How much circus is allowed? – Challenges and hindrances when embracing risk in physical education

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Research has indicated that Physical Education (PE) is often characterized by teacher-centred teaching (e.g. Byra 2006; Tinning 2010), where the pupils follow instruction and perform pre-established movements (Karlefors and Larsson 2018). Pupils are expected to listen, do as they are told, and follow rules (Fitzpatrick and Russell 2015; Quennerstedt 2013). PE teaching has been described as an act of control (Quennerstedt 2013), and teachers face the dilemma of letting go of control and still having enough control to make sure that the lesson smoothly moves forward (Alfrey and O’Connor 2020). However, when the pupils are given more power and the teacher applies student-centred teaching, the pupils get to come up with ideas and make decisions (e.g. Byra 2006; Garrett and Wrench 2018; Mattsson and Larsson 2021). This is significant because it can develop PE and contribute to meaning making among pupils and their experiences of movement. This article aims to analyse the use of exploratory circus assignments in PE teaching and to discuss this in relation to current school norms. Biesta’s (The Beautiful Risk of Education [Paradigm Publishers 2014]) concept of risk, which means not knowing the outcome, is used. The article problematizes pupils’ own ideas and suggestions in relation to prevailing norms in school. What happens when pupils participate in teaching based on exploratory circus assignments? Exploration, playfulness, and expression were focused, and the lessons were characterized by the absence of primary focus on competitiveness as a counterweight to traditional PE content.

Methods: A research teacher (a university teacher with experience teaching school PE and circus) conducted 10 lessons together with 20 pupils (aged 10) and their PE teacher using exploratory circus assignments. Data was collected through participant observation, video observation, and field diary. The data analysis generated three themes, Following instruction, Limited exploration, and Shared power, that were reviewed in relation to the theoretical framework.

Results: The results show that the research teacher and the PE teacher resisted embracing risk in PE due to the prevailing norms and what Biesta (2014) describes as the practice of schooling. They focused on keeping the pupils in order rather than being flexible and open to unknown outcomes. The exploratory circus assignments involved risk to different extents, and the research teacher's tendency to embrace risk increased over time. Her letting go of control enabled her to embrace risk. It did not mean a total relinquishment of control, but rather not having exclusive control over the decision-making and meaning-making processes. When she shared the power with the pupils, new and other movements could be explored. The results show that pupils’ actions can be more educative than what teachers initially consider.

Conclusion: Teachers need to relinquish control to conduct teaching which embraces risk. Doing so enables them to share power with the pupils, which allows pupils to explore and discover different ways of moving and using the material. Exploratory circus assignments can enable risk embracement in PE and function as a way for teachers to reflect upon pedagogical considerations and practice the sharing of power with their pupils.

KEYWORDS:

• Exploratory circus assignments
• norms
• pedagogy
• physical education
• risk

Introduction

The pupils and I are gathered in a circle to throw bean bags to each other in a specific pattern. When we all know the pattern, more bean bags are added and thrown in parallel. In the circle, some of the pupils begin to spin. One pupil does a pirouette. The pupil next to him also starts doing it. Two of the girls start dancing, and so does one of the boys. However, I expect them to stand still and do what they are told, because that is what they are supposed to do in this exercise. ‘No hands in the pockets!’ I say to a kid, because he should be ready to throw and catch.

A couple of minutes later, as I collect the last bean bag and prepare to move on with the lesson, the circle of pupils explodes with movement. I tell them to sit down. One pupil sits down, everyone else jumps around, and another pupil sits down and gets up again. It's like a little pot of popcorn. One kid does a backward roll, and another makes a loop on the floor with the arms outstretched like wings. The only one who really stands still is me. Finally, the whole group gathers. ‘Were there any difficulties in this exercise?’ I ask. A boy shouts, ‘Nothing was difficult, nothing was difficult!’

Above is an excerpt from the research teacher's field diary. The vignette was collected during a practice-based research project with 10-year-old pupils in Physical Education (PE). The project aimed to involve the pupils in exploratory learning assignments, but the situation described above was developed to be controlled by the research teacher. When the research teacher afterwards watched the video taken during the exercise, she realized that the exercise and its outcome had deviated far from what she wanted to achieve. She had a clear picture of how the exercise was to be done, and the pupils’ behaviour was not in accordance with what she expected. Research has indicated that PE teaching has often had a teacher-centred approach (e.g. Byra 2006; Tinning 2010). Quennerstedt (2013) describes teaching in PE as an act of control that is about imitating and following rules and instructions to a correct norm. Karlefors and Larsson (2018) emphasize that the teacher makes all the decisions and the pupils are expected to follow the teacher's instructions or movements. During the situation described above, the research teacher judged the pupils’ actions as messy and wrong because they did not follow given instructions. She thought they were unfocused, too wild, and frolicsome. According to Fitzpatrick and Russell (2015), there is an obvious subordination of pupils during the typical school assembly. They line up, keep quiet, sit still, and listen. Then the pupils have no opportunity to influence their situation but obeying the teacher. In order to disrupt the traditional power dynamics between teachers and pupils in school, there is a need to shift towards more critical and inclusive approaches in PE (Fitzpatrick and Russell 2015).

