Search

: A focus on equity, democracy and social justice in HPE is pertinent in an era where there are growing concerns about the impact of neoliberal globalisation and precariousness of society (Kirk 2020). Although there is advocacy for teaching approaches in HPE that address issues of social justice, there is limited empirical research of teachers enacting critical pedagogies in HPE classrooms. : To identify school HPE teaching practices that promote social justice through practical enactment across three different participating countries. : The investigation involved classroom observations of and post-lesson interviews with 13 purposively selected high school health and physical education teachers from three different countries. A total of 20 HPE lessons were observed. The participants included seven male and six female teachers ranging in age from 25 to 55 years with between 3- and 25-years teaching experience. The setting for data collection was compulsory co-educational practical HPE classes with 13-15-year-old students in four schools in New Zealand, four schools in Sweden and three schools in Norway. : This study employed Critical Incident Technique (CIT) methodology (Flanagan 1954), involving data collection through exploratory observations and stimulated-recall interviews (Lyle 2003). The classroom observations focused on identifying incidents that appeared to be addressing issues of social justice. The use of a multi-national observer team was a key principle of the study and was based on the proposition that local researchers familiar with context come with taken-for-granted assumptions about teachers' practices. Data were analysed through a six-phase thematic analysis approach (Braun and Clarke 2013). This involved three stages: individually, collectively by the researchers in each country, and finally through the whole multi-national research team. : The data analysis resulted in three primary themes; (1) relationships, (2) teaching for social cohesion, and (3) explicitly teaching about and acting on social inequities. This paper uses critical pedagogy as a lens to report on the third theme. In this paper, we present three subthemes; (1) Teaching as 'equity not equality', (2) promoting marginalised groups (3) and teacher critical reflection as examples of explicit critical pedagogies taking action for social justice in HPE. : Although, the findings presented in this paper are examples of explicit teacher actions that aim to address social inequity, we suggest that teaching for social justice requires teachers to take action on social inequities and also to teach about social injustice to prepare students to become agents for change and act on social inequities themselves, beyond HPE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physical education (PE) and physical education teacher education (PETE) have a substantial literature base that advocates for students to develop a critical consciousness, appreciate multiple perspectives, and engage in actions to enhance social justice [Tinning, R. 2016. "Transformative Pedagogies and Physical Education." In The Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogies, edited by C. Ennis, 281-294. New York: Routledge]. Analysing sociocultural issues, critically reflecting on beliefs, knowledge, biography, and values, and developing a sense of agency to enact change, have been recognised as an integral part of the PETE knowledge base for some time [Fernández-Balboa, J. M. 1997. "Physical Education Teacher Preparation in the Postmodern era: Toward a Critical Pedagogy." In Critical Postmodernism in Human Movement, Physical Education, and Sport, edited by J. M. Fernández-Balboa, 121-138. Albany: State University of New York Press]. However, there remain differences in how social justice itself is conceptualised and enacted. Social justice is aligned heavily with critical and 'post' theories where taking action for justice, democracy, and power is central; but social justice is also found in humanist beliefs in student-centredness and equality and has been co-opted by neoliberal forces that promote individual responsibility. While a lack of consensus is not in itself a problem [Bialystok, L. 2014. "Politics Without "Brainwashing": A Philosophical Defence of Social Justice Education." Curriculum Inquiry 44 (3): 413-440], diverse definitions might contribute to confusion and lead to uncertainty over what and how to teach for social justice. Purpose: In order to work towards greater certainty around concepts of social justice in the PETE community, this project sought to map variations in definition and conceptualisation of social justice and sociocultural issues among physical education teacher educators (PETEs) and physical education and sport pedagogy (PESP) educators, as part of a wider project on social justice and sociocultural perspectives and practices in PETE. Methods: PETE and PESP faculty (n = 72) in North America, Europe, and Australasia engaged in an in-depth interview, during which they were asked how they define social justice and sociocultural issues. Additional information about participants' social identity was collected. A constant comparative method of analysing participants' definitions mapped a range of concepts building on the theoretical framework of neoliberal, humanist, critical, and 'post' approaches to social justice. Findings: The data demonstrate that there are a range of understandings about sociocultural issues and social justice. Most commonly, some participants articulated a humanist approach to social justice by encouraging their pre-service teachers (PSTs) to have awareness of equality of opportunity in relation to gender, sexuality, and/or racism. Less prevalent, but strongly stated by those who conceptualised social justice in these terms, was the importance to take action for democracy, empowerment, or critical reflection. The terms diversity and equality, framed in neoliberal and humanist discourses, were most commonly used within the United States (US), while critical pedagogy and alignment with critical and 'post' theoriesweremore prevalent in Australia and NewZealand. Conclusion: Differences exist in the ways social justice is conceptualised in PETE. While this can be attributed to the influence of local issues, it is also reflective of what intellectual tools, such as humanism or critical theory, are available for problematising social issues. The range of non-critical concepts found raises concern that PSTs are not getting the tools to enact social justice or tackle sociocultural issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]