Physical education research internationally is mainly focusing on a broad definition of Physical education, sport and physical activity (Bailey, 2006, Borgen et al 2018). Thus, physical education as school subject is the object of research; bodily learning is nearly invisible in this research field (Østern & Engelsrud, 2019). It is claimed that ‘traditional’ physical education, as we know it is practices as a multi-activity model and does not meet the needs of the pupils (Aasland et al, 2017, Kirk, 2010). Thereby PE is missing its potential to be an agent for change and good in a developing education system that is now asking more of its subjects than just teaching pupils facts and skills (Laker, 2000). Bodily learning as dichotomy to cognitive learning, and physical activity as health policy tool rather than as learning, is common within school policy development internationally as well as in Nordic countries. However, bodily learning, and the body's importance for learning, need theorization within central learning contexts such as school, teacher education and other higher education. Eastern countries have a threesome understanding of cognitive, affective and bodily learning, and physical education teaching and learning here have different rationales than the western and Nordic physical education in schools (Naul, 2011). However, western ideas about the distinction between these dimensions seems to influence Eastern countries educational policy, and illustrate how transnational policy ideas and initiatives travels between hemispheres (Phillips & Ochs, 2003).

Physical learning implies an understanding that learning occurs throughout each and everybody and between people in social and spatial realities. Physical learning is both happening in gross motor and visible movements, as well as in movements, affections and intensities that occur deeply in and between bodies in social and material realities. Researchers from Norway, Japan and South Korea in this project will, through comparative studies of curriculum designs, didactic practices, student experiences and teacher training of PE in explore how processes of policy in education travels and are implemented, on the basis of Goodlad's ecological curriculum theory (Goodlad, 1977). The aim is to develop new knowledge about these paradoxes within the transnational education context of OECD Education 2030.

The study use mixed methods design including document analysis of national curriculums, participating observation in schools, interviews, video observations and stimulated recall interviews (Aarskog et al, 2018).

The project contribute with new knowledge for the renewal of the physical education school subject internationally in relation to OECD Education 2030 and national curriculum reforms and implementations in progress in Nordic countries and in South Korea and Japan. The project will also be of importance to the ongoing reforms of physical education teacher training internationally.

Aarskog, E., Barker, D., Borgen, J. S. (2018). What were you thinking? A methodological approach for exploring decision-making and learning in physical education. Article in review in Sport, Education and Society. Aasland, E., Walseth, K. & Engelsrud, G. (2017) The changing value of vigorous activity and the paradox of utilising exercise as punishment in physical education, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22:5, 490-501, DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2016.1268590 Bailey, R. (2006). Physical Education and Sport in Schools: A Review of Benefits and Outcomes. Journal of School Health, October 2006, Vol. 76, No. 8dÓ 2006, p. 397-401, American School Health Association. Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00132.x/epdf Borgen, J. S., Mordal Moen, K., Hallås, B. O., Løndal, K., Gjølme, E. G. (2018). Physical Education Sport Studies in Norway. In review for anthology published by Meyer & Meyer in Aachen (Germany; https://www.m-m-sports.com/) Borgen, Jorunn Spord & Hjardemaal, Finn (2017). From general transfer to deep learning as argument for practical aesthetic school subjects? Nordic journal of studies in educational policy, (NordStep). Published before print. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20020317.2017.1352439 Goodlad, J. I. (1977). What goes on in our schools? Educational Researcher, 6(3), 3-6. Kirk, D. (2010). Physical education futures. London: Routledge. Laker, A. (2000). Beyond the Boundaries of Physical Education. London: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203135792 Naul, R. (2011). Conceptual diversity and future directions of physical education in the global context. In: Japanese Journal of Sport Education Studies, vol. 30, No.2, 39-50. Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2003). Process of Policy Borrowing in Education: some explanatory and analytical devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 451–461. OECD (2016). The Future of Education and Skills. Education 2030. Paris, OECD. Østern, T.P. & Engelsrud, G. (2019). Leder/Editorial. Kroppen er alltid involvert I læring. På Spissen forskning / Dance Articulated, Special Issue Bodily Learning, 2019 (1).