(How) should environmental sustainability be a part of physical education? Analysing Swedish teachers’ voices through a Bernsteinian perspective

ABSTRACT

Teaching outdoors is an obligatory part of physical education (PE) in most countries; therefore, PE holds great potential to contribute to learning about nature, the environment and environmental sustainability (ES). This paper reports the investigation of whether Swedish PE teachers perceive ES as part of their subject, and if so, how do they implement it? Drawing on 60 PE teachers’ answers to five opened questions (53 written answers and 7 oral interviews), and using British sociologist Basil Bernstein’s concepts of classification and codes, this study have asked the following research questions: 1. What influences the position and legitimisation of ES in PE? 2. How does the subject culture of Swedish PE influence the introduction of ES? The result from the study shows a complexity regarding the strength of the boundaries that surround ES in PE and what this complexity might offer in terms of enablers and constraints. The result also displays a strong connection between outdoor education and its potential for teaching ES. Various options are discussed with regard to where (in what content areas in PE) and how to implement ES.

KEYWORDS:

• Physical education
• environmental sustainability
• classification
• codes

Introduction

During the past few decades, many countries have incorporated environmental sustainability (ES) into their curricula. Support for environmental issues to be included in the education of young people is strong because this and future generations will need to base their actions against climate change and pollution on firm knowledge foundations (Ardoin et al., 2018). However, despite well-established and widespread ideas through models such as environmental education and education for sustainable development, ideas vary regarding how to implement ES in education in the most efficient way (Stern et al., 2014) and what specific competences are needed for this purpose (Lohmann et al., 2021).

Encounters with nature have a long tradition in environmental education, and research on environmental education often highlights the learning potential of experiences in nature, which strongly relates to outdoor recreation and outdoor education (Mikaels, 2018; Welch et al., 2021). Outdoor activities in school programmes that have been carried out for many years have been shown to have positive educational outcomes, as nature is often part of many students’ everyday life (Sandell & Öhman, 2010). Accordingly, formulations regarding ES are common in the general curriculum in many school systems (see, e.g. ACARA, 2020; SNAE, 2022); however, curriculums vary greatly regarding whether specific school subjects emphasise environmental issues and implement them in the actual teaching practice.

Physical education (PE) is one school subject that recently began addressing the often-overlooked topic of environmental issues (Baena-Morales & González-Víllora, 2023; Olive & Enright, 2021; Welch et al., 2021). Teaching outdoors is an obligatory part of PE in most countries; therefore, PE holds great potential to contribute to learning about nature, the environment and ES. Although critically oriented studies are common in the environmental education literature, for example in the form of post-humanist perspectives (Jukes et al., 2022; Riley, 2023), there is still a lack of critical perspectives on ES in PE (see Riley & Proctor, 2023; Taylor et al., 2019 for exceptions).

Lohmann et al. (2021) suggest that education for sustainable development could already be part of PE when PE teachers apply a holistic pedagogy, with movement-based tasks and learning activities in the context of sport and physical activity. These movement activities carried out in natural environments can be opportune for teaching sustainability and increasing students’ awareness of how to care for the environment. According to Welch et al. (2021), environmental attunement offers a holistic way for students to learn more about the environment through PE practice. This puts place and human agency first, thus ensuring that theory stipulated by the curricula is not the only way that students learn. Baena-Morales and González-Víllora (2023) suggest that holistic PE in the natural environment must start with respecting a place, in the meaning of a body–mind–culture connection with the natural environment and care for others.

Sweden, the context for this study, has in many ways been considered a forerunner of how ES became a global issue in the post-war period. A strong connection and collaboration between scientists, politicians and the media, together with other established societal forces, contributed to the ‘green turn’ in Sweden, which intensified during the 1970s (Larsson Heidenblad, 2021). Drawing on this backdrop, the question that remains is whether the former ‘greening’ of Swedish society has in any way permeated educational systems to promote environmental issues in Sweden.

