position young people as active decision-makers and stakeholders in their learning (Jin, 2013), this emphasis is certainly not universal. Stirrup et al. (2023), point out that while the Welsh curriculum underscores student centeredness, they note that in neighboring England, various extracts in the English policy document remove ‘all notions of the curriculum being developmental and having pupil growth/competence at the centre of it’ (Stirrup et al., 2023, p. 7).

Given the time and effort invested in creating new curricula, as well as the expectations on policy reform to change educational practices (Lambert & Penney, 2020), the issue of how curricular enactment is set in motion is an important one. Often teacher educators and experienced teachers are responsible for support work (O'Sullivan et al., 2022). Lambert et al. (2021) for example, point to the powerful role teacher educators have, not only in producing educational materials such as lessons plans that support curricular enactment, but in helping teachers to use those materials. In some national contexts, partnerships between universities and schools are governmentally mandated (Aldous et al., 2022), while in other contexts, partnerships develop ad hoc (Alfrey & O’Connor, 2022; Ha et al., 2004). In countries with national governing documents, the implementation of new PE curricula is usually part of larger educational reform, which makes physical education scholars’ relatively modest interest in curriculum scholarship (Priestley, 2011) – at least compared with didactic research – somewhat surprising. A recurring claim in PE scholarship is nonetheless, that curricular reform is not well-supported (Cothran et al., 2006; Herold, 2020).

Introducing new curricula into schools is generally associated with challenges (O'Sullivan et al., 2022). Jin (2013) for example, noted that Chinese teachers overwhelmingly endorsed the broad direction of their new curriculum but felt that insufficient resources and lack of parental support limited implementation possibilities (see also Ha et al., 2008). In addition, scholarship on PE teachers’ experiences with curricular reform paints a complex picture, where teachers have been enthusiastic and committed to new curricular objectives, but simultaneously experience frustration and disappointment (Jin, 2013). This complexity may help to explain why the introduction of new curricula are sometimes accompanied by teachers’ cynicism (Ha et al., 2008).

Other factors have also contributed to teachers’ frustration with curricular reform. Reflecting occupational socialization literature (Curtner-Smith, 1999; Lortie, 1975; Templin & Richards, 2014), several scholars have drawn attention to misalignment of teachers’ educational philosophies and the principles underpinning new curricula (Alfrey & O’Connor, 2022). American teachers in Cothran and colleagues’ (2006) investigation for example, were unfamiliar with the linear ‘pre-test, teach, post-test’ approach being introduced and believed the new approach removed the fun from their lessons. Some of the Australian teachers in Paveling et al.’s (2019) research took issue with the socio-critical intent of the new steering document. And the teachers in Jin’s (2013) research believed that the shift to student-centered teaching required by the new Chinese curriculum contradicted a central tenet of Chinese culture, namely that wisdom and respect come with age.

In contrast, Gray et al. (2024) assert that teachers are embedded within discursive networks and that when curricula fail to align with dominant discourses, teachers may find it difficult to enact new curricula. They stress that dominant discursive messages are powerful in that they create normative categorizations of what constitutes a ‘good’ teacher and ‘good practice’. In this sense, deviating from existing forms of teaching may not only be frustrating but may result in deep feelings of failure and incompetence.

Based on a range of observations, scholars have put forward a number of suggestions for how to implement new policy successfully. Unsurprisingly given the recurring criticism pertaining to support, many of these suggestions relate to teacher assistance. Scholars have asserted that in order to enact new curricula successfully: the government and other stakeholders need to provide schools with teaching materials (O'Sullivan et al., 2022); support from school principals is vital (Alfrey & O’Connor, 2022; Ha et al., 2004), and; support needs to be ongoing rather than one-off (Cothran et al., 2006). Few studies have however, considered teachers as part of social networks, who already use a range of strategies to make sense of themselves and their practices when new curricula are introduced. In this paper, we add to the body of research examining curricular reform. Specifically, we illustrate how two PE teachers experienced the enactment of the new official curriculum in Norway within a particular cultural context.

