There is a growing internationally research interest in how Physical education (PE) and PE teacher education (PETE) may contribute to Education for Sustainability (EfSD), and the vision set out by the 2030 agenda and the SDGs (Fröberg & Lundvall, 2022; UN, 2015). In teacher education, EfSD is generally embedded as a component of a compulsory subject, or as an essential part of school policies, practices and activities (Stevenson et al., 2017). As positioned at the heart of the micro-level in education as those being responsible for educating future generations to address the global challenges that humanity is facing, teachers play a critical role to deliver EfSD (Boeren, 2019). If any changes are to take place in school, teacher education is one critical point of departure as it can contribute to the development of critical knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Abilities are needed for teachers to become active change agents. Recently, researchers suggested that PE may contribute to the 2030 agenda and some SDGs, such as “Good health and well-being”, “Quality education”, “Gender equality”, “Reduced inequalities”, and “Climate action” (Baena-Morales & González-Víllora, 2022; Lohmann et al., 2021).

If EfSD and orientation towards the 2030 agenda and the SDGs are to be realized, more attention should be given to professional development in PETE and especially what PE teacher training educators (PET-ed) perceive to be critical aspects. Professional development is one way of preparing PET-ed to encounter and embrace curriculum changes of different kinds (Lambert & Penney, 2020). A systematic professional development may allow for a re-thinking and re-orientation of courses within PETE in terms of how to understand what possibilities in theory and practice that a perspective of sustainability may offer. Even though it has been suggested that some of the contents of PE are related to sustainable development (SD), one critical question is that of prioritizing teaching and learning of content and challenge the way it is taught. More research is, however, needed, especially with focus on PETE.

The overall aim of this participatory action research (PAR) study is to explore what PET-ed perceive to be critical aspects on EfSD in PE and PETE. The specific research questions are:

•How do PETE educators perceive and conceptualize sustainability and how PE and PETE relate to, and impact on, the SDGs , and what arguments and support are put forward in relation to this?

•What aspects on EfSD do PETE educators perceive to be critical to implement in PETE courses, and what arguments and support are put forward in relation to this?

•What lessons can be drawn from using a PAR study to initiate discussions about processes of change and an implementation of EfSD in PETE courses?

SD involves several ontological and epistemological layers, such as what is to be sustained, how, for whom, and by whom, when and where? Challenges related to SD may be fluid and uncertain, and social constructivism is needed to capture the complexity of the phenomenon (Kalsoom, 2019). Therefore, this PAR study draw on the principles of collaborative learning (CL) representing a broad, integrated approach to facilitate group learning, and relates to social constructivism, assuming that knowledge is produced in social contexts. Furthermore we are inspired by pragmatism and transformative pedagogy as one way of analyzing and understanding transactions, meaning making and learning.

CL is positively related to engagement and personal development and may involve positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, group processing, and social skills (Barkley, 2014; Bjørke et al., 2022). This will allow for the PET-ed to increase their knowledge, and share their experiences related to EfSD as a way of deepening their understanding and capability.

This PAR study involves 8 PET-ed from one higher education institution in Sweden. They have different employment and academic positions, including adjunct lectures and professors, who together prepare PET in compulsory and upper secondary schools. Moreover, they have different teaching areas, covering e.g., courses about didactics in “friluftsliv”, movement education, and health, as well as in exercise science. The learning goal of the professional development course was, besides to increase knowledge and understanding of different aspects of what EfSD is and can become, to encourage and suggest possible changes in theory and practice of a selected theme in an existing PETE course. The study began with the participants reflecting over the concept of sustainability, and how SD may fit into their current teaching practice in PETE. They wrote down their reflections, and these early papers were discussed in pairs and in groups. Thereafter the PET-ed group took part in a series of workshops and seminars (6 sessions and 180 minutes per session) encountering and problematizing the conceptualizing of education for sustainable development. These workshops and seminars were recorded. After each session the PET-eds wrote down their reflections on literature and discussions. The workshops and logbooks were important arenas for learning and giving each other support when working with modifying their teaching unit to strengthen the connection to EfSD, as well as opportunities to develop critical attitudes towards their own traditional teaching practices and aspects of sustainability-oriented learning (Wals, 2019). The analytical process is structured in three layers: individual responses and reflection, collegial responses, and reflections and a thematical analysis of logbooks and recordings from workshops. The analysis is inspired by a similar study that had curriculum changes in the foreground and how to understand new concepts and rationalities in practice and theory, (see Lambert & Penney, 2020). Analytical attention is directed towards subjectivities, positionalities, motivations

Data collection from parts of the first period of this PAR study have been analysed, and preliminary results will be presented from logbooks, recorded workshops and interviews. The finalization process of findings and conclusions will focus on what education of sustainability can mean individually and as part of a collective understanding, and in relation to the individual PET ed’s understandings and courses of various character in a PETE program in Sweden. A specific interest is how the teachers discussed and saw themselves as policy enactors and what they perceived as critical or not to implement in relation to sustainability-oriented learning in PETE. Furthermore, findings will also highlight in what ways the design of this collaborative learning process project supported and challenged the PET ed’s professional development.

Baena-Morales, S., & González-Víllora, S. (2022). Physical education for sustainable development goals: Reflections and comments for contribution in the educational framework. Sport, Education and Society, 1-17. Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. John Wiley & Sons. Bjørke, L., Standal, Ø. F., & Mordal Moen, K. (2022). ‘What we have done now is more student-centred’: an investigation of physical education teachers’ reflections over a one-year participatory action research project. Educational Action Research, 1-18. Boeren, E. (2019). Understanding Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 on “quality education” from micro, meso and macro perspectives. International review of education, 65, 277-294. Fröberg, A.; Lundvall, S. (2022), Sustainable Development Perspectives in Physical Education Teacher Education Course Syllabi: An Analysis of Learning Outcomes. Sustainability 14, 5955. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su14105955. Kalsoom Q. Constructivism and Sustainable Development. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Lohmann, J., Breithecker, J., Ohl, U., Gieß-Stüber, P., & Brandl-Bredenbeck, H. P. (2021). Teachers’ professional action competence in education for sustainable development: A systematic review from the perspective of physical education. Sustainability, 13(23) 13343. Stevenson, R. B., Lasen, M., Ferreira, J. A., & Davis, J. (2017). Approaches to embedding sustainability in teacher education: A synthesis of the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 405-417. United Nations, UN (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. New York: United Nations. Wals, A. Sustainability-oriented ecologies of learning. A response to systemic global dysfunction. In R. Barnett & N. Jackson. Ecologies for learning and practice: Emerging ideas, sightings, and possibilities (p. 61-78). London: Routledge.