In PE, there is a repetitious teaching of sport techniques, and the teaching focuses on doing correct movements (Kirk 2010). PE teachers consider being active and trying different movement activities as central (Larsson and Nyberg 2017). This is in line with international research, where PE is described as a package of competitive sports or physical activity to prevent obesity among children and young people (Kirk 2010; Tinning 2010; Ward and Quennerstedt 2016). However, there are studies that focus on inclusive pedagogies, such as the inclusion teaching style and the discovery teaching style (e.g. Byra 2006). The inclusion teaching style accommodates performance difference of individual learners, whereas the discovery teaching style focuses on the development of critical thinking skills. In these two student-centred teaching styles, the teacher includes the students in problem solving rather than controlling their decision making. Further, other studies focus on aesthetic learning processes as a counterweight to competitive sports in PE. These processes focus on explorations, experiences, and meanings in non-predetermined movements. Mattsson and Larsson (2021) explore how PE teachers approach the issue of teaching expressive dance in a pedagogical intervention where the pupils, through open-ended tasks, created movements without specific instructions.

In the introductory vignette, the research teacher's wish to be in control was evident, and her attempts of sharing power with the pupils were non-existent. Alfrey and O’Connor (2020) indicate that there are different ways to make power-sharing between teachers and pupils inclusive, critical, and educative for all pupils. Teachers have to maintain a balance between letting go of control and having enough control to keep the lesson running smoothly (Alfrey and O’Connor 2020). In Garrett and Wrench’s (2018) study focusing on dance in PE, the teacher relinquished her role as the expert in order to allow her pupils greater control over their learning. The pupils were given more power and got to come up with ideas. In contrast, the research teacher in the vignette applied teaching controlled by her and limited by her expectations and pre-established ideas of correct solutions; she did not realize the potential and quality in the pupils’ movements. Their explorative initiatives might have been more educative than the research teacher initially thought.

This study involved exploratory circus assignments as the teaching content because they contain a wide variety of progressions regarding many movements, which means that children can challenge themselves based on their ability (Kriellaars et al. 2019). Circus activities are rare in PE in Sweden. For instance, Nyberg, Barker, and Larsson (2020) describe juggling as an activity outside the category of mainstream sport. However, according to Price (2012), circus arts, or ‘circo arts’ as he calls them, provide opportunities for teachers to involve children in activities that can lead to exploration of movement. He states that circo arts include opportunities for discovery learning. At the circus, playfulness is central (Purovaara and Damkjær 2012), and circus art instruction bolsters participation that is social and enjoyable (Kriellaars et al. 2019). Further, according to Kriellaars et al. (2019), circus arts are non-competitive, which might engage children that are not interested in competing and offer them a way to develop motor competence while having fun. Although circus arts may not be based in competition, they carry the potential to have competitive elements implicitly within (e.g. who can do the most spectacular trick or who can juggle for the longest time?). However, in this study, there was an absence of primary focus on competitiveness in the circus lessons, which meant a counterweight to the traditional content of PE, such as competitive sports and pre-established movements. As the circus assignments were organized and conducted in this study, the project focused on exploration and expression rather than performance and achievement.

We conclude from previous research that PE teaching still holds strong views both regarding content and how it should be taught, which may hinder diverse teaching situations in which the pupils can experience several perspectives of movement and different ways of moving. To express oneself and use one's body in different ways can contribute to meaning making among more pupils in perceiving movement as important. This highlights a need for further studies of the efforts to challenge both traditional PE content and organization of the teaching.

Aim

Based on a qualitative study of PE lessons in a municipal school in Sweden, this article aims to analyse the use of exploratory circus assignments in PE teaching and to discuss this in relation to current school norms. The article addresses the following research questions:

• What happens when pupils participate in teaching based on exploratory circus assignments?

• How can the teaching be explained and understood based on Biesta's concept of risk?

With this article, we hope to contribute with increased knowledge about learning and teaching new content in PE, an expanded view of teachers’ teaching methods, and an increased reflexivity regarding what it means to be a teacher. Other teachers might recognize the challenges presented here and find inspiration and curiosity to keep developing their teaching.

Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework is based on the work of the philosopher of education Gert Biesta and his thoughts about education. In this article, we discuss Biesta's concept of risk in relation to PE. Biesta (2014) argues that education is not about filling a bucket but about lighting a fire, which means there is always a risk. This risk is about not knowing the outcome in advance. For Biesta (2014), education without risk would make education itself disappear, and social reproduction and insertion into existing orders of thinking, doing, and being would follow.

Education happens through communication that is created together and has a dialogical potential (Biesta 2014). It is about the exchange of meaning (Biesta and Miedema 2002). According to Biesta (2014), the ones being educated should be seen as subjects, not objects, and learning should be seen as a creative process rather than information transported from one to another. The teacher is someone who brings something new, something that was not there already, into the educational situation. Furthermore, Biesta states that there is a hidden curriculum, located in the practices that pupils take part of during their school time. The official curriculum is an artificial add-on to the real ‘life in schools’ (Biesta 2014, 32). According to Biesta (2014, 32), what pupils learn most effectively during school time is the practice of schooling, that is, ‘how to be a “proper” student and how to “play” the “game” of schooling’.

This article deals with the incorporation of pupils’ own ideas and suggestions, which can be problematic within the school setting. Biesta (2014) underlines that teachers should not strive to make the learning situation as smooth as possible, aiming for pupils to feel like satisfied customers. Instead, the teacher should welcome inconvenient truths and difficult questions. According to Lindell (2020), who uses Biesta's ideas to study how risk can be embraced and taught in the literature classroom, a teacher needs to stay alert regarding the tendency to avoid risk; they should instead embrace it as an opportunity that broadens education and leads to the development of the persons involved. Teaching with risk allows uncertainty about outcomes, which in Lindell’s (2020) case is the inclusion of fictional reading and the impact it might have on the pupils’ personal reflection. Uncertainty in relation to Biesta's concept of risk was also explored in Mattsson and Larsson’s (2021) study. There was little teacher control of the pupils’ actions and solutions when they created movements themselves. Throughout the project, the propensity to include risk increased as the teachers became more experienced. Furthermore, the programming of risk-taking opened for collaborations between teachers and pupils (Mattsson and Larsson 2021).

In this article, we use Biesta’s (2014) concept of risk as a starting point to understand teaching using exploratory circus assignments. We apply the theory to indicate when risk was programmed, to discuss challenges, and to explore how hindrances can be overcome and risk can be embraced within PE teaching. Thus, the risk addressed in this article is not the kind associated with danger in the performance of various circus disciplines.

Methods

The participants in the qualitative study were 20 pupils at the age of 10 – 6 girls and 14 boys – in a municipal school located in Sweden. Other participants include their PE teacher and the research teacher; the latter is the first author of this article and a university teacher with experience teaching school PE and circus. The PE teacher had the formal responsibility of the pupils. She did not teach during the circus lessons but participated in the activities together with the pupils. The teaching content in the study was exploratory circus assignments. A summary of the layout of the empirical material and methods used for this article is presented in tabular form (Table 1).

Table 1. The empirical material.

Participants
Total	Pupils	Research teacher	PE teacher
22 participants	20 (6 girls and 14 boys)	1 (female)	1 (female)
Methods
Participant observations	Video observations	Field diary
10 circus lessons (40–55 minutes)	8 hours	228 pages (1.5 line spacing)
Content and implementation of the study
Lesson and focus	Date
1: What is the circus? Making associations, talking, drawing, and writing	5 November 2019
2: Balance Using peacock feathers	8 November 2019
3: Throw and catch Juggling scarves, balls, and clubs	15 November 2019
4: Throw and catch, continuation Juggling scarves, balls, and clubs at different stations Imagination exercise: What can it be?	29 November 2019
5: Rope skipping Skipping with single rope and long rope Imagination exercise: What can it be?	6 December 2019
6: Gymnastic Twirling Ribbons Individual exploration Putting together a choreography in groups	24 January 2020
7: Horses and feelings Horse association: acting and moving like horse and rider and navigating an obstacle course Cooperation Charades of staged feelings	31 January 2020
8: Costumes and characters Exploration of movement in relation to different animals and characters Obstacle course	7 February 2020
9: Hula hoop Exploration Imagination exercise: What can it be?	14 February 2020
10: Circus Mix* Different circus activities to choose between Imagination exercise: What can it be?	20 March 2020

*Only 7 participating pupils due to high absenteeism during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article focuses on the following empirical material collected during 10 circus lessons: participant observations (10 lessons), video observations (8 hours), and a field diary (228 pages). Since triangulation can strengthen the credibility of qualitative research (e.g. Gratton and Jones 2004; Hastie and Hay 2012), the authors employed it in the data collection to enable different aspects and perspectives to be presented and to form the basis for analysis and interpretation. The layout for each of the circus lessons was the same: The pupils received material and instructions that were considered suggestions of what to do. The research teacher showed examples of movement, pointing out that they were just examples. The pupils got to try the movements themselves, encouraged to explore different ways of moving and using the equipment individually and together. The lessons were part of a process where each lesson progressed in relation to the previous one.