The general Swedish curriculum from preschool up to upper secondary school stipulates that ES should be a cross-curricular perspective in all school subjects. The objective is that, through an environmental perspective, students can learn to be responsible for the environment they directly impact and to develop a personal approach to global environmental issues in general (SNAE, 2011; 2022). For example, aspects related to ES can be found in the explicit learning content of home economics, geography and biology (SNAE, 2022), which reinforces the potential of ES in PE as well. Questions of what place ES has in Swedish PE have been raised in previous studies, particularly in relation to the strong position of outdoor education (friluftsliv) within PE (Mikaels, 2018).

As there are no explicit formulations of ES in the Swedish PE curriculum, most Swedish PE teachers have not yet considered ES as a part of their subject (Isgren Karlsson & Backman, 2023; Lundvall & Fröberg, 2023; Mikaels, 2018), which, according to Baena-Morales et al. (2024) is also the case in other countries. In a study by Isgren Karlsson and Backman (2023), Swedish PE teachers expressed differing opinions about how ES could be implemented into PE. A total of 24% of the 143 PE teachers who were interviewed included ES in their teaching, but none did it every week. When those PE teachers (24%) transformed ES, it was in the context of outdoor education and connected with topics such as energy and natural resources, environment and climate, and health, nutrition and recycling.

Contemporary climate change disasters and the global intensifying of an environmental agenda in all societies highlight the importance of how PE teachers relate to including ES in their subject. However, there is a lack of knowledge about if and how PE teachers include ES in PE and what PE teachers believe are the conditions for teaching ES. Complimenting the previous work by Isgren Karlsson and Backman (2023) and Fröberg et al. (2022), this paper reports the investigation of whether Swedish PE teachers perceive ES as part of their subject, and if so, how do they implement it? PE policies involving sustainability development goals (SDG) have been previously studied (Baena-Morales et al., 2024; Baena-Morales & González-Víllora, 2023; Lundvall & Fröberg, 2023), but PE teachers’ voices on how they perceive the inclusion of ES perspectives in their actual teaching demand more attention.

To investigate whether PE teachers relate to ES, and if so, how?, educational sociologist Bernstein’s (1971) notions of classification and codes are applied in this study. In particular, this study is guided by two research questions:

1. According to PE teachers, what influences the position and legitimisation of environmental sustainability in PE?

2. According to PE teachers, how does the subject culture of Swedish PE influence the introduction of environmental sustainability?

Theoretical perspective

To analyse and discuss PE teachers’ perceptions of how ES is positioned in PE and what possibilities and constraints come with this inclusion, we draw from British sociologist Basil Bernstein and his concepts of classification and codes.

Classification

Bernstein (1971) defines classification as ‘the degree of boundary maintenance between contents’ (p. 88). Drawing on this definition, classification can be seen as a measurement of the position, status and legitimacy of content that carries power and control (Aldous & Brown, 2010). In our study, supported by Penney (2013), we consider ES a potential sub-category among other content in PE. When the boundaries that surround ES in PE are explicit and clearly defined, and when there is no hesitation of the what, when, how and why with regard to teaching ES in PE, classification is strong. However, when there is uncertainty about whether ES should be a part of PE, and when the definition of forms for teaching ES are blurred, the classification is weak. Our intention is not for stronger classification to always be a taken-for-granted goal to strive for. Whether strong classification (certainty of the what, when, how and why of teaching) or weak classification (uncertainty of the what, when, how and why of teaching) is beneficial depends for on, for example, previous knowledge among the pupils and the teacher’s intent.

Classification has been an important tool in curriculum studies in PE. As Penney (2013) states, classification does not only say something about the content but also the relation between a sub-discipline and other potential sub-disciplines in PE. Through the position of other sub-disciplines in PE, we can better understand the position of ES. Swedish PE has been described as strongly classified due to its strong position in the public debate (Karlefors, 2002), but weakly classified due to the limited teaching of content such as dance, friluftsliv, orienteering, swimming and ergonomics – content which is specifically mentioned in the PE curriculum (Lundvall & Meckbach, 2008). In a curriculum study of outdoor education (friluftsliv), Backman (2011) found this sub-discipline of Swedish PE to be weakly classified due to the teachers’ inability to verbalise the content and goals. In addition, Isgren Karlsson and Backman (2023) problematise how ES is stated in the general policy of Swedish schools, which should govern all school subjects, but it is not mentioned in PE. According to them, a strong classification for ES on the general level does not seem to have any effect on the subject-specific teaching.

