Discourses of resistance: pre-service teachers’ reflections on the challenges of inclusion in physical education

ABSTRACT

Scholars have identified a need for more learner-centred pedagogical practices as one way to facilitate more inclusive learning in physical education (PE). In this regard teacher education plays an important part through the preparation of future teachers. Yet, disrupting pre-service teachers’ prior values or beliefs to transform PE, has proven difficult. Grounded in critical pedagogical perspectives and discursive psychology, the current study enquired into the following question: What discourses of resistance can be identified in PE pre-service teachers’ written reflections on the challenges of inclusion and the need for changed pedagogical practices in PE? The sample in this qualitative research comprised 11 PE pre-service teachers enrolled in a general teacher education programme, and the analytical approach involved textual analysis of reflection notes written by the pre-service teachers. The findings highlighted two discourses of inclusion (‘More gender inclusive PE is needed’, and ‘PE practices must embrace diversity’) and two discourses of resistance (‘Resistance to PE transformation’, and ‘Resistance to gender diversity in PE’). Drawing on discourses such as the assertion that education is better suited for girls, the students expressed resistance towards accommodating girls’ need in PE, with the use of interpretive repertoires such as ‘gender differences are natural and inevitable’ or ‘boys need PE because girls do better in other subjects’. Secondly, referring to discursive understandings of a general openness towards gender diversity in society, they exhibited resistance against breaking the gender binary in PE in fear of confusing vulnerable youth. Thus, although the pre-service teachers challenged how gender is reproduced through PE practice, their perspectives remained within a cis-normative frame of reference. We argue that with increased understanding of how pre-service teachers rehearse and reproduce interpretative repertoires in their written assignments, teacher educators are better equipped to help students develop their critical thoughts and arguments.

KEYWORDS:

• Cis-normativity
• discourse
• discursive psychology
• gender
• inclusion
• interpretative repertoires
• physical education
• resistance
• physical education teacher education

Introduction

Questions regarding inclusive learning in diverse societies has puzzled many educational scholars (e.g. Aasebø, 2021; Azzarito et al., 2017; Drury et al., 2022; Fitzpatrick & McGlashan, 2016). Physical education (PE) research has repeatedly demonstrated how exclusion is related to aspects of social identities, such as gender, sexuality, (dis)ability, race and socioeconomic status (e.g. Azzarito et al., 2017; Evans & Davies, 2010; Haegele & Sutherland, 2015; Neary & McBride, 2021; Thorjussen, 2021; Wilhelmsen et al., 2019). For instance, with respect to gender and/or sexuality, scholars argue that PE and sport, are built on heteronormativity and binary gender structures, being particularly excluding spaces for young trans and gender diverse people (Neary & McBride, 2021). To meet some of these challenges, a need for more student/learner-centred pedagogies (e.g. co-determination, developing critical thinking and problem solving) is emphasised throughout the literature (Larsson et al., 2021; Mitchell et al., 2015; Oliver & Kirk, 2015; Walseth et al., 2018).

Socially exclusive structures can be challenged by preparing future teachers through PE teacher education (PETE) (Wright, 2002). The problem is that although directions for how to make PE a more inclusive space have been identified, disrupting pre-service teachers’ values or beliefs regarding the body, health, physical activity or approaches to teaching the subject have proven difficult (Curtner-Smith, 2007; Ferry & McCaughtry, 2015; Philpot et al., 2021). This difficulty can be understood by considering the discourses and ways of thinking that circulate at a certain time and place (Wright, 2002). An Australian study by Wrench and Garrett (2017) illuminated that pre-service teachers draw heavily on sporting discourses when constructing their subjectivities as PE teachers, and that these discourses are used to establish certain forms of masculinity and male bodies as the norm in PE. In the context of Norway, Standal and Moen (2017) found that pre-service teachers engaged in practicum adeptly base their reflections on their values, but they struggle with reflecting over different values. These findings are important in critical studies which intend to challenge students with respect to this mindset. A failure to challenge students’ ‘pre-text[s]’ (Oliver & Oesterreich, 2013, p. 398)—the values, beliefs and experiences that shape their understanding of how PE should be taught—reproduces marginalising education structures.