Participant observation, field diary, and video observation

The participant observations were taken during the ten circus lessons, which meant that the research teacher observed while she was taking part of the exploratory circus assignments. She strived to maintain the balance between involvement and distance in the role of observer (Ottesen 2013). She used an observation guide that focused on the following points: the room, the participants, the activities, and the relations (Ottesen 2013). Thick description was applied, which meant that the research teacher aspired to gather as detailed a picture as possible. Because it is not suitable to take notes while exercising participant observation, the research teacher memorized as best as she could and dictated memories and experiences after the lesson. They were transcribed and put into the research teacher's field diary, which ended up in 228 pages (1.5 line spacing). The field diary functioned as a tool for reflection, for example, for documenting questions that came up (McAteer 2013). A video camera was also used to document the circus lessons, and generated 8 hours of video recordings. The video recordings allowed for repeated viewing, which according to Öhman and Quennerstedt (2012) helps the researcher get close to the situation and analyse persons’ behaviour in context. Moreover, video recordings are especially useful in a field like PE, which involves many non-verbal communications and bodily actions (Öhman and Quennerstedt 2012). The recordings were watched the following days after each circus lesson, and with the aforementioned observation guide (Ottesen 2013), the research teacher applied thick description to describe and reflect on what she saw through writing or dictating, which was then transcribed into the field diary. What became visible in the video observations of each circus lesson affected the planning and conducting of the next lesson. According to Molbæk and Kristensen (2019), using video observation for triangulation can add nuance to the meanings ascribed to the practice of teachers. Different aspects were possible to capture through the video observations. Further, as Molbæk and Kristensen (2019) state, these observations bring attention to discrepancies between a teacher's actions, analysed through video observation, and the teacher's descriptions of these actions. These differences were an outcome documented in the field diary since discrepancies between actual actions and the descriptions of actions occurred in the study. What the research teacher thought and experienced in the moment sometimes differed from what she later saw in the video observation, which will be further discussed in the results and analysis section of the article. Thanks to the video observations, the research teacher was able to make other decisions and actions.

Analysis

The analysis was abductive, which meant an oscillating between induction and deduction. The authors moved backwards and forwards between the theory and the data. The analysis of the empirical material was based on the research questions (Öhman and Quennerstedt 2012) and Biesta’s (2014) concept of risk was used to understand risk and the extent of risk embracement in teaching, in this case exploratory circus assignments. The analysis was performed in a cyclical process. It started already during the participant observations and the reviewing of the video recordings. The field diary was re-read several times, and the authors searched for patterns (e.g. Hastie and Glotova 2012). During the analysis process, they looked for different themes: ambiguities, contradictions, conflicts, and things that aroused surprise or curiosity (e.g. Johansson 2013). When such contradictions or things that aroused curiosity were found, the authors highlighted and cut out these pieces. They kept on reading/watching the material and when they found similar examples, they marked it and put it in the same category. The authors read all the cut-out excerpts in one swipe as well as in its context. Three main themes in relation to Biesta’s (2014) concept of risk were generated from the data and constructed by the authors (Hastie and Glotova 2012). For example, using Biesta’s (2014) concept of risk, the authors could identify limitations regarding the pupils’ possibilities to explore movements. However, the authors also found other things not analysed in this article, such as the pupils’ participation in decision-making processes (Lindberg and Hedenborg 2021) and their experiences of language and knowledge development in PE. When the authors had grouped the data into the three themes, they reviewed and revised the found themes in relation to the theoretical framework. They chose suitable names that reflected the content, and snippets from the empirical material were selected for the article because they illustrated the themes. The snippets were translated from Swedish to English by the first author.

Ethical considerations

The research project was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. The research teacher introduced the study to the participants and informed them that participation was voluntary. The pupils’ guardians were informed at a meeting and received written information, and the guardians that did not attend were sent written information with their child the following days. The guardians provided informed consent regarding their child's participation in the research study. The majority of the guardians were multilingual; therefore, the information and the informed consent were translated into the relevant languages. The school's mother-tongue teacher helped out when guardians needed support to read and write. In addition, the participants were de-identified through the use of fictional names. All collected material was stored in accordance with Malmö University's regulations.

Results and analysis

This article analyses and discusses the use of exploratory circus assignments in PE teaching in relation to current school norms. The data analysis resulted in the following three themes, which emerged from re-occurring situations during the circus lessons: Following instruction, Limited exploration, and Shared power. The results are presented below through different vignettes, excerpts, and quotes sorted into the themes.

Following instruction

This theme highlights the research teacher's expectations of the pupils’ compliance with instructions.

