There is an ongoing discussion about what constitutes knowledge in the school subject of physical education and health (PEH). Previous research from both the teachers' and the students' perspective indicate that the object of knowledge remains somewhat unclear and that there is a lack of learning taking place in PEH (see e.g. (Modell & Gerdin, 2021; 2022). In Sweden, research and government reports (see e.g., Larsson 2016; Swedish Schools Inspectorate 2018; have over the years emphasized the importance of discussing the objects of knowledge in PEH. Despite this, both teachers and students find it difficult to express themselves about knowledge, learning and learning processes in the subject (Redelius & Hay 2012; Wiker 2017). When it comes to assessment and grading, character-building elements tend to be important (Quennerstedt 2006), while it is unclear which objects of knowledge are central (Larsson & Karlefors, 2015). Recent studies of Swedish PEH practice (Modell & Gerdin, 2021; 2022), for instance, demonstrated how both teaching and assessment/grading practices in PEH are shaped more by the norms and values of competitive and club sports rather than the PEH curriculum. The results also demonstrate that there is an ongoing prioritisation of practical over theoretical knowledge in PEH practice, involving an emphasis on doing and being active without any clear learning objectives.

The role and purpose of schooling emphasizes both general education and subject-specific knowledge. School curriculum documents can be interpreted as saying that knowledge of important societal values is something that schools must convey, but at the same time such knowledge should not be graded (Wibowo, Krieger, Gaum & Dyson 2022). Wibowo et al. (2022) point out that in order to promote a more general and holistic education in PEH, both subject-specific knowledge and generic knowledge such as social, emotional and values knowledge are needed. In this study, it is investigated whether theories of general education knowledge that puts emphasis on social, emotional and values learning can be useful for investigating learning in PEH. The intention is to investigate the possibility of understanding objects of knowledge in PEH by drawing on Michael Uljens non-affirmative theory where an education with both subject-specific and generic knowledge is seen as important (Uljen's 2021). As pointed out by Sjöström and Tyson (2022, p. 52), "It's about connecting a focus on subject learning with clear value-based perspectives such as education and democratic upbringing".

The overall aim of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of knowledge in PEH from an educational perspective by examining upper-secondary school (age 16-19) students' perceptions of learning and assessment in PEH. The study is guided by the following research questions: (i) What do students perceive that they learn in PEH?; and (ii) What knowledge do students perceive to be assessed in PEH?

To understand how students perceive learning and what constitutes important knowledge in PEH, a qualitative approach was used (Alvesson & Sköldberg 2018). Through a convenience sample (Bryman, 2016), contact was made with a teacher of PEH at a secondary school located in a medium-sized city in southern Sweden. After a pilot study was conducted in 2021 the main data collection took place during 2022 including two different PEH classes with data being collected through observations and interviews during one school semester (20 weeks). The observations were of a non-participatory nature (Bryman, 2016) and focus was on what knowledge the students had the opportunity to learn. During the lessons, the researcher also had informal conversations with the students where sometimes the researcher approached select students to talk to them and at other times the students came up to the researcher spontaneously. After each lesson, the observations were documented in the form of field notes and the students' statements about learning and assessments/grades were written down. In addition, separate interviews were conducted with the students by drawing on semi-structured interview guide that was designed to explore their perceptions of learning and assessment of subject-specific and generic knowledge. These interviews were recorded using audio and then transcribed verbatim. Based on the observational data and the interview transcriptions, categories were created informed by questions that deal with learning and assessment in PEH. In particular, the focus of the analysis was on both generic knowledge and subject-specific knowledge (Uljens, 2021; Uljens & Nordin, 2022)). The analysis was guided by Kvale and Brinkman´s (2018) assertion that with the help of theoretical interpretation of interviews, the interpretation can be deepened and other dimensions can be discovered. The main categories that were constructed based on the data were; (1) “projects and in-between-lessons”, (2) “generic knowledge” and (3) “subject knowledge and assessment of knowledge”.

The results show that the students account for how they have some larger projects in PEH like strength projects, health projects, orienteering, apparatus gymnastics and dance. Between these projects, they have lessons that the students refer to as "in-between-lessons". The results further show that the students consider that they learn certain generic knowledge as well as subject-specific knowledge in PEH. The subject-specific knowledge that the students learn in this study is both reproductive and productive in nature. For example, they learn rules and techniques in formalized ball games, but they also have the opportunity to change the focus of the subject-specific learning based on their own needs, which is, for instance, expressed in their health project. When it comes to the learning of generic knowledge, it happens more continuously and implicit. However, the students point out that the grades are based on subject-specific knowledge and not on generic knowledge. Despite this, the students believe that it is important to learn generic knowledges associated with social, emotional and values knowledge and that PEH gives them great opportunities for this type of learning to take place. Based on the findings of this study, there is potential for more education-oriented learning to occur in PEH that can open up for more meaningful learning, creativity and ethical-critical action (Sjöström & Tyson 2022; Uljens & Nordin 2022).

Alvesson, M & Sköldberg K. (2018). Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. 3rd edition. Los Angeles: Sage. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press. Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Larsson H (2016) Idrott och Hälsa – Igår, Idag, Imorgon [‘Physical Education and Health – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow’]. Stockholm: Liber. Larsson, H., & Karlefors, I. (2015). Physical education cultures in Sweden: fitness, sports, dancing … learning?, Sport, Education and Society, 20(5), 573-587. Modell, N., & Gerdin, G. (2022). ‘But in PEH it still feels extra unfair’: students’ experiences of equitable assessment and grading practices in physical education and health (PEH), Sport, Education and Society, 27(9), 1047-1060. Modell, N., & Gerdin, G. (2022). ‘Why don’t you really learn anything in PEH?’ – Students’ experiences of valid knowledge and the basis for assessment in physical education and health (PEH). European Physical Education Review, 28(3), 797-815. Quennerstedt M (2006) Att lära sig hälsa [‘To learn about health’]. Doctoral Thesis. Örebro universitet, Örebro. Redelius, K. & Hay, P. (2012). Student view on criterion-referenced assessment and grading in Swedish physical education. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 17(2), 211-225. Sjöström, J. & Tyson, R. (2022). Didaktik för lärande och bildning. . Liber: Stockholm Swedish Schools Inspectorate (2018) Kvalitetsgranskning av ämnet idrott och hälsa i årskurs 7–9 [‘Quality Assessment of the School Subject Physical Education and Health, Grade 7-9’]. Stockholm: The Swedish Schools Inspectorate. Uljens; M. (2021). Pedagogiskt ledarskap av pedagogisk verksamhet. I Uljens, M. & Smeds-Nylund, A-S. (red.). Pedagogiskt ledarskap och skolutveckling (s. 37-99). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Uljens, M. & Nordin, A. (2022). Icke-affirmativ didaktik för skolan. I Nordin, A. & Uljens, M (red.). Didaktikens språk – om skolundervisningens mål, innehåll och form (s 37- 58). Malmö: Gleerups. Wibowo, J., Krieger, C., Gaum, C., & Dyson, B. (2022). Bildung: A German student-centered approach to health and physical education. European Physical Education Review, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X221133060 Wiker M (2017). “Det är live liksom” Elevers perspektiv på villkor och utmaningar i Idrott och Hälsa [‘It’s Like Live: Students Perspectives on Conditions and Challenges in Physical Education and Health’]. Doctoral thesis. Karlstad: Karlstad University.