How, then, can PETE better prepare students to meet the challenges of inclusion in PE? This study contributes to the scholarship exploring students’ thoughts and reflections while engaging in a university course on critical pedagogy (e.g. Curtner-Smith, 2007; Gerdin et al., 2018; Oliver & Oesterreich, 2013; Philpot et al., 2021), with an emphasis on student-centered didactical approaches for teaching PE. Whereas previous studies tended to focus on whether students change, we concentrated on gaining knowledge about students’ resistance when facing critical perspectives on how to create more inclusive pedagogical practices in PE. We drew on discursive psychology to illuminate the following question: What discourses of resistance can be identified in PE pre-service teachers’ written reflections on the challenges of inclusion and the need for changed pedagogical practices in PE? Applying a discourse analytical lens provides insight to how the language people use can have unintentional consequences through creating certain practices (Wetherell & Potter, 1988). By shedding light on competing discourses that might prevent certain views or practices from gaining a foothold, this research enhances our understanding of ‘what makes PE and its practices so resistant to change’ (Gerdin & Pringle, 2022, p. 3).

Alfrey and O’Connor (2020) asserted that implementing critical pedagogy necessitates that teachers have a desire to change practices. In the present research, we endeavoured to enable the participating PE pre-service teachers to express their sentiments about the need for change by allowing them to choose a topic which they wanted to delve into. This cleared the way for them to draw on their own experiences and specific interests in their reflections. All but one chose to focus on challenges related to gender and/or sexuality in PE (see the Methods section).

The challenges of inclusion and current pedagogical practices

This section provides a brief outline of the literature regarding gender, sexuality and PE, as well as pedagogical implications. Considerations related to in/exclusion and gender and/or sexuality in PE have been on research agendas for decades, yet they remain unsolved in many areas (Oliver & Kirk, 2015). We will elaborate upon two fields of research that are of particular importance and interest in understanding the context that the students navigated in the current study. Firstly, we consider some examples of studies grounded in material/categorical and structural approaches, and issues related to equal opportunities (Scraton, 2018). Secondly, we look into post-structural, critical and queer theoretical studies, with consideration for PE as a space where students are allowed or denied the opportunity to perform diverse gender identities.

Categorical approaches focus on issues of equal opportunities in PE, in most cases between girls/females and boys/males. These approaches are directed towards, for instance, whether there is a difference in perceived learning environment (e.g. Laxdal & Giske, 2020; Mitchell et al., 2015), well-being (e.g. Säfvenbom et al., 2015) or grading (e.g. Jansson et al., 2022; Lagestad, 2017; Marmeleira et al., 2020) among these groups. In a mapping study, Lagestad (2017) found that boys’ average grades in PE are significantly better than those of girls and that more than twice as many boys than girls receive the top grade. Categorical research importantly maps out patterns of inequality—an endeavour extended by structural studies, which investigate how hierarchical power structures are embedded in institutions and PE. Since the 1960s, scholars have argued that dominant PE practices are heavily influenced by a sporting culture that favours heterosexual and male values and thereby disadvantages girls (e.g. Flintoff & Scraton, 2001; Larsson et al., 2009; Preece & Bullingham, 2020; With-Nielsen & Pfister, 2011). Indeed, the volume of research reporting on gender inequality and girls’ marginalisation in PE led Oliver and Kirk (2015, p. 13) to label this situation as ‘the same old story’ and a ‘reproduction and recycling of a dominant narrative’. The researchers called for new and/or different approaches to teaching and research that ensure more inclusive PE.

One solution suggested by several scholars is to apply more student-centred approaches (e.g. Enright & O’Sullivan, 2010; Fisette, 2013; Mitchell et al., 2015; Oliver & Kirk, 2015; Sánchez-Hernández et al., 2018). For example, the activist approach developed on the basis of Oliver and Lalik’s (2001) work facilitates inclusion by helping girls identify barriers to participation and including them in co-constructions of curricula. Despite the approach being designed for and with girls, studies have also highlighted how boys have benefitted from a more student-centred pedagogy in PE (Walseth et al., 2018).

Drawing attention to the different needs of girls and boys in PE, as has been done in much categorical and structural research, can reproduce the hegemonic beliefs of a gender binary (Dowling, 2008). In other words, a common understanding that PE provides or should provide gender-equal educational experiences in modern societies does not necessarily prevent practices from operating within or being permeated by structures of inequality (Larsson et al., 2014). Researchers have pointed out that PE continues to close opportunities to alternative orientations (Landi, 2018; lisahunter, 2019). This concern has been echoed in explorations of how students’ inclusion experiences are related to differences in their gender and/or sexual identities (Neary & McBride, 2021). Two literature reviews on PE participation among LGBTQ + students illuminated that these groups generally have negative experiences (Herrick & Duncan, 2022; Müller & Böhlke, 2021). Both of the reviews reported overall findings that students commonly encounter harassment or homo/transphobia and that they are measured against heterosexual gender norms. Finally, students experience certain problematic PE practices, such as gender segregation in activities or changing room situations (Berg & Kokkonen, 2022).