The Norwegian PE context

In Norway, PE is a mandatory subject for pupils in elementary (pupils aged 6–12), secondary (pupils aged 13–15), and upper secondary (pupils aged 16–19) schools. The pupils have approximately two 45-minute classes per week in all years. In 2020, an extensive educational reform was implemented across Norway. As a result of the educational reform, the new PE curriculum (Utdanningsdirektoratet [Udir], 2019) now contains three core elements: movement and embodied learning, participation and interaction in movement activities, and outdoor activities and moving in nature. The core elements are the most important content that students should work with in their education. A prominent change in current curricula is that sports hold a less central place than in previous curricula, while play, different movement activities and practicing are now emphasized (Udir, 2019). The learning objectives designate what the pupils should learn, they do not emphasize developing physical fitness or sport skills. The learning objectives involve verbs such as reflect, create, explore which encourage teachers to use student centered teaching approaches. Finally, there are no specific instructions for how assessment should be conducted. It is the teachers who prepare the assessment criteria in Norway.

Theoretical framework

We rely on literature about educational change (Fullan, 2001; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991) in our analysis of the teachers’ experiences of the curriculum enactment. According to Fullan (2001), at least three dimensions to the enactment of any new program or policy are necessary to consider: (i) the possible use of new or revised materials, (ii) the possible use of new teaching approaches (e.g. new assessment strategies or new curricular content) and (iii) the possible alternation of beliefs. While Fullan argues that all three dimensions of change affect implementation, changes in beliefs are the foundation of achieving lasting reform. In line with research that suggests that teachers’ beliefs become fixed relatively early (e.g. Lortie, 1975), the question of how best to change beliefs is complicated. Fullan suggests, however, that beliefs are most effectively addressed once teachers have had experience in attempting new practices.

Fullan (2012) argues that change processes are exceedingly complex, affected by both individual and societal agents. Nevertheless, the individual teacher is a crucial change agent. Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) claim that even the most innovative of enactment processes have failed because they have failed to grasp fully how teachers change. Based on their experiences, the scholars claim that: (i) the teacher’s purpose or beliefs, (ii) the teacher as a person, (iii) the real-world context in which teachers work, and (iv) the culture of teaching involving the working relationship that teachers have with their colleagues inside and outside school, all need to be sufficiently addressed if lasting change is to be achieved (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991).

Concerning teacher purpose, teachers have values and aims that they want to achieve through their teaching, and others that they do not regard highly, as well as strategies they fear will not help them to achieve their aims. While each teacher develops their own teaching purpose, these purposes relate to the cultural milieus in which they work. Many studies in PE, for example, show that teachers often subscribe to discourses of healthism, sports and performance (Aasland et al., 2020; Barker et al., 2020; Larsson & Nyberg, 2017; Tinning, 2010), and that teachers consequently aim to increase their pupils’ (physical) health, their commitment to sports, and/or their capacity to perform. To achieve such aims, teaching practices have traditionally been structured as short instructional units in different (sports) activities (multiactivity approach) in which the PE teacher’s main goal is to keep the students ‘busy, happy, and good’ (Placek, 1983, p. 54) – what Kretchmar (2006) refer to as ‘easy street’-practices. As Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) note however, when teachers encounter a curriculum underpinned by new educational principles and new aims, there is potential for conflict. Teachers may be reluctant to adopt new values and alter the aims of their lessons.

Regarding the teacher as a person, Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) acknowledge that those driving curriculum reform or educational change rarely take into consideration teacher’ personal lives, commitments outside school, or their previous experiences with curriculum reforms in school. The authors emphasize that one cannot change teaching in fundamental ways, without changing the person. A corollary is that meaningful, lasting change will almost inevitably be slow (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991).