The vignette presented in the article's introduction took place during the third circus lesson and introduced a situation where the pupils were expected to throw bean bags together in a specific pattern. The pupils showed a variety of ideas and agency. They showed intentions of participation and great keenness for movement – but in their own way. The vignette shows that the exploratory aspects of the pupils’ movements happened even when the research teacher tried to control them. The pupils did not need any practice regarding coming up with ideas or taking initiatives. Instead, the research teacher had started to practice how to let pupils translate their ideas into action.

Another example of when the research teacher's expectations and the pupils’ behaviour clashed took place during the seventh circus lesson. Based on the history of circus arts and the pupils’ circus associations, the lesson focused on exploring movements for acting as horses. One task involved moving around in pairs, imitating what the research teacher and the PE teacher had demonstrated with a pair of reins: one acting like a horse and one like a rider, trying out an obstacle course together. When the pupils were active, the research teacher thought she needed to stop some of them to tell them that the horses they acted like were too mischievous. Instead, they should be obedient and listen to their riders when moving around and trying the obstacle course without colliding with each other. Other examples of the research teacher and the PE teacher's redirections of the pupils were verbal reprimands of reminding them of expected behaviour: ‘Please sit up straight, the time is wasted when you’re doing what you’re doing’ and to listen to the instructions. Further, redirections happened when some of the pupils acting as horses collided with each other by accident and fell, and other pupils ran over there and fell on purpose. In addition, one pupil took a stick from the obstacle course, that they were supposed to jump over, and started to spin it and wave with it. Then the research teacher used both verbal and body language to tell him to stop and physically helped him to place the stick where it was supposed to be. Afterwards the research teacher summarized her experiences in the field diary:

It got very messy today. Even my limit for what is messy was surpassed. Several times, I reprimanded them, and so did the PE teacher. Afterwards, I asked her if we should do something different, and she said that she was going to talk to the pupils and that their class teacher was going to do it, too. She means it is a benefit for the pupils to be part of this circus project, and other pupils in the school want to participate. Today, the PE teacher also thought it got too messy. Neither she nor I want to feel like the police – walking around, telling the pupils off all the time. You don't even have time to calm down in one place before it gets messy in another. Very boring. When it's a lesson like this, I feel like an awfully bad teacher who fails to control the room, or fails to calm it down. I kind of have a picture of how it should be and get dismayed when it's not like that.

The following time the research teacher met the pupils, she was greeted with a hug from one of them and a thumbs up from another, who said, ‘Circus is great fun!’ As promised, the PE teacher and the class teacher had spoken to the pupils, who as a group had prepared an apology for the behaviour that endangered themselves and their classmates. The apology was performed by one of the girls: ‘Sorry Matilda for how it was last time. We are sorry for it, and we will do much better’.

According to Biesta (2014), the risk in education arises from not knowing the outcome in advance. Therefore, the introductory example of throwing bean bags together in a specific pattern involved a very low degree of risk. Further, Biesta (2014) states that learning should be seen as a creative process, not a process of relaying information from one person to another. Neither the throw and catch lesson (with the pre-established movement pattern and parallel throwing of bean bags) nor the horse lesson (which the research teacher and the PE teacher judged as too messy) invited the pupils into the creative process that learning should entail. The research teacher and the PE teacher considered that keeping the lesson running smoothly was valuable. This was given priority over the pupils’ exploration and co-creation. Therefore, a withdrawal rather than an embracement of risk happened. The pupils’ own initiatives when moving might have been more educative than the research teacher realized in the moment. Biesta (2014) clarifies that the ones being educated should be seen as subjects, not objects. When the pupils had to apologize for what the research teacher and the PE teacher considered uncontrollable behaviour (for example laying down on top of classmates who had collided), they were pictured as subjects responsible for their actions. However, the apology was collective, which is problematic: first, because not all pupils acting like horses were mischievous – some paid close attention throughout the lesson and showed consideration to their classmates, the research teacher and the PE teacher, as expected. Second, because they had to apologize for behaviours that became complicated in relation to prevailing norms. Instead, a reflective conversation with the research teacher and the PE teacher regarding how they could all create a favourable environment together could have been a better solution.

Limited exploration

This theme is about the balance between the pupils’ exploration and what the research teacher and the PE teacher considered to be a disturbance. In this regard, norms within the practice of schooling are central. The theme involves examples of norm-breaking when the pupils faced exploratory circus assignments and how the research teacher and the PE teacher handled the situations.