In cases of failure to create a space where students can perform gender in diverse ways, researchers applying post-structural approaches underscore the need to pursue pedagogical practices that ‘[undo] gender’, exercise queering and ‘[unstraighten]’ in PE (Drury et al., 2022; Fitzpatrick & McGlashan, 2016; Gerdin & Larsson, 2018; Hills & Croston, 2012; Larsson et al., 2009; Larsson et al., 2014; Larsson et al., 2021; lisahunter, 2019). For instance, Larsson et al. (2021) compared students in two juggling classes, one class that had strong gender norms (e.g. boys doing gender by moving freely, taking up space or throwing objects through the gym during PE class, and few occasions of learning in gender-mixed groups/pairs) and one with weak gender norms (both genders occupy the gym, several occasions of learning in gender-mixed groups/pairs). They identified how tight class management combined with an explorative pedagogical approach contributed to undo gender, as it provided a clear focus on the different learning tasks and less room for students act out and reproduce gender norms during class. Larsson et al. (2014) examined and discussed which conditions contribute to teachers’ efforts to challenge gender norms. Based on the results the scholars argue teachers need to create situations wherein heteronorms are obvious, equip the students with the tools to challenge cultural norms and encourage them to interrupt practice. They also emphasise that teachers must be armed with the tools needed to manage students’ interruptions. In their particular case this involved knowledge on how heteronorms can play out during a PE dance lesson.

Notwithstanding the insights derived from an increasing number of studies in the post-structural domain, researchers continue to disclose how both research and practice fail to meaningfully engage with debates surrounding gender identity and sexuality in PE (Landi et al., 2020; lisahunter, 2019). In applying discursive psychology as our analytical framework, we uncovered some of the hidden gender biases in students’ reflections regarding the challenges of inclusion and the need for changed pedagogical practises in PE.

Discursive psychology

The analytical perspective informing this research is grounded in discursive psychology (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, pp. 96–134), particularly in a strand that unites post-structuralist and interactionist viewpoints (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 104). Discursive psychology revolves around language use, which is considered context bound or occasioned. People understand and categorise the world in non-universal ways, and their understandings are ‘historically and socially specific’ (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 99). Discursive psychology views attitudes, values and identities as social constructs and outcomes of social (inter)action. Discourse is comprehended in a broad sense as ‘all types of verbal interaction and written text’ (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 7), as well as ‘meanings, conversations, narratives, explanations, accounts, and anecdotes’ (Wetherell & Potter, 1992, p. 3). Discourse does not describe the world but creates it. In this sense, pre-service teachers’ reflections on PE practice are not mere descriptions of what has taken place during class, but words that contribute to the production of experiences and their meanings (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 103).

According to Wetherell and Potter (1988), everyday language use is rooted in interpretative repertoires, which are recognisable language terms used in a ‘specific stylistic and grammatical fashion’ (p. 172). Examples are ‘everybody loves PE’ (narrative) or ‘girls do not want to get sweaty during PE’ (stereotype). These repertoires are used by people to construct certain kinds of realities (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 107). Thus, paying attention to variations in peoples’ talks or writings is important. These variations can be identified by examining how people might contradict themselves in different situations. For instance, a PE pre-service teacher in dialogue with her friends can draw on the narrative that ‘everybody loves PE’ as a basis for her choice of profession while also expressing concerns about certain children being excluded and not enjoying PE in discussion with her peers.

People are both subjects of discourse and agents that reproduce or change social and cultural worlds (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 110). Not all, however, have the same discursive resources. The same holds for prevailing discursive practices in PE (competitive sport, weight on skills and skill development), in which not all learners can identify as ‘good/able students’ (Aasland et al., 2020). Analyses based on discursive psychology look into practices such as accounts of self, experiences or events and how these practices are established as solid in contrast to competing accounts, which are ‘exposed as false and biased’ (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 108). To provide an analytical tool for understanding why some people can draw on certain discourses while others cannot, as well as why certain versions of ‘realities’ might repress others, Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) conceptualised the ‘order of discourse’ (p. 141). This concept clears the way for exploration that ‘reads between the lines’ to identify alternative, and in some cases silent, accounts. The current project started by identifying dominant discourses of inclusion before searching for competing discourses that can contribute to our understanding of resistance to change in PE.