Third, the real-world context of teaching matters. One crucial aspect relating to the context of teaching concerns practicality. Most teachers are interested in maintaining high – even excellent – teaching standards. As demonstrated in Jin’s (2013) work however, many teachers express a need to balance managing stress with achieving high standards. New practices are unlikely to be enacted as intended if teachers cannot simultaneously care for themselves. Aspects of the real-world that affect teachers’ ability to maintain their health such as class size and time allowances can therefore, facilitate or constrain curricular innovation.

Fourth, Fullan and Hargreaves claim that it is important to acknowledge the cultures of teaching. Teachers develop practices through their relationships, especially those with significant others. If teachers value the opinions of their colleagues, those workplaces will have a strong impact on educational change and/or the implementation of new policy (Fullan, 2001; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991). Both PE colleagues and heads of department (HODs) can thus be seen as influencers when examining curricular reform.

In sum, as crucial change agents, teachers are likely to experience a range of emotions during curriculum reform that may include uncertainty, learning, anxiety, difficulties and fear of the unknown (Fullan, 2012). In Fullan’s view, experiencing conflicts and tensions is nonetheless, an essential part of any successful change.

Methods

In this section, we first provide a picture of the school context in which this research was conducted. This is followed by a description of the project design and how data were produced in response to the aim of the investigation. Lastly, we explain how data were analyzed.

The context of the study

Two PE teachers participated in this study. Both teachers had more than ten years teaching experience, working in the same upper-secondary school in southern Norway. This school offers a specialist sport program, as well as general and vocational educational programs.¹ The sport and PE teachers at this school teach sports performance subjects on the specialist sport program, as well as ordinary PE classes at the general and vocational programs.

At the end of 2019, the two PE teachers participated in a seminar at the local university, where the first author presented his PhD work on PE. The teachers contacted the first author and asked for assistance in developing their assessment practices. Since Norwegian schools were expected to operationalize the new curriculum in the autumn of 2020, they saw fit to develop assessment practices in line with the principles of the new curriculum. Even though the first author had not previously researched curriculum enactment, the teachers agreed to take part in a collaborative research project focusing on curriculum enactment. The teachers were not, however, provided with extra hours by the school management to participate in the project. The first author invited one other teacher educator and five masters’ students to help with the project. From here, this group is referred to as the ‘enactment team’. Their role was to assist the teachers with preparing unit – and lesson plans, as well as taking field notes during the lessons.

For the purposes of the project, the teachers chose to involve their two respective first-year PE classes (54 pupils in total aged 15 and 16). We have given the teachers pseudonyms; Mia and Peter. We provided teachers and pupils with oral and written information on the project before obtaining their consent to participate. The Norwegian Centre for Research Data and the Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Health and Sport Science at University of Agder approved the project.

The study design

The enactment team used an approach informed by principles from action research (Posch, 2019; Zimmer & Keiper, 2020) to produce empirical material. This means that the teachers were active co-producers while enacting new teaching and assessment practices in alignment with the new official curriculum. After each lesson and at the end of each teaching unit, the enactment team summarized and discussed the lessons and units and decided on strategies to improve the next lesson(s) and teaching units. For example, we identified that teachers in the beginning of the school year did not present learning objectives to the pupils, and after discussions, the teachers became more aware of the importance of doing this.

In the first phase, the first author and the two teachers held workshops focusing on how to interpret and enact the new curriculum. The first author’s main tasks in this phase were to: (1) ask critical questions about for instance, the teachers’ interpretations of the new curriculum, and how multiactivity teaching (Kretchmar, 2006) allowed pupils to develop competence (or not) and (2) develop ideas on how to enact alternative pedagogical practices which aligned with the official curriculum. The teachers decided to use a thematically-oriented, rather than a multiactivity-based, approach, where themes represented the core elements in the PE curriculum. That is, when developing a teaching unit where the theme (the curriculum’s core element) was movement and embodied learning, movement activities such as floorball and dance were included, and provided the medium for learning, rather than the content to be learned (Penney & Chandler, 2000).