Codes

According to Bernstein (2000), codes are the underlying principles regulating meaning in the three message systems of curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation. Codes depend on whether categories (for example a sub-discipline in school PE) are surrounded by distinct or blurred boundaries and to what extent the control of the teaching is weak or strong (Bernstein, 2000). As Evans and Davies (2006) suggest, codes can help answer the question, ‘What preserves the insulation, for example, between the disciplines or activities that constitute PE, or between PE and other subjects on the curriculum?’ (p. 208). They further argue that PE is dominated by a performance code, which is a pedagogical model with clearly marked subject boundaries, as in, with strong classification, ‘featuring hierarchy, positional relations and imposed discipline’ (Evans & Davies, 2006, p. 211). In this study, we devote special attention to expressions of codes in PE, and in what ways they may enable or constrain ES in PE. In the words of Bernstein, this study aims to analyse and discuss the strength of boundaries that surround ES in PE and if and how the underlying and meaning-making principles of Swedish PE enable ES.

Methodology

The reported study is conducted in Sweden, where PE has a long tradition that began with Ling-gymnastics in the nineteenth century (Kirk, 2010). Today, the influence of competitive sport in PE has been a much-discussed issue for many years (Larsson & Karlefors, 2015). In primary and secondary school, PE is compulsory for all children. In upper secondary school, all pupils do the first PE course; thereafter, PE is an elective continuation course. The PE teaching practice is governed by a national PE school policy stating the aims, central content and criteria for assessment but leaves some space for the interpretation of central concepts (Larsson & Karlefors, 2015; SNAE, 2011; 2022).

Participants and collection of data

The authors participated in two PE conferences in Sweden (2022 and 2023), gathering a total of 300 PE teachers. A qualitative survey including five open-ended questions was distributed to the participants. After giving informed consent, 53 PE teachers voluntarily filled in the paper-based survey. These surveys were later completed by seven audio-recorded structured interviews (approximately 20 min each) focusing on the same questions as in the survey. These seven PE teachers were contacted through the professional networks of two of the authors. The open-ended questions read as follows:

1. Is environmental sustainability taught in your school? If yes, in what subjects and to what extent?

2. What support do you think the school policy documents offer to work with issues related to environmental sustainability in school PE?

3. Do you work with environmental sustainability in PE? If yes, in what knowledge areas and in what ways?

4. How do you experience the interest for environmental sustainability among pupils? In what ways does it show?

5. Why do you think environmental issues have difficulties of being expressed in PE? What could strengthen the expressions of environmental sustainability in PE?

It is clear that these PE teachers engage in professional development, as they attended a conference, and engage in ES in PE, as they were interested in participating in a study on this topic. Therefore, they are not considered representative of all PE teachers in Sweden. Nevertheless, we draw conclusions from this group as an example of how and why (or why not) ES can be included in PE. This topic helps bridge and understand the gap between research suggesting that ES fits in PE (Baena-Morales & González-Víllora, 2023; Welch et al., 2021) and research showing it is not obvious for PE teachers to include ES in the subject (Fröberg et al., 2022; Isgren Karlsson & Backman, 2023).

Analysis

The idea to draw from Bernstein’s (1971, 2000) concepts of classification and codes was initiated when the authors visited PE teacher conferences in Sweden and discovered that introducing ES into PE was a struggle because of the overcrowding of content and perspectives in PE. Questions from PE teachers such as ‘Does ES really belong to PE?’ and ‘Why cannot other subjects take responsibility for ES?’ were not uncommon. Based on these experiences, the authors decided to focus on theory related to boundary maintenance around school subjects and principles regulating meaning in school PE. After an abductive process of oscillating between theory and data, the choice of theory was strengthened and confirmed in the first preliminary analysis of the result (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2017).

To map out the richness and complexity of the PE teachers’ perceptions of ES, we formulated a qualitative survey. This enabled us to extend the data collection with structured oral interviews. We found this approach appropriate, as our ambition was to search for ‘a more holistic view’ of the PE teachers’ perceptions of ES being introduced in PE (Cohen & Manion, 1990). Excerpts from the survey are presented as quotes or summarised in the running text, and specific interview persons are named ‘IP’, followed by a number.