Methods

This qualitative study was designed to add to extant knowledge of how PETE can better prepare future teachers to engage in inclusive practices in diverse societies. We conducted document analysis, group conversations and field observations involving 11 PETE students in a general teacher education programme.¹ Data consisted of the students’ written lesson plans and reflection notes, the first author’s field notes and transcripts of 19 group conversations. Our focus was directed to the reflection notes because they contained long, undisrupted accounts that cast light on the discursive recourses from which the students drew in their argumentations (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 121). As the focus of the article is not to provide insight to the relationship between the students’ gendered identities and discourses of resistance, but to illuminate the discourses of resistance in themselves, we have chosen not to include information regarding gender identities in the paper. We will return to this matter in our discussion of how research might reproduce a cis-heteronormative way of thinking.

The reflection notes were written as part of a PE course (30 ETCS credits) in the students’ third year. They were instructed to immerse themselves in a self-selected topic and read a research article dealing with issues of inclusion and/or diversity in PE. They were provided with a list of articles to choose from or allowed to find an article by themselves. The article list revolved around a broad spectrum of topics, such as PE and the inclusion of children with disabilities, PE and ethnicity, PE and social class and PE and gender (Appendix 1). For a close link to the national PE curriculum, we ensured that the selections were as far as possible from a Norwegian PE context. All but one student (Cameron) chose to read articles on gender and/or sexuality and PE. Table 1 gives an overview of the articles read by the students.

Table 1. Overview of articles.

Participants	Research article	Purpose	Theoretical perspective	Main findings
Kai, Nickie, Billie, Alex and Ellis	Engebretsen et al. (2020), Walseth et al. (2018)^a	The overall study from which these two articles arose investigated how a group of students respond to the implementation of the activist approach. Engebretsen et al. focused exclusively on girls’ experiences, whereas Walseth et al. included the experiences of boys in determining whether the approach can be used in co-educational PE.	The activist approach developed by Oliver and Kirk (2015)	Engebretsen et al. found that the activist approach provides positive experiences that increase girls’ well-being and learning outcomes. These positive experiences stem from working with learning partners, being given opportunities for co-determination and the organisation of PE in ways that decrease visibility. Walseth et al. showed that working with the activist approach creates a safer class environment and broadens students’ perspectives about what is possible for them in PE. The activist approach seems to engender the greatest improvement for students who previously disliked PE.
Jo	Lagestad (2017)	The author investigated whether boys’ domination in PE influences high school grades in the subject in favour of this gender.	General ideas about gender equality and equivalence	This quantitative study revealed that boys’ average grades in PE are significantly better than those of girls. Twice as many boys as girls receive top marks.
Cameron	Moen and Rugseth (2018)	The study identified what perspectives regarding the body are present in policy documents and PE curricula.	Views of the body as object and the body as subject	Policy documents and the overall introduction to PE curricula enable a broad and holistic understanding of the body. Human bodies create, sense and experience. However, curriculum goals tend to convey instrumentalist understandings of the body as an object to maintain and develop through physical exercise.
Layne and Jules	Elvebakk et al. (2018)	The study investigated the relationship among body, body pressure and social media (SoMe) among young people. The project was carried out in secondary school and had an interdisciplinary scope that included PE and the Norwegian language.	Theory related to the concept of critical literacy	Both boys and girls express stereotypic body ideals (girls = slim or slim and fit/with certain shapes, boys = muscular). Young people admit being more strongly influenced by peers than SoMe and, at the same time, seem to be caught up in dominant discourses of femininity and masculinity. The study highlighted the complexity of media texts and the difficulty that young people experience in executing critical literary reading.
Max	Engelsrud (2021)	The study was mainly theoretical and presented ideas about how societal and political aspects/conditions affect what gender is and will be. The aim of the study was to challenge current thinking regarding gender and how it is understood in PE.	Insights into the difference between sex and gender; several gender theories, including gender as something we become (de Beauvoir), gender as something we do (Butler) and intersectional perspectives	Teachers or teacher-students are challenged to ascertain their preconceptions regarding gender, to be open to gender diversity and to use gender theory as a bases for dialogue with their students.
Jesse	Larsson et al. (2014)	The study outlined how prevailing gender structures can be challenged in PE by exploring queer potential in an educational incident involving traditional dance.	Foucault and the concept of heterotopia, which can be understood as a counter-site for resistance to authority and challenging the production of normalcy; the concept of ‘teaching paradoxically’ to grasp teaching in a queer fashion	Video recordings of a single PE lesson comprehensively showed how students challenged current practices of learning a traditional Folk dance. The girls interrupted the lesson by indicating that they could not dance with boys because they were lesbian. The teacher listened to the girls’ concerns, acknowledging their efforts in bringing the discussion to the class and admitting that he had been haunted by his heterosexual norms. The article concludes with an outline of conditions that need to be considered to teach paradoxically.