After raising some concerns about the pupils’ maturity and providing them with more autonomy in lessons, the teachers decided to rely on a student-centered approach. This involved more time for group work, conversations and discussions (Larsson, 2016), as well as written assessments in the form of personal logs (Shephard, 2001). The teachers also chose to use principles of backward design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), where they: (i) identified what the pupils should know as the result of the learning process; (ii) decided how the pupils could be provided possibilities to show their knowledge and (iii) planned the teaching accordingly.

The members of the enactment team co-constructed annual plans for the two classes. During the school year, however, the teachers expressed concerns about new ways of teaching and assessing with what they felt was limited time. As a result, they asked the university-based members of the enactment team to assist them in developing lesson plans, assessment tasks and teaching materials. The university-based members initiated the development of five-to-16-week teaching unit plans, as well as individual lesson plans, and teaching materials, and presented all material as suggestions, emphasizing that the teachers could adapt their teaching as they saw fit in relation to the specific context and their pupils.

Production of empirical material

The empirical material consists of 50 sets of field notes from the two teachers’ teaching lessons. The first author took most of the field notes, but other members of the enactment team took notes when lessons were on at the same time. The first author took a relatively open approach (Fangen, 2010) by taking notes while teachers presented learning objectives and the assessment criteria, usually at the start of a new teaching unit. He was also guided by questions such as: How do the pupils respond to the learning objectives and criteria set by the teacher, and what do they ask the teacher about? We also used field notes from the workshops where the enactment team discussed the official curriculum and teaching plans. The first author wrote a summary from these meetings, where he focused on what the teachers were uncertain or skeptical about. For example, when the first author suggested written assignments, the teachers expressed concern about a theorization of the subject and feared that less academic boys would suffer.

The first author also conducted a semi-structured qualitative group interview with the two teachers at the end of the school year, that mainly concerned their experiences of enactment, and what they had written in the midway reflection logs (see paragraph below). However, the first author also invited the participants to talk about what they thought had worked well and not so well, the differences between the ‘new’ teaching and the old teaching, the experiences of the pupils and feedback that the participants had received from their colleagues.

In addition to the interview, the teachers wrote midway reflection logs² during the school year. In these logs, the first author had formulated questions that the teachers could respond to, but the teachers could also add complementary reflections. Questions included: Do you perceive your teaching and assessment practices this semester to be different from your former practices? If yes, could you describe how? Do you perceive that your teaching – and assessment practices differ from your colleagues’ practices? How do you think your pupils have experienced your lessons this semester?

Analysis

The first and second authors read the empirical material separately. Based on the notion of critical incidents (Amade-Escot, 2005), we then selected parts of the empirical material which we felt illustrated experiences of the enactment process. Selection was theory-driven in that Fullan and Hargreaves’ (1991) issues that affect educational change guided the identification of critical incidents. For example, one critical incident that we identified involved collaboration before the school year started. In this incident, the teachers responded positively to the idea of enacting student-centered teaching approaches but also expressed concerns. Once critical incidents had been identified, the third author was involved in discussions about the data and specifically, how the incidents related to existing literature on curriculum enactment in PE.

Findings

We have chosen to present our findings as a continuous story as this gives a sense of the temporal dimension of the process. Within this story, we show the impact of: (i) the teachers’ aims, (ii) the teachers’ personal circumstances, (iii) the school context and (iv) the teaching culture (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991), on how the teachers experienced enactment. We have identified five phases that contain critical incidents and that illustrate how the two teachers experienced curriculum enactment.