The results were thematically analysed using a six-phase model, as described by Braun et al. (2017). An initial process of familiarisation was followed by coding the data while asking theoretically informed and analytical questions such as 'What can PE teachers’ perceptions of the strength of the boundaries surrounding ES in Swedish PE say about its place in Swedish PE?' and 'How do the underlying principles regulating meaning in Swedish PE influence the introduction of ES?' After that, similar codes were clustered together, refined and named. The final step consisted of compiling and editing the themes. Quality in the analysis has been controlled and ensured through multiple interpretations by the three authors and through comments from peers in the field of social science research in sport and PE at two Swedish universities (Kvale, 1996).

Results

The general school policy for primary, secondary and upper secondary school states that ES should be included in the teaching for all subjects (SNAE, 2011; 2022). Despite this, a substantial number of the participants (23 of 60) perceive vague or weak support for ES from the general school curriculum as well as the PE curriculum. This contrasts with a smaller number of the participants (15 of 60) who state that there is support for ES in the general school curriculum and an even smaller part of the participants (13 of 60) who perceive support in a specific knowledge area in the Swedish PE curriculum, namely outdoor education. The intention with presenting these proportions by numbers is by no means to claim absolute measurements but rather to give a backdrop of dominating and marginalised views on the support (or not) for ES in policy documents before further analysing the results thematically (Braun et al., 2017).

RQ1: According to PE teachers, what influences the position and legitimisation of environmental sustainability in PE?

The type and level of policy is decisive

The experience that there is weak support for ES in the policy documents, is, for many participants, likely made with the PE curriculum first in mind and not the general curriculum. This is illustrated by these similar answers: ‘Not much support’ (IP14), ‘Not enough support’ (IP16) and IP17 says it is a matter of interpreting the school documents. Further, one teacher says that ‘I don’t think there is any direct support (…) it seems it is something [in which] you need to read between the lines’ (IP56). ‘Read between the lines’ could mean searching for implicit openings for ES, for example, in relation to formulations regarding health or outdoor education. Following this, another teacher states, ‘I think it could be written more explicitly [in the PE curriculum], perhaps concretise how humans and sports or cultural sport activities impact the environment’ (IP54).

This contrasts with the teachers who express that ES is emphasised in the general curriculum: ‘I think there is a lot of support. ES could easily be related to the PE curriculum’ (IP13) and IP59 states that ‘much of what is important in the general curriculum is reflected in the subject curriculums. Perhaps the environmental perspective in PE does not appear so strongly’. When further discussing this topic, the same teacher also explicitly assigns more value to the PE curriculum compared to the general curriculum: ‘In comparison, sometimes I check the PE curriculum, but I very seldom check the general curriculum’ (IP59). The tendency to give priority to the PE curriculum before the general curriculum is relatively common in our study. One teacher would like this to change.

so that it [the environmental perspective] is not only at an overall level [in the general curriculum] but also appears in the specific [the PE curriculum], to relate to the subject. It would probably help many PE teachers to make these connections. (IP58)

When considering the degree of boundary maintenance surrounding ES in PE, it appears that ES, which is sometimes considered a perspective rather than a content, is not unitary defined as either strongly or weakly classified in the way we have seen other content defined in previous Bernstein-inspired studies of Swedish PE (Backman, 2011; Karlefors, 2002; Lundvall & Meckbach, 2008). Whether or not ES is acknowledged and legitimitised with a strong position in PE depends on a number of issues (which we will see further on in the result), but it is clear that the type and level of the policy document is decisive.