^a Engebretsen et al. (2020) and Walseth et al. (2018) are developed from the same study and have some similarities. The articles were therefore presented together in the table.

To guide the students through their reading of the articles, the assignment was accompanied with four tasks. Firstly, before reading, the students were asked to write about why they chose the topics. Secondly, after reading, they were asked to write their immediate thoughts and feelings (e.g. what made them curious or provoked them, or whether they could relate the text to earlier experiences). Thirdly, they were instructed to write a summary of their chosen articles, and fourthly, they were asked to write about how they thought they could use the insights from the study in their own practice as future PE teachers.

Analysis

The analysis was conducted in two main steps. First, we identified discourses of inclusion, that is, students’ expressions of what the aforementioned challenges are and how they should/could be solved to foster more inclusive PE. Secondly, we then scrutinised their expressions to identify different forms of resistance.

Discourses of inclusion were identified in the texts (Table 2) in terms of meanings, reflections, or explanations that the students related to a larger issue, such as society in general, the field of PE or educational research. An example is Alex’s sentiments: ‘It is a well-known challenge that boys to a larger extent than girls experience well-being and that they perform better [than girls] in PE.’ In the second step, we pinpointed parts of the texts where the students used personal pronouns (e.g. ‘I’) to reflect critically on and challenge or resist the meanings conveyed in the texts that they read, socially accepted discourses of inclusion or aspects of personal experiences (e.g. ‘I get a little frustrated at what the authors here point out, even though I understand to a certain extent what they mean.’ [Kai]). The students’ alternative interpretative repertoires were labelled ‘discourses of resistance’. The analysis unravelled two sets of discourses (Table 2). The upcoming section ‘Findings and discussion’ was structured on the basis of the two overarching discourses of resistance.

Table 2. Discourses.

Discourses of inclusion	Discourses of resistance
More gender inclusive PE is needed: Boys and girls experience PE differently. PE should be for everybody, but girls are currently marginalised, and PE is dominated by boys.	Resistance to PE transformation: Gender differences are natural and inevitable. Boys need PE because girls do better in other subjects.
PE practices must embrace diversity: Society should embrace (gender and sexual) diversity, but PE is stuck in traditional gender structures.	Resistance to gender diversity in PE: Receptiveness to gender diversity in PE might confuse (vulnerable) young people. Inclusion should and could happen within the gender binary. / There is no need for gender diversity if we open up our understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl.

Some possible limitations and contextual aspects regarding the analytical process are worth reflecting upon. Firstly, important in discursive psychology is studying language in practice, to see how people do things with language. Studying students’ texts only, provides limited insight into how different discourses are played out for instance in/through teaching. Secondly, the texts analysed in this article was structured as an openly formulated written assignment with the intention of reflecting on a self-selected research article, and the texts were to be read by the teacher educator. Thus, the texts can be described as performative texts characterised by specific power relations between the writer and the reader. It is therefore possible that the pre-service teachers had formulated themselves differently, depending on the context. Lastly, our analysis and interpretation of the pre-service teachers’ writings might be inconsistent with their intentions in writing the texts. Nevertheless, we argue that analysing the performative dimensions of language use and the various discourses that came into play in the texts reflect what Wetherell and Potter (1988) described as the unintended consequence of the use of different discourses—’when people deploy a particular form of discourse; it has repercussions of its own which may not have been formulated or even understood by the speaker or writer’ (p. 169). In other words, by deploying discursive psychology we do not intend to provide insight to individual mindset, but to learn about the cultural contexts reflected in the texts. Given the focus of the study, we looked particularly for discourses of resistance to inclusion. As shown in Table 2, the students simultaneously expressed more progressive thoughts regarding gender, sexuality and PE than presented in this article.