The workshops (before the school year started) – optimism but also uncertainty

In the workshops before the school year started, the enactment team designed new PE teaching plans. Even though the teachers saw the student-centered logic underpinning the teaching methods, the personal reflection logs, and the written assignments, they expressed skepticism. Mia worried about ‘losing some of the unmotivated students when it came to logs and student homework’, stating that ‘such assignments will benefit the compliant female students who are good at school’. She also worried that pupils would consider the new teaching practices ‘less fun’. Both teachers were concerned that the pupils would miss some of the traditional sports in their new teaching. Their concerns seemed to be related to a discrepancy between the enactment of new teaching and assessment practices, and their personal beliefs about how PE should be conducted (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991). Neither teacher wanted to work with ‘long’ teaching units of 6–7 weeks where pupils could decide what to practice and how. Mia suggested that: ‘Many pupils are not responsible enough when they have the freedom to practice on their self-chosen activities. Many pupils prefer to be taught, then they learn something’. Mia’s concern was clearly related to previous experience (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991) and what she had come to value in PE (Templin & Richards, 2014). In such situations, the first author acknowledged the teachers’ concerns. In these instances, the enactment team found agreement by having shorter units and determining limits within which student choice could take place.

The first semester of the school year – satisfaction and surprises

In the first five months, both teachers expressed in their reflection logs and in the group interview, that they were generally satisfied with the teaching units in the autumn semester. In particular, the teachers greatly appreciated a teaching plan in outdoor education, where the pupils performed a hiking tour in their local environment outside of class time, and wrote a personal log about their experiences. The teachers also indicated that a ‘map walk’ in orienteering helped pupils to understand maps. Mia said: ‘In addition to the outdoor education plan, I felt that the teaching unit in orienteering worked out well, especially the map walk. It was a bit challenging and perhaps a bit too long, but I think [the pupils] learnt something’.

In addition to the teaching plan in outdoor education, both teachers expressed satisfaction with the first four-lesson teaching unit on dance. In this unit, the students worked in groups, selecting and learning a dance from the motion-based dance video game ‘Just Dance’. Thereafter, the students taught their dance to another group. At the end of the first lesson, Peter commented: ‘This is the lesson I’ve experienced the best atmosphere’. In the end-of-year interview, Peter remarked:

The first part of dancing, where they should learn and practice dance, I think that worked out very well. I was surprised that so many pupils were on task, more than I had expected. So that teaching unit I think was great, because then they had a very concrete task.

However, the teachers also recounted challenges. Due to features of the teaching environment (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991) such as noise from other classes and limited responses from the pupils, the teachers claimed that the reflection questions had limited value. To adapt, the teachers divided the pupils into smaller discussion groups. Although the pupils’ responses to more reflection and discussion were negative, the teachers were to a large degree satisfied with their lessons in the first semester.

Eight weeks into the second semester – ambiguity and concerns

In the first eight weeks of the second semester, the pupils were asked to work with team sports and dance to create their own team ball games and dances. The teachers’ reflection logs after these lessons showed their dissatisfaction. Mia wrote:

[in her “new” lessons] there is a lower level of physical activity in class. This practice diverges from my colleagues’ practices, which contain a higher level of physical activity. I also think the pupils have experienced my lessons differently [than they used to], and that they miss a higher level of physical activity.

She noted further that ‘our lesson plans have worked quite well, but it has been too monotonous, and not varied enough. The pupils miss traditional sports activities in their lessons’. At the end of this period, we were informed that the HOD at the school was critical of the new PE curriculum. He explicitly advocated for ‘traditional PE practices’, claiming that sports should be the main teaching content of PE and that pupils should sweat in lessons. Mia’s dissatisfaction with the new lessons thus echoed the HOD’s view on PE teaching. The divergence from other colleagues’ teaching, as well as the HOD’s belief about the new curriculum, help to illustrate how the culture of teaching influenced the teachers’ experiences during this period (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991). Nevertheless, Mia also noted that she was:

… surprised how positive the pupils are and how well they keep focus on the learning task, even though they say that they want to do other stuff [sports]. I think they have discovered that less familiar [movement] activities might also be educational and meaningful. (Reflection log)

The teachers also expressed mixed feelings about their new assessment practices. Both teachers indicated for example, that the ‘pupils know relatively well how they are assessed’, but the teachers themselves did not feel like they had a better idea of how to assess pupils’ competence. They stated that they had more documentation about the pupils’ competence, but ‘much of the assessment has been related to reflection. Unfortunately, this has meant that the subject has been theorized to a greater extent than before’ (Peter, reflection log).