Assessment challenges the educational value

It is apparent that ES is assigned significant value by some of the teachers in this study, as their ideas of teaching about the environment are rich and often related to outdoor practices:

We are biking, canoeing, skiing, hiking, camping with fire and so on. We show that the local area can provide recreation and experiences without travelling and carbon emissions. We are focusing on the ‘Right of Public Access’, the use of simple material for recycling, and for non-expensive activities possible for all. (IP53)

We look into sustainable material consumption, transportation, outdoor recreation (approaches to protect nature), use of energy (hot water and lighting), and we place a BIG emphasis on ergonomics and body awareness. We work with projects to get the pupils to understand to what extent our modern society and technical consumption can be harmful in the long run. (IP49)

These two teachers show a divide between practice and theory. Despite the rich examples of doing practical activities, teaching ES is something that is instead ‘talked about’ relatively often, especially in passing when teaching outdoor education: ‘At school, we have had a week for picking up trash, I talk based on the Right of Public Access. I also talk about how “we take care of the stuff and the equipment we have”’ (IP57, authors’ emphasis). For example, when pupils bring plastic cutlery outdoors, it provides an opportunity to talk about the need to reduce waste in relation to the ecosystem. Hence, ‘the talk’ of environmental issues can follow from practical incidents that prompt reactions related to environmental perspectives.

The theory–practice divide regarding ES must also be viewed in relation to the acknowledged fear that PE will be transformed into a ‘theoretical’ subject. Although this particular group of teachers appears to include ES in their teaching, with rich variation, and consider ES as a legitimate educational content with strong classification (Bernstein, 1971), ES is not seen as a content in which pupils should be assessed and graded. One teacher states that ‘It is rather to tick the box (…) we do not have tests in it [ES], or exams, in PE’ (IP55). Another teacher tells of an individual quiz walk related to the Right of Public Access, which they do not assess anymore. Instead, they have a dialogue with the pupils after the walk.

Interestingly, this group’s position on the legitimacy of ES does not fall in line with previous results of Swedish PE teachers’ account of teaching ES (Fröberg et al., 2022; Isgren Karlsson & Backman, 2023). Further, contemporary discourses of assessment and measurement imbuing educational systems (Biesta, 2009) may lead to content that does not include tasks and assignments to be graded on, which can be difficult to legitimatise in a PE curriculum already overcrowded with content (Annerstedt, 2008; MacPhail & Halbert, 2005). The degree of strength that the classification of ES has in PE seems to differ depending on what perspective is taken.

Pupils’ views matter for legitimacy and status

One topic that appears to matter for the position of ES in PE is pupils’ interest in and approach to this topic. For example, differences between vocational programmes and programmes preparing students for higher education in upper secondary school were described:

I had a class starting Grade 10 with 99% boys. They studied the industrial programme, [and] they are not that interested [in ES]. They want to drive their EPA vehicles; they just want to live life and enjoy the moment. However, if I [were to] teach in the social sciences programme, with pupils that have chosen this because they like to think and reflect upon these issues, they are more often interested and also welcome that kind of task. (IP60)

Another explanatory factor for pupils’ resources in ES, which is related to their choice of study programme in upper secondary school, is socio-economic status (SES), both in terms of cultural and economic capital. One teacher states that ‘socio-economically strong pupils have more knowledge than the weak’ (IP39) and another teacher claims that it ‘depends a lot on the family. Some families discuss environmental issues a lot, and in others, they never talk about it’ (IP22). Value was given to families’ investments in activities attending to environmental issues: ‘If the family spends a lot of time outdoors, perhaps you [can] talk about biking instead of driving to school … [or] “we walk instead of going by car”’ (IP55). In addition, the teachers share varied experiences about interest in ES relating to age. We find no tendency that interest in ES is greater in younger or older pupils; however, the teachers argue that older pupils are more aware about the issue, while younger people seem to have a more natural care for nature, regardless of interest.

The results from this study indicate that pupils’ views on content can play a role for the status and legitimacy of ES in educational contexts. The differences became particularly obvious in the teachers’ expressions regarding interest of ES among pupils at different study programmes in upper secondary school, where SES becomes homogeneous compared to lower grades.

A summary of how PE teachers perceive the position and legitimisation of ES in PE

Regarding classification (Bernstein, 1971), the results from this study are not uniform regarding strengths and weaknesses. On the contrary, the results, which are illustrated in Table 1, display a complexity depending on the perspective taken. While the aforementioned quotes show nuances in the teachers’ perceptions, Table 1 shows dominant tendencies, which in total, illuminate the tensions on the continuum between weak and strong.