Ethics

This project was approved by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (project no. 961245). Permission to conduct the research at the school was obtained from the school management. Written informed consent was collected from the teachers and pre-service teachers, who were assured that all data would be handled confidentially. The participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any time. They were provided with gender-neutral pseudonyms and pronouns (i.e. subjective = ze, and objective = zir).²

Findings and discussion

Resistance to PE transformation

The students emphasised the views that PE should be a subject for everybody and that ‘PE teachers have to adapt so that all students experience PE as meaningful and fun’ (Alex). Nonetheless, the reflection notes suggested a common understanding of PE as a subject more suited for boys and of this situation as inevitable to some degree. Moreover, the students drew on known gender and education discourses wherein boys are considered ‘losers’ in the contemporary school system in Norway (Aasebø, 2021). Thus, ‘PE is for boys’ and ‘education in today’s society is best suited for girls’ stood out as interpretive repertoires that the students accessed in their essays. Reflecting upon Engebretsen et al.’s (2020) article on how an activist approach can contribute to improved PE experiences for girls, two of the students articulated the following:

We often hear today that school is becoming more and more for girls and that boys, who can often get a little restless, struggle in classes where there is a lot of sitting still. Personally, I think that PE is so important so that these students [the boys] can get an outlet for their energy, and that they can experience mastery and the joy of sport. I get a little frustrated about what the authors point out, even though I understand to a certain extent what they mean … The topics the authors take up in the text are indisputably very important. Especially this with how girls should feel better in PE … I experienced mastery in PE when I was a student myself. I did not do that in the same way in the other subjects … PE is perhaps more for boys, but in many other subjects there are probably more girls who enjoy it best. This is how I think it will always be, even though a goal in all subjects should be that both boys and girls experience enjoyment … (Kai)

The article confirms that boys have the best learning outcome and well-being in the subject. This is recognisable from my own schooling. … I think, on a general basis, that it is good for boys to have a place where they can stand out, as girls often perform best in the more theoretical subjects. I have especially seen this during PE practicum, where some boys struggle with the theoretical and feel little mastery there, but when they come to PE lessons, they have the opportunity to experience being good. (Nickie)

In their reflections, neither Kai nor Nickie disagreed with the authors’ argumentation that PE lessons are often dominated by boys; they even recounted similar experiences, confirming the picture drawn in the literature. Despite this knowledge, the students expressed resistance against shifting focus onto girls. Implicit in the text is a fear that accommodating girls’ needs in PE to create a more inclusive subject can lead to the exclusion of boys, as highlighted in the following comments:

It [the activist approach] seemed to work very well for the girls, but I’m a bit more critical of how well it worked for the boys … it would have been interesting for the authors to provide a short paragraph to briefly explain how the boys in the class took it.’. (Ellis)

In my opinion, the most important findings in this article are that the girls showed increased well-being in PE without it drastically affecting the well-being of the boys. (Billie)

The students’ reflections may be interpreted as an ambiguity towards how gendered difference is construed as a problem in the article, thereby driving them to question the need to address gender differences in PE (Gerdin & Larsson, 2018). A (latent) question in the students’ texts might be as follows: If girls (enjoy …) do better than boys in theoretical subjects, is this a problem? This kind of reasoning emphasises gender equality as translating to equal access but not necessarily to equal outcomes (Holst, 2017, p. 38). Moreover, the reflections were underpinned by the assumption that potential differences between boys and girls are expressions of ‘natural identities located in the male and female bodies’ instead of a question of social inequality, asymmetrical power relations or gender norms (Larsson et al., 2009, p. 4). This interpretation resonates with the views in Larsson et al.’s (2009) study, which found that teachers are aware of dominating gender hierarchies in PE that favour (some) boys. However, boys’ domination is seen as natural and something that should or could be managed rather than challenged. Our study clarified that the students’ views were combined with first-hand experiences of PE as an important arena for experiencing mastery for certain groups of students, primarily boys. This combination might serve as a forceful fuel for resisting the transformation of PE practices.