The last four months of the school year – reverting back to traditional instruction

Due to Covid and university commitments, the enactment team had less contact in the last four months of the school year. In much of this period, the teachers reverted back to their traditional instruction. The teachers brought up this issue at the end of the school year interview:

Mia:

… [doing traditional instruction] was nice for us teachers, and I think the pupils appreciated it as well. It’s nice to do something in which you feel secure.

First author:

That’s an important matter to address, because the implemented teaching practice requires a teacher role that you’re not familiar with.

Peter:

I taught badminton. I had some specific aims regarding what the pupils should learn; these basic techniques, the skills one must have to master the game.

The teachers stressed that they liked being able to use their skills to instruct in ‘techniques, tactics, and rules’ (Peter, reflection log). Using traditional instruction made the teachers feel more secure and was experienced as less stressful and time consuming. The teachers’ positive experiences of reverting back to their traditional teaching supports the notion that educational change processes are demanding and require effort and acceptance of uncertainty (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991). Notably, in contrast to their traditional instruction, they claimed that their new practices did not really constitute teaching:

Peter:

[in the new teaching] we have mostly facilitated activities, in which the pupils can explore different activities, and create their own variants of movement activities. The pupils are given more responsibility, and we facilitate that. We don’t teach as much; we haven't taught much this year. (Group interview)

In short, the teachers questioned their new teaching approaches but acknowledged that in the new practices, the pupils were successful in making decisions and leading their own learning:

Mia:

I thought this teaching unit was going to be a lot worse. I thought that they were not going to be on task and would just talk with each other. I think those guys who practiced parkour-movements, those boys were often unfocused in other lessons, but they kept practicing in this teaching unit. (Group interview)

The teachers were surprised that a teaching unit where the pupils chose their own movements to practice and the teachers ‘merely facilitated’, worked so well. The teachers’ experiences of ‘not teaching’ is probably affected by the culture of teaching, as well as their personal beliefs about the meaning of PE teaching (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991).

Post-school year reflections – the whole package is too much, it requires modifications

In rounding up the impression of the school year, the teachers claimed that many of the new practices were relevant and worked quite well. At the same time, they also indicated that attempting to change everything in the same year was ‘too much’. They emphasized that the new practices require modification and were especially critical of the number of written reflections and assignments, which appeared to challenge their view of PE as a ‘practical subject’ (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991), and they were concerned about making PE into a more theoretical subject. This, they claimed, could be especially detrimental to boys. Mia said, for example:

I worry that some of the students who are not that good at the theoretical part of the class, might not get as good grades as they maybe should have.

And Peter asserted that:

The fact is, of the students receiving the highest grades, more of them are girls than boys.

The idea of reflection as beyond the scope of a ‘practical’ subject was recurring in the teachers’ commentaries. The teachers underscored the importance of providing physical activity. In the final interview the first author brought up this issue:

First author:

But when the students are less physically active, then they sweat less too. Is that a problem?

Mia:

I think it is positive to sweat in gym class.

Peter:

In a public health perspective, it’s a good thing that the pupils sweat. They sit too much already. I do think that we need to be calm sometimes too during a practical physical lesson, but nevertheless one must reach a certain level of physical activity, it’s important and it means breaking a sweat. Thus, I am still in favor of sweating.

Both teachers were thus skeptical of new pedagogical practices that might lead to lower levels of physical activity. Lower levels of physical activity were not in line with their beliefs about PE as breaking a sweat (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991).

Finally, the teachers experienced a tension between the thematically-oriented new practices and the activity-based practices of their colleagues:

Their [Mia’s colleagues’] teaching contains a greater variety of activities. Our lesson plans have worked quite well, but they have been too monotonous, and not varied enough (Mia).