Table 1. PE teachers’ perceptions of the position and legitimisation of ES in PE.

	Strong classification	Either strong or weak classification	Weak classification
The position of ES in the PE curriculum			X
The position of ES in the general curriculum		X
Participants’ implementation of ES in PE practice	X
Participants’ view of ES as content for assessment			X
The status of ES among low SES pupils			X
The status of ES among high SES pupils	X

Table 1 illustrates that the absence of formulations regarding ES in the PE curriculum indicate weak classification, while the emphasis of ES in the general curriculum (which is to permeate all school subjects) could, on one hand, be interpreted as a strong classification. On the other hand, almost half of the participants stated weak support for ES in any policy, which leads to our assessment of ES in the general curriculum in the middle of weak and strong classification. Further, while the participating teachers have ideas about what and how to implement ES, which could be viewed as a sign of strong classification, it is not valued in terms of educational content that is to be assessed (i.e. weak classification). Finally, this study indicates that the degree of classification of ES can depend on pupils’ view of its status and legitimacy. Obviously, there are differences with regard to pupils’ SES and their choice of study programme at upper secondary school. We will return to this complex picture of the classification of ES in the discussion.

RQ2: According to PE teachers, how does the subject culture of Swedish PE influence the introduction of environmental sustainability?

Presuppositions about outdoor education determine the implementation

In Sweden, outdoor education as an educational content is positioned within the PE context. It holds a strong position in policy documents, although its implementation in teaching practice has during the past few decades been reported to be weak (Backman, 2011). A strong impression from our study is that the PE teachers think that if ES should be included in PE, then it should ‘belong’ to outdoor education. One teacher states that ‘I think that more outdoor trips in nature would automatically contribute to more space for environmental issues’ (IP13) and another teacher expresses that ‘there is an emphasis on sustainability, and, particularly for PE, outdoor education is most tangible’ (IP4).

Several teachers mention that being outside when teaching about ES is the most ‘natural’ setting for the subject, and the fact that a large part of the subject takes place in indoor sport facilities make environmental issues difficult to connect to. One teacher states that ‘the subject has a history of teaching much of the contents in sport halls, and that this fact is the reason to why environmental issues are unusual in PE’ (IP54). However, one teacher claims that environmental issues have a ‘connection to sports through all facilities and so on. You use different artificial turf pitches or different kinds of material in different sports that can impact the environment in various ways’ (IP43). Ideas about working with ES in relation to indoor sports and indoor facilities were rarely expressed, but nevertheless, this important exception highlights and expands options for what practices are possible in PE.

In their talk of ES as closely related to outdoor education, several of the teachers relate to principle of the Right of Public Access: ‘When we teach in outdoor education and the Right of Public Access, we are talking about what kind of place this is. Why is it important to protect?’ (IP38). The Right of Public Access is stated a criterion that all Swedish pupils should learn about in compulsory school, and this can be seen as an indirect way to emphasise ES in Swedish PE (SNAE, 2022) and as a support for PE teachers who want to promote ES.

‘New’ content makes visible the inflexible subject culture of PE

The introduction of a ‘new’ perspective in PE, such as ES, brings to the fore questions of what knowledge is considered more important. The limited time and crowding of content in the subject (Annerstedt, 2008; MacPhail & Halbert, 2005) means that ES competes with many other perspectives and content in PE. One teacher finds support in both curriculums and teaches ES but explains that ‘we PE teachers probably put more effort and time into various kinds of activities and movement. The environmental perspective feels like “theory” and is considered “boring” and troublesome to teach’ (IP13). Furthermore, there is marginalised space for ES because the smorgasboard has too much on it: ‘Much must be taught. We need to see progression and assess. Environmental issues are put in the periphery’ (IP3). Much of the content that ES is up against has long histories and more well-established positions: ‘The subject is called physical education, and much of the time shall be dedicated to activities, games and plays’ (IP48). Ideas about physical activity and movement as a core and essence of PE is expressed as overweighing other content. Several teachers claim that is why those parts have a bigger focus.