Resistance to gender diversity in PE

We labelled the second form of resistance, resistance to gender diversity in PE. This resistance is based on students’ different ambiguous emotions towards gendered stereotypes and attempts to describe gendered characteristics or identities. Dimensions of these orientations are the students’ resistance to the de-naturalisation of a gender binary in PE and their silent confirmation of traditional cis-heteronormative discourses.

For example, in their reading of gender diversity and/or sexuality in PE (i.e. Engelsrud, 2021; Larsson et al., 2014), Jesse and Max drew on interpretive repertoire (Wetherell & Potter, 1988) that emphasises an increasing openness within (Norwegian) society regarding gender and sexuality. However, whereas Jesse stated that ‘PE is stuck in traditional gender structures and needs change and renewal’, mirroring progressive thoughts among young people (lisahunter, 2019; Müller & Böhlke, 2023), Max took a more conservative position. In the reading of Engelsrud (2021), Max reflected critically on introducing gender diverse discourse and practice in zir own teaching praxis:

… the author mentions that as future teachers we must ‘be able to work with children and young people of all genders’. Engelsrud points out that some pupils do not feel at home in their own gender. But when Engelsrud writes all genders, it seems that she confirms that there are more than two genders. We must take seriously what young people know and experience, but that does not change the biological fact that there are only two biological sexes. I am of the opinion that youth is vulnerable, and many will be in a time where they explore and find themselves. Many may … feel that they do not belong in their own body, but this can be something temporary. Insinuating that young people are a different gender than what they actually are, I think, will contribute to increasing confusion. Rather, I think we have to talk about the genders we have and that a girl can have interests that are ‘boyish’ or be a boy and have interests that are ‘girlish’.

The response above is an interesting example of a complex text, in which the student attempted to navigate several gender discourses combined with zir own first-hand experiences and preconceptions. Dwelling upon the expression ‘all genders’, the student’s discussion of gender (sosialt kjønn [‘social gender’] in Norwegian) versus sex (biologisk kjønn [‘biological gender’] in Norwegian) led zir to consider the cause and effect of gender identity. The student drew on an interpretive repertoire that ‘youth is vulnerable’ to argue for the need to shelter young people from the disruption of the traditional gender binary discourse, as it might confuse them at an age when they are particularly vulnerable. This line of argumentation is far from new and aligns with a conservative cis-heteronormative discourse (Mathers et al., 2018), also observed in media debates in Norway and beyond (e.g. BBC, 2020; Rolness, 2023). Max’s reflections resonate, as well, with those of PE teachers who expressed disrupting gender binary-based practice as challenging in Berg and Kokkonen’s (2022) work. Max declares being open to the possibility that some youths experience that they do not belong in their own body. However, it seems Max’s argumentation on vulnerability in the search for social identities justifies an educational practice that conserves the gender binary. There is also a trace of what we term a risk hypothesis in the text (i.e. a presumption of relationship between two variables, wherein a change to one risks undesirable change in the other): If we are receptive to gender-diverse discourse in our teaching, what could have been a temporary feeling of unbelonging might be a permanent and defining feeling. This form of reasoning might justify resisting change and maintaining discriminative educational practices in PE.

Max’s resistance was further illuminated by zir critical reflection and questioning of the boundaries of femininity and masculinity:

I am also critical of certain things she writes, … that the definition of femininity and masculinity is, ‘softness, caring, a body with round soft shapes and breasts … ’ and ‘hard, solid, and as a body with broad shoulders and large upper arms’. It is a narrow definition at best. She mentions that it is an exaggeration, but it seems that the author is afraid to talk about masculinity in boys and femininity in girls. Aren’t boys and girls different? Then it would not be unnatural for them to have different properties in focus. Many guys I know are full of care, and not all of them have very large upper arms. It does not mean that they are feminine. Likewise, I know girls who are fit and determined without being masculine.

From critiquing what was perceived to be Engelsrud’s (2021) characterisation of masculinity and femininity, Max moved on to a contention that conserves zir idea of the rightfulness of a gender binary, namely an argumentation built on the logic that we do not need gender diversity if we open our understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl. Similar arguments are found in contemporary debates in the media. An example is Rolness (2023), who responded to an ongoing media debate on gender corrective surgery by raising this question: ‘Wasn’t the point to expand the boundaries of what a boy or girl can be like?’. In this line of thought, teaching practices supporting children’s critical reflections on gender norms are welcomed, but not necessarily teaching that recognise gender diversity and people whose senses of personal identity and gender do not correspond with their birth sex. Thus, the student’s perspectives still fall within a cis-normative frame of reference.