During the fourth circus lesson, a situation occurred that the research teacher did not notice when it took place in the sports hall; it was a surprise when she later watched the video recording. The lesson focused on juggling, and the pupils were divided into groups working with throwing and catching at different stations. The research teacher described the incident in the following field diary excerpt after watching the video recording from circus lesson number four:

I have encouraged them to explore the different juggling equipment: bean bags, scarves, and clubs. The PE teacher arrives at the scarves station, saying, ‘Now think about what you should do, so don't just take a lot of scarves’. The importance of following instructions is shown even though the idea right here is precisely that they can try to do whatever in their exploratory work.

The juggling scarves are placed in a big blue plastic bucket. When the pupils are active at the station, the bucket is empty. Fred walks over there and puts the bucket over his head. As soon as he does so, the PE teacher shouts his name, and he puts the bucket down on the floor. He then collects as many scarves as possible in his arms and puts the bucket over his head once again. He throws the scarves into the air and tries to catch as many as he can without being able to see because of the bucket. He bends down to pick up the scarves again and then drops the bucket. The PE teacher moves towards him, as does his friend Fernando, who runs there to try the same. Fernando now places the bucket over his head and throws up loads of scarves in the air to catch. The PE teacher removes the bucket from his head. She sets it down on the floor where it stood earlier.

At many occasions throughout the circus lessons, the pupils showed great interest in the video camera standing in one of the corners of the sports hall. During the third circus lesson, the PE teacher suggested to the research teacher that an area around the video camera could be marked with cones so it would not fall over, but the research teacher did not want that. Some pupils approached the video camera with the circus equipment, for example, during the fourth circus lesson when some pupils placed juggling scarves over the video camera. The research teacher did not want to condemn it, but at the same time, she wanted the pupils to stop it and instead focus on the circus assignments. Therefore, she told them, ‘It will make it so difficult to see what everyone is doing, even if there are very cool colour effects’. She reflected about it in the field diary after watching the video recording, seeing it as an attempt to be compliant ‘and see where the participants take this project without me having to control and direct it too much’. However, later on during the lesson, when one pupil was back at the video camera throwing loads of scarves on it, the research teacher no longer thought it was exploratory. She expressed it in the field diary after reviewing the video recording:

Eventually I get quite tired of him being around the camera; he takes focus from all the others. Once it is too much, I get tired when a pupil does not sharpen up. It's a fine line between “yes, wow” and “no, annoying”.

The hidden curriculum described by Biesta (2014) educates pupils on desired and expected behaviours; it teaches pupils the practice of schooling and how to be a proper student. The examples presented show how the pupils follow the instructions to explore, but the ways they do it were not always appreciated by the research teacher and the PE teacher, who wanted to make sure that the activity kept running smoothly without too much inconvenience. Further, it is a balancing act for the pupils: they are demanded to figure out what the teacher appreciates or condemns. The choice of norms and values that the research teacher and the PE teacher communicated in relation to and as a response to the pupils’ initiatives and actions tells us about the kind of pupil and the kind of teaching constituted in the school setting. When the pupils’ attempts to formulate an idea and stage it are opposed and denied by the teachers, it is not possible to conduct teaching that embraces risk. If education does not involve risk, all that follows is a reproduction of thinking, doing, and being, Biesta (2014) clarifies. Therefore, we argue that the teacher ought to let go of control to be able to conduct teaching where risk is embraced. At the same time, teaching situations are very complex, and the teacher is responsible for handling whatever happens. Teachers need to make sure that the lesson keeps running and do their best to enable learning for all pupils.

Shared power

This theme is about the research teacher sharing power with the pupils and giving them space to translate their ideas into action. The examples presented below show how the research teacher and the PE teacher were not superior to the pupils but willing to share power. The exploratory circus assignments mentioned below and the research teacher's choices of how to conduct them opened up for not knowing the outcome. They could be considered as expressions of breaking norms within the practice of schooling and traditional ways of conducting PE.

The tenth and final circus lesson consisted of a mix of all circus activities conducted during previous lessons, and the pupils were at liberty to choose themselves what to do and when to switch activity. This last circus lesson took place after the COVID-19 pandemic had reached Sweden, and only 7 out of 20 pupils were present. Right after the lesson, the research teacher described in her field diary how they all were suddenly working with gymnastic twirling ribbons:

Fred got the whole gang to take on the activity. And oh did we join! Everyone ran in a circle with their own gymnastics twirling ribbon, with Fred in the lead, who showed us what we should do. I ran in the middle somewhere, in the line, and the PE teacher ran last. We did not lead the lesson, the pupils did.

They all kept on working with the ribbons, doing tricks that they had previously come up with and named, here described in the field diary after viewing the video recording from the tenth circus lesson:

I said, ‘Do you remember this one, the Jumping Snake?’ I did the trick and so did the pupils. Kain then showed us first a slow snake and then a slightly faster one and then an angry one. I did the Wingardium Leviosa spell from Harry Potter with my ribbon, and Bianca did the Stir in Pot with hers. I said, ‘Or a whip like you did, Nico’, and then we whipped. I said, ‘Or it's a ponytail on a running horse’, and then I ran around with the ribbon like a tail. Fred shouted, ‘And I’m a hunter!’ He ran after me and aimed at me. After a while, I pretended to be shot and fell dead to the ground. Then Bianca ran up to me with her ribbon and revived me with a spinning motion above me. I was shot again a while later, and then the procedure was repeated.