Even though Mia was relatively satisfied with her new lessons, she advocated for a greater variety in activities, in line with her colleagues’ multiactivity approach (Kretchmar, 2006).

Discussion

We have shown some of the ways in which two PE teachers experienced curriculum reform. We will discuss our findings in light of Fullan’s and Hargreaves’ (Fullan, 2001; 2012; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991) work on educational change and existing research. First, in enacting the new curriculum, the teachers were forced to reconsider the overall objectives, or purposes, of their teaching. The teachers came to appreciate that devoting less time to sport activities, using student-centered teaching approaches, and including written assignments were not simply a matter of working with different content or different pedagogical strategies. Rather, these actions fundamentally changed what could be achieved in lessons. The teachers expressed their commitment to achieving ‘traditional’ purposes, when they suggested that the new curriculum: reduced fun, decreased learning about traditional sports, reduced opportunities for sweating, and even eliminated possibilities for learning altogether. While disparities between teachers’ purposes and the intents of new curricula are common (Alfrey & O’Connor, 2022; Cothran et al., 2006; Paveling et al., 2019), it is worth noting that, in line with other literature (Ha et al., 2008), the idea that pupils should learn something in PE lessons was not in contention. In other words, the teachers did not think that pupils should only have fun or get sweaty. Further, that the teachers remained committed to the value of physical activity and fun in lessons, even though these aspects were not mandated in the new curriculum, is unsurprising given their pivotal positions within the discursive fabric of physical education (Cothran et al., 2006; Tinning, 2010). Taking this into account, we might say that curricular reform that omits these aspects, at least as part of the purpose of the school subject, may lead to friction with PE teachers in future reforms.

Second, regarding the dimension teacher as a person, our findings show that even though teachers generally enacted what they saw as ‘radical’ changes enthusiastically, they experienced uncertainty, surprise, satisfaction, as well as frustration and distrust. As much existing literature on curriculum reform in PE suggests (Gray et al., 2024; Jin, 2013), the process is thus complex and at times contradictory. Using Fullan and Hargreaves’ (1991) framework, we would suggest that even though the teachers experienced enactment relatively ‘positively’, their beliefs about ‘normal’ teaching and assessment practices did not always change to match new practices (Aasland et al., 2020; Kretchmar, 2006; Larsson & Nyberg, 2017). Our findings, for example, illustrate a persistent belief in the value of teacher-centered teaching methods (Karlefors & Larsson, 2018), despite positive experiences with student-centered practices (Alfrey & O’Connor, 2022; Cothran et al., 2006).

Nonetheless, our findings also support other research that suggests that teachers’ beliefs about curriculum enactment are not entirely personal but are influenced by the discursive networks in which they find themselves (Gray et al., 2024). For instance, the teachers experienced their new assessment practices (personal reflection logs and written assignments) as a theorization of PE, which they claimed would favor girls and disadvantage boys. On the basis of this claim, the teachers tentatively resisted reform. This resistance is noteworthy in light of a long list of studies that describes how PE has marginalized girls (e.g. Flintoff & Scraton, 2001; Larsson et al., 2011; Oliver & Kirk, 2016). If new pedagogical practices further academicize PE, the teachers may well be correct in assuming that the new practices will improve girls’ chances in PE. In both Norway (Udir, 2023) and Sweden (Svennberg & Högberg, 2018), girls are statistically more likely to achieve higher grades in theoretical subjects. Still, whether reform results in discrimination against boys or simply makes PE more equitable, remains in question. Significant here is that the teachers use potential inequity as a reason to resist enacting new curriculum.