Another and perhaps more indirect form of resistance was silence or a lack of reflection on the gender binary. The majority of the literature read by the students were founded on a gender binary, discussing structural differences between boys and girls in PE (e.g. structural differences related to assessment) (Lagestad, 2017) or how different teaching approaches can better facilitate addressing girls’ (in comparison to boys’) needs and desires in the subject (Elvebakk et al., 2018; Engebretsen et al., 2020; Walseth et al., 2018). None of the students challenged the underlying notion of a gender binary in these texts. Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of them agreed with the researchers’ concerns on how to provide girls and boys with more equal opportunities.

I feel the girls are overshadowed by the boys in various activities where the boys are much stronger. And the opposite – if the girls are much stronger or better than the boys in some activities. I guess that you must find activities that adapt to each other … (Jo)

Another student reflected on zir own future PE teacher practice:

… informed by research, I can adapt PE to include both genders, independent of body image. I have become more aware of how to create a structure in PE so that it becomes a learning arena that contributes to students’ mastery and learning, promotes healthy body ideals and inhibits body dissatisfaction. Thus, the teacher fulfils the school’s dual mandate to shape and educate the students into socially critical citizens and meets overall competence goals. (Layne)

Accommodating the needs of boys and girls in PE is favourable for a more inclusive PE, but it can also be regarded as problematic when this understanding forms the basis of shaping students into socially critical citizens. A pertinent question, then, is whether categorical or structural research with the gender binary as a focal point may reproduce, rather than disrupt, gender norms and heteronormativity. As pointed out by Landi et al. (2020), PE has been dominated by studies undertaking a cis-heteronormative lens. Alternatively, it might be a case of students reading the research based on pre-texts (Oliver & Oesterreich, 2013). In their reflections, the students challenge how gender is reproduced through practice, but the literature does not necessarily challenge this understanding of a gender binary per se, thus maintaining a gender binary-biased order of discourse (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002).

Concluding remarks

We identified discourses of resistance in students’ reflection notes on PE, gender/sexuality and inclusion. The findings highlighted how the students drew on interpretative repertoires from their sociocultural context to express alternative understandings to what they read from their chosen articles. In some cases, competing discourses upheld and justified discriminatory PE practices. The students agreed that PE is dominated by boys and that it is important to make the subject more inclusive for girls. At the same time, some of them expressed concern that transforming PE (e.g. via activist approaches) for such a purpose could affect the subject as an important arena for boys who experience little mastery in theoretical subjects. Furthermore, the students lamented that PE is stuck in traditional and cis-heteronormative gender structures. Yet, as manifested in Max’s reflections, an interpretive repertoire of youth vulnerability was used to resist progressive thoughts regarding gender diversity and the de-naturalisation of a gender binary in PE. Finally, it is also worth questioning whether the literature based on categorical or structural approaches might contribute to reproducing heteronormativity and gender binary in PE.

How could insight into discourses of resistance expressed by students lead to more gender-inclusive PE? Findings from the current study illuminate that greater awareness concerning the challenges of inclusion in PE do not necessarily lead to a desire for changing current pedagogical practises in PE among pre-service teachers (see also Gerdin et al., 2018). Rather, the students’ reflections pointed more towards a wish to preserve PE as changes might influence the well-being of boys. We argue, that a better understanding of such resistance potentially helps PE teacher educators stimulate dialogues on power relations with students. The variability and often inconsistency of the discourses in texts are not necessarily intentional (Wetherell & Potter, 1988, p. 171). Students might record reflections as they come to mind, adjusting written sentiments to the task at hand without being aware of how the terminology and argumentation used can be traced to larger gender discourses. However, by better understanding how pre-service teachers rehearse and reproduce interpretative repertoires in their written assignments, teacher educators are more comprehensively equipped to help students position themselves and develop their critical thoughts, arguments and texts. Discourses construct practice (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002), but more research is needed on what awareness-raising (or resistance-perpetuating) views are formed by PETE students through their pedagogical choices in the future.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

1 In Norway there are three ways to qualify as a PE teacher: (1) Teacher education master programme in practical and aesthetic subjects, (2) a degree in sports/health combined with a one-year unit of PE didactic or (3) a master programme on general teacher education with a minimum of 30 ETCS credits in PE.

2 Pronouns Explained (american.edu).