The pupils were encouraged to explore different movements and ways of using the equipment throughout all circus lessons, as shown when working with hula hoops during the ninth circus lesson, for example: the pupils either imitated tricks that the research teacher had shown them as suggestions of what to try or they produced their own tricks. The pupils showed tricks they had invented for each other and taught their classmates, the research teacher, and the PE teacher. The research teacher identified and interpreted those learning situations as attempts of shared power between the pupils and her, aiming to follow a student-centred teaching approach. Another example of shared power took place during the eighth circus lesson, when the pupils and the research teacher dressed up in different costumes and acted as animals or characters while moving and using the equipment in the sports hall. The costume lesson followed the horse lesson, which the research teacher and the PE teacher had considered too messy. The research teacher wrote the following in the field diary right after the eight circus lesson: ‘I went there and didn't have high expectations, or I had high expectations, but I went there with an attitude that anything can happen and we’ll see where this takes us’. During the costume lesson, there was a flow of going in and out of different activities. Neither the research teacher nor the PE teacher told the pupils exactly what to do or how to move, but they offered support and ideas, such as holding up hoops for the pupils to jump through or solving conflicts that emerged between the pupils regarding whose turn it was to wear a specific costume. Some pupils explored the climbing ropes, and one pupil, who wore a wig and a fur, developed a character acting and talking in a specific way. Moreover, collaborations between the pupils became visible, for example, when they helped each other with zippers on the costumes or clawed against each other as polar bears and tigers.

While the activities and situations presented in this theme involved elements of free play, the lessons always still had learning objectives with focused elements of circus as well as community standards for how to treat one another as presented in the instructions given by the research teacher. For example, in the video recording of the eighth circus lesson, which involved dressing up as animals and characters, she asked the pupils, ‘How does a shark climb the ropes?’ She told them what they were going to do, ‘Fantasize – now we get to consider and brainstorm’, and continued saying, ‘To explore, now we get to try’ Thus, she instructed the pupils to explore movements inspired by the different costumes that they were wearing and to use the material in the sports hall. The research teacher herself also dressed up in different costumes and participated in exploring movements and equipment, aiming to inspire and interact with the pupils.

The examples in this theme show embracement of risk to a high extent, because the research teacher was willing to step back and create space for the pupils to explore and to translate their ideas into action. For instance, the last circus lesson – which was organized around the pupils’ choices of what to do, when to switch, and how to use the material – involved a high degree of risk. Alternately, was the embracement of risk a prerequisite for completing a lesson where the pupils had the freedom to make decisions and take initiatives themselves? We argue that it was the latter and that the research teacher's incremental sharing of power with the pupils made it possible. According to Biesta (2014), the risk lies in not knowing the outcome, and the extract from the research teacher's field diary shows her openness to the unknown through her willingness to experience whatever direction the lesson would go. Education happens through dialogical, two-way communication between teachers and pupils (Biesta 2014), and when risk was embraced during the circus lessons, the co-creation of communication was possible.

To sum up, the three different themes present how risk embracement in teaching can be expressed and experienced in relation to prevailing norms in school. The themes highlight that acts by pupils can be more educative than the teacher first realizes and that a teacher's willingness to embrace risk can enable power sharing with the pupils. The results not only illustrate teaching habits in PE, such as content and organization of the teaching, but also shed light on challenges and hindrances as well as the possibilities that arose when risk was embraced.

Discussion

The article aimed to analyse the use of exploratory circus assignments in PE teaching and to discuss this in relation to current school norms. The structure of the circus lessons went against the norms of how PE is often organized. As Karlefors and Larsson (2018), Tinning (2010), and Quennerstedt (2013) describe, the latter involves the teacher making the decisions and the pupils following instructions and pre-established movements. However, even though the lessons in this study were exploratory with new content, the norms within the practice of schooling were strong. Challenges arose for the research teacher and the PE teacher from the pupils’ exploratory work: the pupils were supposed to explore and take initiatives, but at the same time, both the research teacher and the PE teacher hesitated, reprimanded, or stopped ongoing exploration. They had an unspoken expectation of the pupils to listen and do as told, in line with the subordination of pupils and the upholding of school practices described by Fitzpatrick and Russell (2015). The pupils had to balance between following the instruction to explore and minding the research teacher and the PE teacher's tolerance regarding the outcome. What was instructed and encouraged in the exercise, to investigate and explore the material in relation to movement, seemed complicated within the ruling practice of schooling. For example, the pupils’ dedication to acting as horses went out of control according to the research teacher and the PE teacher. Another example was the PE teacher's removal of the bucket from the pupil's head when he explored juggling scarves. Was this also an act based on the fear of losing control of the pupils, similar to the reaction of the teacher in Garrett and Wrench’s (2018) study? That is how we interpret the situation, and we believe that neither exploration nor discovery can emerge from the reluctance to embrace risk and sharing power.