Third, the teachers were aware that their new pedagogical practices were considerably different to their colleagues’ practices, a recognition reflecting the importance of the cultures of teaching to curricular reform (Fullan, 2001; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991). The participating teachers described the process of enacting alternative pedagogies as emotionally demanding, especially when their colleagues persisted with ‘traditional’ practices that were familiar and accepted, while simultaneously directing skepticism and critique towards the new PE curriculum (c.f. Kretchmar, 2006; McCaughtry et al., 2004). While Fullan (2012) claims that the teacher is a crucial change agent, it is difficult to ignore the impact those around the teachers can have on reform. This impact not only relates to the provision of supportive cultures from colleagues (Ha et al., 2004), school management (Alfrey & O’Connor, 2022), and external actors, such as researchers (Aldous et al., 2022; Lambert et al., 2021), but also the absence of critique and questions that undermine teachers’ attempts at curricular reform.

Finally, real world context factors such as pupils’ actions and school infrastructure also impacted the teachers’ experiences (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991). Some pupils were unfamiliar with student-centered teaching methods and/or were prepared to challenge the new practices, and by proxy, the teachers. Unsurprisingly, pupil complaints negatively influenced the teachers’ experiences of new pedagogical practices. As in other studies (Jin, 2013), large class sizes made it difficult to enact student-centered pedagogies. In the current investigation, disruptions from other classes also made discussions and reflection challenging. These kinds of practical challenges have received relatively little attention in existing literature, and there is a need to further investigate practical factors that constrain and facilitate curricular reform in classrooms.

In sum, the way teachers understand the purpose of teaching, their personal experiences and beliefs, the culture in which teachers are working, and the practical, everyday environment in which lessons take place, will influence teachers as they enact new practices (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991). Aspects within each of these dimensions can both facilitate and limit enactment, making curricular reform a complex process.

Concluding thoughts

Many lessons can be derived from this investigation. First, at the outset, the enactment team was insufficiently informed about educational change in general, especially with regard to teachers’ beliefs about PE. Researchers embarking on future enactment studies should inform themselves about curricular change. They should address conflict that arises when new practices challenge existing practices. Fullan (2001) recommends initiating discussions with teachers after they have had some experience working with new practices. In our view, it would also be possible to hold preliminary discussions with teachers before enacting new practices to anticipate where tensions might arise. In this investigation, discussing, for example, different meanings of teaching, learning, being active and reflecting, might have created opportunities to ‘see’ alternative approaches before the teachers started to enact the new curriculum. Second, colleagues’, pupils’ and HOD’s conceptions of PE teaching and assessment and their pedagogical practices will influence the way that teachers experience policy enactment. Knowing this, future studies that aim to facilitate curriculum reform should involve the entire PE staff at the school. Third, to avoid overloading teachers in the change process, future curriculum enactments or other educational change efforts should consider gradual change, as suggested by Casey and Goodyear (2015). The results of the current investigation demonstrate that one year is not enough for teachers to entirely adapt to a new curriculum, a finding that also has implications for policy makers as they are tasked with revising curricula. Fourth and related to this point, researchers should carefully consider how they assist teachers in enacting change. If researchers provide lesson plans and other materials to help teachers change practices quickly, they must also consider the possibility that they are denying teachers the opportunities to use their own expertise, and in other words, supporting a kind of professional ‘de-skilling’. Fifth, change agents should embrace conflict or problems. Such experiences are essential to any long-lasting change. Absence of problems is usually a sign that superficial or trivial change is being substituted for substantial change attempts (Fullan, 2012). In sum, enacting a new curriculum is challenging, it takes time, and teachers will experience tension as their personal beliefs about PE teaching and assessment are disrupted. Following Fullan (2012), we recommend that researchers, if collaborating respectfully with teachers, can play an important role in supporting them and embracing such tensions described above.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the ‘enactment team’, consisting of Ketil Østrem, Maren Aas Bondevik, Margit Wiberg, Anders Lossius, Emilie Rougne Dahl, Merete Urdal Gundersen, and the two teachers. We would also like to thank the two reviewers who provided insightful and helpful comments and suggestions on this paper.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 PE is a compulsory subject for those pupils taking general and vocational educational programs, while the pupils on specialist sport program do not have PE.

2 This was meant to be after the first semester (5 months into the project), but they sent it to the first author seven weeks into the second semester (7 months into the project).