What is evident from this study is that ES not only has to make space for itself in an overcrowded PE curriculum and in the teaching practice but also has the wrong character, as it is considered too ‘theoretical’, at least in the views of the teachers interviewed. These notions of what ES is and what it is not (i.e. physical activity and movement), as well as notions of ‘what works’ in PE, raise questions of the underlying and meaning-making principles in PE. The following quotation contains many possible reasons for why it might be difficult to implement ‘new’ perspectives and/or content in PE:

Historically, it is a limitation for PE that it is expected to be a certain way. You are [supposed] to do sports and get really sweaty each time, and that this is what the subject is for. And … not only that, there is a culture among people in large, my colleagues at school also think that PE is [just] a way to become [physically] active … and the PE facilities are mostly located outside of the school building, so the pupils leave the school and are expected to do something else [i.e. besides intellectual and cognitive work in other school subjects]. (IP56)

If PE teachers do not ‘deliver’ what is expected from a subject culture shaped by physical activity and sport discourses, these sidesteps (which could involve introducing students to ‘new’ and socially critical content and/or perspectives such as ES) may draw some attention. Bernstein (1990) uses the concept of code to illuminate that educational systems have regulative principles ‘which select and integrate: relevant meanings, forms of their realisation and evoking contexts’ (p. 14). Depending on the character of the content, introducing a subject might be smooth and easy or slow and difficult. In the following discussion of these findings, we turn to the concept of performance code, which has been proven particularly useful for discussing regulative and underlying principles in PE (Evans & Davies, 2006).

Discussion

In the following, we will first turn to the concept of classification for a discussion of the complexity regarding the strength of the boundaries that surround ES in PE and what this complexity might offer in terms of enablers and constraints. Second, we will turn to the concept of code to discuss if and how the underlying and meaning-making principles enable ES in Swedish PE.

The complex classification of environmental sustainability in PE

Unlike some other Bernstein-inspired studies of Swedish PE which display an unambiguously strong or weak classification (Backman, 2011; Isgren Karlsson & Backman, 2023; Karlefors, 2002; Lundvall & Meckbach, 2008), this study brings more complexity to the picture (see Table 1). To understand this complexity, Penney (2013) urges us to pay attention to subcategories within a subject, which means noticing the relationship between the subcategories of content. In other words, to understand the position of ES in PE, we must consider the legitimacy and status of other subject content in PE. According to Larsson and Karlefors (2015), ‘training the body, winning the game, learning sporting skills or learning to dance’ (p. 573) are highly valued logics of practice in Swedish PE. In another study, Karlefors (2002) states that ‘PE is strongly classified, and its content, consisting of sport activities, does not appear to be questioned’ (p. 161, authors’ translation). Placed next to strongly classified sport activities, ES appears to have limited impact in Swedish PE. Nevertheless, according to some teachers in this study, when ES teaching occurs, it is described as obvious, needed, and with a natural place in outdoor education.

As this study shows, teachers’ views of the status and legitimacy of content in PE and the relationship between different content might also be influenced by pupils’ views. The teachers express that pupils’ different levels of knowledge in ES and their appreciation of this content varies according to their sociocultural and socioeconomical background. According to Bernstein (1971), language in strongly classified educational subjects tends to favour children who are brought up in academic and middle-class environments in which they acquire cultural capital. It might be that the conceptualisation of ES in educational contexts can become a carrier of power and control (Aldous & Brown, 2010) in certain groups of pupils (those who are privileged), whereas its classification might be weaker among the not so privileged groups of pupils. This further highlights that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ teaching model with regards to ES and the need for more socio-critical studies of which groups of pupils that have the resources to acquire ES teaching.

When considering the classification of subject content, the formulations in the curricula’s policy documents are vital. Swedish PE teachers appear to consider the subject-specific PE curriculum to have more specific requirements compared to the general school curriculum (Isgren Karlsson & Backman, 2023). This leads to the question, why do Swedish PE teachers consider formulations regarding ES in the general school curriculum (SNAE, 2022) to be optional rather than obligatory (the latter seems to be the case with content in the PE curriculum)? From the introduction of digital technology in Swedish PE, we know that changes in the PE curriculum can have a direct impact on the implemented teaching (Isgren Karlsson et al., 2023). However, the Swedish National Agency for Education (SNAE) has made clear that including more contemporary perspectives (such as ES) in subject-specific curricula is not achievable due to the crowding of content (personal communication with PE representatives at SNAE; see also Annerstedt, 2008; MacPhail & Halbert, 2005). In the conclusion, we will address potential options if ES is to become a part of PE.