Throughout the 10 circus lessons, risk was embraced to different degrees. The exploratory circus assignments were permeated by both the embracement and the withdrawal of risk. When risk was embraced into the circus assignments, the outcome was not known in advance. Then the pupils got to take more initiatives and collaborate. We argue that teachers should design teaching in a way that embraces risk to enable development of creativity and participation among the pupils. This study revealed, particularly through the video observations, educative values in acts and movements by the pupils in these scenarios that teachers may dismiss in real time.

The research teacher described the tenth circus lesson as a lesson where the pupils through their initiatives were in charge of the lesson. The diminished number of pupils during that lesson, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, might have affected the outcome of the lesson. Perhaps this highlights the problem with large groups of pupils and few teachers. It was challenging for the research teacher to notice all ongoing actions and all situations that occurred during the other circus lessons, where the group was larger. Therefore, by taking a teacher-centred approach and maintaining the norms of how proper pupils are expected to act, a teacher could retain the feeling of being in control of the situation in an attempt to make sure that the teaching does not happen at someone else's expense. This conforms to Quennerstedt’s (2013) description of PE as an act of control, based on following instructions and rules to a correct norm. However, when the group was small, everyone could participate in parallel or perform the same activity. There was space for the pupils to do what they wanted and enough time for the research teacher to see and confirm all ongoing actions and interactions. Taking initiatives was easier enabled and it was possible to see the pupils’ initiatives and follow their directions. For example, the pupil Fred, who earlier had been stopped and reprimanded in his explorations, became an asset to the group when he initiated an activity and encouraged everyone in their movements. Letting go of control to enable inclusive and co-creative teaching (Alfrey and O’Connor 2020; Garrett and Wrench 2018) turned out to be important. The research teacher and the PE teacher's choice to relinquish control might have been needed for Fred to explore and express his creativity as well as for them to view him and his actions as assets. If not, throughout he probably would have been pictured as a problematic pupil, disturbing the others and the activity. Worth reflecting upon is whether the relation between teacher and pupil matters. If the research teacher had already known the pupils, she may not have needed 10 lessons in order to familiarize herself with teaching permeated by embracement of risk.

The vignettes and examples presented were all part of a time axis: the process that occurred over time helped the research teacher grow accustomed to the exploratory way of working together with the pupils. The embracement of risk increased with her expanded experiences of sharing power and giving pupils space to co-create, which corresponds with the study by Mattsson and Larsson (2021). Thus, the research teacher's increased willingness to embrace the unknown outcome of the assignments made it easier for her to share control. Thus, embracing risk can be interpreted as something that needs to be practiced.

Concluding remarks

We will now conclude our thoughts about the challenges and hindrances when embracing risk in PE teaching using exploratory circus assignments. Although the research teacher strived to embrace risk through conducting exploratory teaching, she still experienced resistance because of norms and what Biesta (2014) describes as the practice of schooling. The pupils were given opportunities to explore, but there were limitations, such as not getting too excited in their exploratory work. Our analysis shows that the research teacher and the PE teacher displayed a recurrent attempt at keeping pupils in order to entail a lesson that ran smoothly, rather than being flexible and open to unknown outcomes. At the same time, they embraced risk through the sharing of power with the pupils. We have argued that the teacher needs to let go of control to conduct teaching which embraces risk. Only when the teacher steps back and shares the power can the pupils explore and discover other and new ways of moving and using the material. Exploratory circus assignments proved to access the pupils’ own creativity in PE; nonetheless, the teacher's role is central, and reflections on pedagogical considerations are crucial to change the practice of schooling.

Challenges that teachers and pupils face in complex PE situations were focused in this article, and it problematizes hindrances and possibilities when embracing risk in PE. The implications of this research suggest to teachers in general and PE teachers in particular, to reflect upon whether they embrace risk in their teaching. Sharing power with the pupils can challenge and develop the (PE) subject in school. The teacher and the pupils can gain new experiences, knowledge and perspectives of teaching and learning. We hope that this research will inspire and encourage others to make sense of their own practices, whether in teaching circus or not, concerning risk embracement.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the pupils and the PE teacher that participated in the study. We are grateful for their participation and all their contributions during the exploratory circus assignments.

Disclosure statement

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