Physical Education in Norwegian Primary Schooling: Physical Learning Activities for Bildung or Just Fun?

• In Event: Aesthetic and Practical Curriculum Subjects in Modern Primary Schooling: Nice or Just Necessary?

Abstract

Norwegian PE has three main subject areas in grade 1-7, “Physical Activity in various Environments and Settings”, “Sports and dance” and “Outdoor life”. A Norwegian research review on PE as a curriculum subject, describe research based knowledge as "very deficient" (Jonskås 2010).

How do teachers report and valuate the situation for PE (including dance) in grades 1-7 in Norway? And how do the Norwegian situation compare to the international picture of PE as a primary school curriculum subject?

Our quantitative data are responses from practicing teachers taking part in a multi-subject national online survey in Norway (primary schools). Answers were analyzed using SPSS and discussed in a multi-subject research group.

Theoretical perspectives are inspired by practice theory (Handal and Lauvås 1999), Bildung theories (Klafki 2001), curriculum theory (Shulman 1986) and theories underpinning relational pedagogy (Biesta 2006, Gergen 2009).

In this paper we present findings of primary school teachers' perceptions and priorities related to PE contents. One main finding is that teachers implement many contents area, including widely different activities such as sports, traditional games, outdoor life, dance and winter sports. Some of these areas are significantly less established than others, e.g. dance and outdoor life.

Teachers value “fun and play and the social dimension”, “fitness and health” and “learning of motor skills” as the most important justifications for physical education. “Competitions in various sports” is the least valued dimension of PE followed by “the development of creativity and aesthetic competence”.

In 2009 the authorities introduced “physical activity” as a compulsory school activity in its own right in order to improve health and well-being for all students in grade 5-7. This is not included in PE as a curriculum discipline, and thus apparently not intended to be a part of academic learning and achievement. This instrumental health perspective has caused concerns about the position of PE as a curriculum subject where the learning of motor skills is the central “Bildung” dimension.

On the one hand our findings suggest that the Norwegian Model for Primary Education does not serve the learning goals of PE as described in the national curriculum in a satisfactory way. On the other hand it can be argued that relational and social aspects of PE, as a curriculum subject for all, are more important than subject “Bildung” goals. The classroom teacher model can also be one of the reasons why teachers do not report PE as a marginalized curriculum subject.

In any case our findings could be instrumental in arguing that the Norwegian Model for Primary Education needs to be debated and refined if the intentions of the national curriculum are to be taken seriously.

Hardman & Marshall (2005) report in “An Update on the Status of PE in Schools World Wide”, a widespread pessimism in many countries linked to the future of PE. We do not find strong support for this pessimism in Norwegian Primary Schools.

Authors

• Helga Aadland, Stord Haugesund University College

• Trond Egil Arnesen, Stord Haugesund University College