Background

The term, play, is often used as a metaphor for all kinds of human activity (Karoff, 2013a). According to Sutton-Smith (1997), play is ambiguous and influenced by people's cultural ways of thinking. In the context of Physical Education (PE), play, games and sport are central content elements (Stoltz, 2014) and play is often set against games and sport. The relationship between these terms can be described as unclear and in need of clarification in order to better understand the intention and content of PE in school (Stolz, 2014).  

Play is often associated with situations without extrinsic goals characterized by self-initiation and freedom (Van Oers, 2013). And while play is associated with innocent, spontaneous and creative children in kindergarten and primary school, these are characteristics that are seldom associated with students in secondary school (Blok Johansen, 2015). However, freedom and self-initiation does not need to stand in contrast to learning. Play can lead to learning in the broadest sense and have an impact on further play (Pramling Samuelson & Asplund Carlsson, 2008). In the context of Physical Education, Mosston (1966) describes different ways of teaching PE, which shows that concepts such as self-initiation and freedom can be linked to teaching and learning. 

Compared to other European countries, Norway has a long tradition of curriculum-based Physical Education in schools with grading (Borgen et al., 2019). In Norwegian curriculum reform Kunnskapsløftet 2020 (LK20) (Udir, 2019a) play is presented as essential for students’` well-being and development, and a prerequisite for creativity and meaningful learning. Within the PE curriculum, it has been said that movement activities, play and practice should be emphasized to a greater extent than before (Udir, 2019b). However, we have little knowledge of how play has been understood in PE teachers’ previous professional practices. 

A literature search with the keywords "play" and "Physical Education" in the databases "ERIC", "SPORTDiscus" and "Web of Science" yielded a total of 171 hits, but only 51 of the hits dealt with "play" in PE. The search showed that there are few international studies on play in PE, and we have little knowledge of how teachers understand and include play in their PE teaching in secondary and upper secondary school.    

On the basis of this background, the research questions for this study are: 

• How do secondary school and upper secondary school teachers in Norway understand play in the Physical Education curriculum? 
• How do teachers in secondary school and upper secondary school include play in their teaching of Physical Education? 

Theoretical framework: 

In this study, we use Karoff’s (2013a; 2013b) theory of play that combines various theoretical and empirical perspectives on play. This theory provides an analytical framework for empirical studies of play practices, play moods and play tools. From this theoretical framework, we use the analytical concepts of “rules” and “formulas” of play. Whilst traditionally rules are associated with games, play can be linked to formulas to a greater extent. The formulas appear in situations where play is happening, which implies a form of improvisation where the formulas can play out in different ways (Karoff, 2013b). This means that participants in the play activity can play without there being "unanimity" about the content, but rather, a "consensus" (Karoff, 2013b). Accordingly, play has a certain form of freedom as formulas can be interpreted differently among the participants. Conversely, rules provide guidelines for the game, and often have a set goal (Karoff, 2013b). Play and games, however, must not be seen as two separate categories, but rather in motion between each other. We are particularly interested in how PE teachers understand and integrate play in teaching practices. 

Based on the research questions and the comparative lack of research about play in the context of PE, qualitative semi-structured interviews with Physical Education teachers and observation of Physical Education lessons with the same teachers were chosen as appropriate methodological procedures. The sample consists of two teachers who teach at secondary school and two teachers who teach at upper secondary school. Two teaching sessions per teacher of approximately two hours each were observed. The teachers were given no guidance on how the teaching should take place beyond the fact that play should be central to the sessions. The observation was carried out as non-participant observation (Clarke et al., 2021) with a focus on noting as much as possible of what the teachers said and did in order to identify what kind of rules or formulas were created in the teaching. Following the observation, a semi-structured interview was conducted with the aim of gaining an insight into the teachers' perceptions and descriptions of play in physical education (Brinkman, 2018). The interviews were based on a theoretically framed interview guide and often based on situations that had already been observed in the teaching. The purpose of retrieving situations from the observation was to give the teachers the opportunity to reflect on the decisions they made in the teaching in order to gain a deeper insight into their understandings of play and how they included play in their teaching in PE. In this way observation and interview complement each other in the study (Clark et al., 2021). The analysis of the data material was carried out according to what Braun and Clarke (2006; 2019) describe as a thematic analysis.

The analysis process is still ongoing and not completed. The preliminary findings indicate that the teachers in the study value the free and self-initiating play which we can put in context with Karloff’s (2013b) descriptions of "formulas". But when the teachers teach PE, they seem to integrate play to a greater extent by the teachers themselves deciding the content and guidelines for the pupils' play activities in the lessons. We can see this in connection with Karloff’s (2013b) description of rules, where the students have to follow the instructions and not do something else. This may be linked to international research that suggests that teacher-led teaching with a focus on rules and skill learning is the most common in physical education (Curtner-Smith et al., 2001; Cothran et al., 2005). This can hinder students from creating meaningful structures in the play activity themselves. This shows how incorporating play into an educational context often involves tensions (Kuschner, 2012). Teachers in this study say that they would like to have more focus on play without predefined rules, but that this is challenging to implement, amongst other reasons, due to assessment and grading. The teachers also mention effort and physical activity either directly, or implicitly, as a prerequisite for participation in play. This can be seen in the context of research which highlights that physical education is practiced as an activity subject (Kirk, 2010).

Blok Johansen, M. (2015). Forestillinger om børn og unge. BARN – Forskning om barn og barndom i Norden, 31(3-4), 19-34. Borgen, J. S., Moen, K. M, Hallås, B. O., Løndal, K. & Gjølme, E. G. (2019). Physical Education and Sport Studies in Norway. In: Naul, R. & Scheuer, C. (Eds.). Research on Physical Education and School Sports in Europe. Meyer and Meyer Verlag. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11:4, 589-597, DOI: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 Brinkman, S. (2018). The interview. In: Denzin, N. K & Lincoln, Y, S. (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research. (s. 576-599). Sage publications. Clark, T., Foster, L., Sloan, L. & Bryman, A. (2021). Bryman's Social Research Methods (6.utg). Oxford University Press. Cothran, D., Kulinna, P., Banville, D., Choi, E., Amade-Escot, C., MacPhail, A., Macdonald, D., Richard, J-F., Saramento P. & Kirk, D. (2005). A Cross-cultural investigation of the Use of teaching styles. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 193–201. Curtner-Smith, M., Hasty, D., & Kerr, I. (2001). Teachers’ use of productive and reproductive teaching styles prior to and following the introduction of national curriculum physical education. Educational Research, 43, 333–340. Karoff, H. S. (2013a). Play practices and play moods. International Journal of Play, 2(2), 76 -86. Karoff, H. S. (2013b). Om Leg: Legens medier, praktikker og stemninger. Akademisk Forlag Kirk, D. (2010). Physical Education Futures. Routledge Kuschner, D. (2012). Play is natural to childhood but school is not: The problem of integrating play into the curriculum. International Journal of Play, 1(3), 242-249. Mosston, M. (1966). Teaching physical education. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Asplund Carlsson, M. (2008) The Playing Learning Child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6), 623-641. DOI: 10.1080/00313830802497265 Stolz, S.A. (2014). The Philosophy of Physical Education: A New Perspective. Routledge. Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The Ambiguity of play. Harvard University Press. Udir (2019a). Læreplan i kroppsøving (KRO01 05). https://www.udir.no/lk20/kro01-05 Udir (2019b, 18. november). Hva er nytt i kroppsøving? https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/lareplanverket/fagspesifikk-stotte/nytt-i-