Environmental sustainability’s struggle against the performance code in PE

In addition to the contribution of the classification concept, we have also found Bernstein’s concept of code to bring clarity when trying to understand the place of ES in PE. In particular, the way Evans and Davies (2006) use competence code and performance code is of interest. With performance code, they refer to a pedagogical model with distinct subject boundaries, while competence code refers to a pedagogical model that includes thematic projects and interdisciplinary knowledge areas. Evans and Davies (2006) suggest that the performance code permeates PE in terms of a dominating logic of ranking and separation. Tinning (1991) claimed early on that physical education teacher education (PETE), which can be considered one of the producers of PE, promotes performance pedagogy before postmodern pedagogy. By this, he meant that the focus on performance and physical achievements in PETE is at the expense of critical issues (which ES could be seen as an expression of) in PE. Further, Evans and Davies (1997) emphasised early on that the debate on the PE curriculum ‘has been framed not in terms of the needs of pupils, nor the development of the subject but, rather, in terms of the needs of the economy, social order, elite performance and the interests of sport’ (p. 187).

From this early work on PE, we might ask if there is space for codes other than those that are performance- and elite-sport oriented, such as those dealing with critical issues? According to the teachers in this study, it is relevant to include ES, but in what way is not obvious. Should it be a permeating perspective taught as an ongoing dialogue where it fits? Or should it be a specific subject content taught, examined and assessed as other content? When looking at the history of Swedish PE, the gender perspective has developed and established itself during the last 50–60 years. From a context where the logic of separating men and woman, as well as the male priority of interpretation, was more a rule than an exception, Swedish PE today has developed into gender equality being more or less a taken-for-granted perspective. As suggested by Isgren Karlsson and Backman (2023), perhaps ES has to make the same journey as gender equality has made in all school subjects, including PE? In the particular group of PE teachers in this study, some of the teachers seem to have taken steps in that journey.

Conclusion

The ambiguity to the question of whether or not ES should be included in PE that is raised in the title of the paper is perhaps more a matter of where (in what content areas) and how rather than if. The results highlight the strong connection between outdoor education and its potential for teaching ES and send a message about PE as a whole. As previous research emphasises, outdoor education in PE contributes with a holistic, health-oriented and collaborative view of learning (Baena-Morales & González-Víllora, 2023; Mikaels, 2018; Sandell & Öhman, 2010; Welch et al., 2021), which, in many ways, contrast to the logics of competition, ranking and physical achievement in several other content areas in PE. Instead, these values of outdoor practices are similar to those built into the environmental perspective (Sandell & Öhman, 2010). If ES became a part of several different content areas in PE and not just outdoor education, it could be an alternative to the taken-for-granted logic of sportification, which permeates a substantial part of the subject. If issues connected to ES are exclusively taught in outdoor education, there is a risk that it will be ‘business as usual’, with no potential for change and development in all the other areas of PE.

With regard to the how-question, one option could be to take on the suggestion from Olive and Enright (2021) of ‘a more generous reading’ and of ‘implicit articulations’ (p. 397) in the PE policy documents. It might also be worth considering if adjustment to the prevailing assessment discourse (c.f. Penney, 2013), meaning giving pupils assessment tasks in PE, including ES issues, is an option to gain legitimacy in the school PE context. Other ways of creating change could mean striving towards bottom-up governing (i.e. requiring the PE teachers to transform their own subject) rather than top-down governing through more policy formulations (Isgren Karlsson & Backman, 2023). In our endeavour to bring clarity to how PE teachers relate to ES, the little and outdated knowledge of the extent and forms that ES is actually taught calls for an urgent need of more studies in this area. In addition to this, more attention could be paid to how perspectives on ES relate to conceptualisations of humans and nature in PE.

Acknowledgements

We wish to express our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Stiftelsen för Miljöstrategisk Forskning .