The aim of this research is to explore the experiences and perspectives of pre-service teachers, teacher educators and the head of department in their co-creation of developing Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE). This research is part of a larger, ongoing research project titled Redesigning Physical Education Teacher Education where the primary objective is to create a coherent and integrated teacher education that fosters the development of students’ identity, beliefs, and practices. Both the wider research project and this sub-project are part of concerted effort to create research informed practice during the development of our new five-year teacher education program at the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences (NIH).
In 2021, Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) in Norway transitioned from a three-year bachelor program to a five-year master's program. This context stimulated research and development projects that concentrated on the advancement of PETE. One of the central issues that derived from the development of PETE was the importance of involving and engaging the students in this process. As a higher education institution, it is vital that campuses provide space for research, teaching and learning that supports collaboration and active learning (Lillejordet et al., 2017). Therefore, our research aimed to explore students’ engagement and collaboration with teacher educators in the development of PETE. Whilst there have been frequent calls for more student-active learning approaches in higher education (Børte et al., 2023). The majority of studies exploring student co-creation in higher education originated from the fields of marketing and management rather than teacher education (e.g. Zarandi et al., 2024; Dollinger & Lodge, 2020). A notable exception is Enright et al (2017), who investigated pre-service teachers’ co-construction of the curriculum and the realization of democratic possibilities in PETE. PETE research instead, has tended to focus on pedagogical approaches such as flipped classrooms (e.g. Østerlie & Bjerrkee, 2023) or on investigating student-active learning approaches within school-based physical education (e.g. Bjørke & Moen, 2020). Therefore, knowledge gained from exploring how pre-service teachers, a department head and the teacher educators experience co-creation will help fill a critical research gap, contributing to the international body of knowledge and potentially enhancing student involvement in teacher education worldwide.
The study is theoretically grounded in a critical constructivist understanding of knowledge, acknowledging that historical, social, cultural, economic, and political contexts construct our perspectives on the world, self, and other (Bentley & Fleury, 2017). The participants understanding and experiences with co-creation of PETE is thus, influenced by the existing and dominant views and practices around student involvement and engagement in teacher education.
To better understand students' and teacher educators' experiences of co-creating PETE, the following research questions were addressed: 1) How do the project participants understand co-creation? 2) How do the project participants experience, value and evaluate the process of co-creation of PETE, and 3) What influences the project participants' experiences of co-creating PETE? (benefits and barriers)

To explore the participants' perceptions and experiences of co-creation in the development of Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) we have adopted a qualitative approach. Data was generated using semi structured interviews (Mason, 2018). We conducted individual interviews with the Head of department and the Head of the student council at the Department of Teacher Education and Outdoor studies, alongside focus group interviews (Mason, 2018) with 5 pre-service teachers and 9 teacher educators. In this paper we will present findings from the interviews with pre-service teachers, the head of the student council and the head of the department. The interviews were conducted by the authors and transcribed verbatim by a scientific assistant. All interviews were conducted at the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences between spring 2024 and January 2025. The interviews lasted approximately 1 ½ hours. The pre-service teachers were selected through purposive sampling (Mason, 2018) to ensure different perspectives and experiences from students who are differently positioned in the process of developing our PETE (e.g. student representatives, ‘ordinary’ students and the head of the student council at our department). The analysis of the data is inspired by and follows Braun & Clark's (2022) practical guide to thematic analysis and our analysis is following the tenets of our critical-interpretivist position (MacDonald, 2002; Sparkes, 1992). We have individually carried out the analyses of interviews with the head of the department, head of the student council and the pre- service teachers, and then shared our emerging understandings both orally and in written form. What we present must be regarded as a preliminary analysis of the data and thus represents our tentative findings. Carrying out a practitioner research project involving colleagues and students requires ethical awareness and care in the entire research process (Casey et al., 2018; Mason, 2018). We are especially aware of ethical considerations regarding gaining informed consent, confidentiality and power relations. The design of the project was granted ethical approval by Sikt, the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research.

The preliminary findings of this study highlight five main themes: 1) Co-creation is perceived as both a process and a product, 2) Co-creation enhances the quality of PETE, 3) Strong relationships and support among stakeholders is essential, 4) There is a sense of equality, yet still power dynamics remain, and 5) Co-creation is resource-intensive and requires shared spaces. It can be concluded that co-creation in the development of PETE is important, but also demanding, and the process of co-creation can be considered as an art of balance. To further develop co-creation in teacher education, the study shows that there is a need for clearer communication and clarification of expectations between the actors involved (students, teachers, and department head), as well as training and continual support is essential for all stakeholders.

Bentley, M. L., & Fleury, S. C. (2017). 21st Century science education: A critical creative social constructivist perspective. Critical Education, 8(11), 1-15. Retrieved from http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/186192 Bjørke, L., & Mordal Moen, K. (2020). Cooperative learning in physical education: a study of students’ learning journey over 24 lessons. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 25(6), 600-612. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1761955 Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: a practical guide. SAGE. Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Lillejord, S. (2023). Barriers to student active learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(3), 597-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1839746 Casey, A. Fletcher, T., Schaefer, L & Gleddie, D. (2018). Conducting practitioner research in physical education and youth sport: Reflecting on practice. Routledge. Enright, E., Coll, L., Ní Chróinín, D., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2017). Student voice as risky praxis: democratizing physical education teacher education. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 22(5), 459-472. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=4bae50c1-6d7e-30fb-9627-6dee4394fac5 Lillejord, S., K. Børte, K. Nesje, and E. Ruud. 2017. Campusutforming for undervisning, forskning, samarbeid og læring – en systematisk kunnskapsoversikt. [Campus Development for Teaching, Research, Collaboration and Learning]. www.kunnskapssenter.no. Macdonald, D. (2002). Critical pedagogy: what might it look like and why does it matter? In A. Laker (Ed.), The Sociology of sport and physical education: an introductory reader (pp. 167-189). Routledge / Falmer. Mason, J. (2018). Qualitative researching (Third edition. ed.). SAGE. Sparkes, A. (1992). Research in physical education and sport: exploring alternative visions. Falmer Press. Østerlie, O., Sargent, J., Killian, C., Garcia-Jaen, M., García-Martínez, S., & Ferriz-Valero, A. (2023). Flipped learning in physical education: A scoping review. European Physical Education Review, 29(1), 125-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x221120939