In Norway PE is a compulsory subject for pupils 6 to 18 years old. The National Curriculum state the aim of PE as “Bildung” inspiring for a physically active lifestyle and lifelong movement joy, and to foster good health (Udir, 2015). Bildung is a German term that contains more than education alone. While education search to reach something specific (for example learning outcomes or competence for a specific job), Bildung seeks towards change and maturity of the person as a whole; personally, intellectually and morally (Hagtvedt, 2011). Despite these positive aims, research on Norwegian PE reveals certain challenges. Pupils experience mostly traditional teaching styles as well as content. Ball games and fitness activities are most common (Säfvenbom, Haugen & Bulie 2014), boys find more satisfaction in PE than girls (Klomsten, Marsh & Skaalvik, 2005). pupils involved in competitive youth sports are more satisfied with PE than pupils not active in sports (Säfvenbom, Haugen & Bulie 2014) and disabled pupils are often excluded in PE (Svendby, 2016). The three routes for becoming a PE teacher in Norway are grounded in policy documents that aim for an integrated education that develops reflective PE teachers. Cooperating teachers and PETEs have a common responsibility for the practicum (KUD, 2013). Research on Norwegian PETE show that PETE neither shakes nor stirs PETEs or PE students’ conservative views and practices (Moen, 2011). PETEs’ and PE students develop in personal and local networks that constrain PETEs’ and PE students’ views and behaviours towards traditional sports using conventional teaching styles. The national networks have less impact on the PETEs views and teaching practice (Moen, 2011). Research on PETE and practicum indicates that students experience theory and practice as fragmented, hence left to the students to make connections between theory and practice (Standal, Moen & Moe, 2014). In this paper, key members from Norway involved in the EDUHEALTH project will elaborate on the abovementioned research they are involved in.

Klomsten, A. T., Marsh, H. W. & Skaalvik, E. M. (2005). Adolescents’’ perceptions of masculine and feminine values in sport and physical education: A study of gender differences. Sex Roles A Journal of Research, May 52 (9-10), pp 625-636. Kunnskapsdepartementet [KUD] (2013). Forskrift til rammeplan for faglærerutdanning I kroppsøving og idrettsfag. Retrieved from https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2005-12-13-1452 Moen, K. M. (2011). «Shaking or stirring»? A case study of physical education teacher education in Norway. Oslo: Norwegian school of sports sciences. Moen, K. M. & Green, K. (2014). Neither shaking nor stirring: A case study of reflexivity in Norwegian physical education teacher education. Sport, Education & Society, 19(4): 415-434. Utdanningsdirektoratet [Udir] (2015). Læreplan i kroppsøving. Retrieved from http://www.udir.no/kl06/KRO1-04/Hele/Komplett_visning?print=1 Standal, Ø. F., Moen, K. M., & Moe, V. F. (2014). Theory and practice in the context of practicum. The perspectives of Norwegian physical education student teachers. European Physical Education Review. 20(2), 165-178 Svendy, E. B. (2016). (Re)telling lived experiences in different tales! A potential pathway in working towards an inclusive PE. Sport, Education and Society, 21(1): 62-81 Säfvenbom, R. Haugen, T. & Bulie, M. (2014). Attitudes toward and motivation for PE. Who collects the benefits of the subject? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1-18.