“It’s Good to Have a Voice”: What Do Students Think about the Impact of a Flexible Curricular Implementation of Student-Centered Pedagogies on Their Own Learning Experiences?

Abstract

While there is extensive evidence that student-centered pedagogies (SCPs) develop multidimensional (motor, cognitive, social) outcomes in students, the coalesced use of some of the core pedagogies of student-centered models (SCMs) can facilitate the achievement of more than one educational theme in the same intervention and may facilitate student engagement in more representative physical education (PE) experiences. In this study, students’ voices are explored concerning the impact of a flexible and coalesced curricular implementation of SCPs on their own PE learning experiences. An insider action-research design was implemented for one entire school year (50 lessons of 90 min each) with 25 students aged 16–17 years, enrolled in the 12th grade at a high school in Portugal. A qualitative data collection source was used (semi-structured focus-group interviews), analyzed through a mixed inductive–deductive thematic analysis. The findings emphasize that a flexible and coalesced curricular implementation of various SCPs over an extended period of time, considering the sport content, the context, and the skill level of students, seems to contribute to the development of more positive learning experiences for students. In summary, these learning experiences require that teachers learn to listen and respond to students’ voices.

1. Introduction

Almost two decades ago, Dyson et al. [1] presented a strong case for the implementation of a student-centered PE curriculum, where the teachers create learning environments that allocate the student at the center of the learning process [2]. In this way, teachers modify activities to meet students’ developmental needs to optimize their success engagement [1], guide them to be sensitive to each other’s ideas and work cooperatively [3], and shift responsibilities to students while holding them as accountable protagonists of the teaching–learning process [1,4]. This student-centered PE curriculum has been supported by multiple SCMs, such as sport education (SE) [5], cooperative learning (CL) [6], or game-based approaches (GBAs) (e.g., teaching games for understanding (TGfU) [7]; or the step-game approach) [8].

There is extensive evidence that the student-centered experience becomes representative in the lives of students and improves the quality of learning experiences [9] through more democratic and inclusive interactions, largely by promoting their multidimensional psychomotor, cognitive, social, and affective development [10,11]. This is particularly important in PE as “PE…is the most effective means of providing all children and youth with the skills, attitudes, values, knowledge, and understanding for lifelong participation in society” (p. 3) [12].

Extensive research [10,11] has shown the potential of SE, CL, and GBAs to realize multiple educational goals through the isolated application of each model (i.e., using a different model for each teaching unit). For example, in SE, the enthusiastic student exerts high effort in the activities, and transfers the healthy values cultivated in PE to their daily life. Students find enjoyment in feeling they are having fun, have developed game-play skills through their extensive participation in peer-teaching tasks and student-led events, and by participation in the formal celebration of learning achievements [13,14]. Research in CL showed that students enjoy feeling that they are active learners who work together and help each other in building positive feelings of interdependence and opportunities to learn to listen to each other and work together respectfully to meet personal and social needs [10,15]. During participation in GBAs, students develop their cognitive skills and a high sense of competence, apparently as they feel empowered to effectively solve game-problems, which contributes to students’ self-determined motivation to participate in the activities [11,16].

However, regardless of the predominant use of SE, CL, or GBAs, Dyson et al. [1] also argued that teachers should, above all, place a set of particular pedagogies considered to grasp the foundational essence of student-centeredness at the heart of their teaching, as follows: that students actively engage in learning, work in small groups, and participate in modified activities that are interesting and challenging. This aligns with the increasing multidimensional societal demands placed on school curricula and consequent claims for student development of the ‘most needed’ 21st-century skills (e.g., critical thinking, leadership and communication skills, autonomous learning, collaborative problem-solving) [17,18].

The common features shared by these SCMs, the need to overcome some limitations (e.g., SE: the lack of attention paid to the content being taught and learned [19]) and the belief that there is not a single model capable of fitting all the content areas and contexts, led teachers and scholars to combine different SCMs or parts of them [20,21].

Based on this, as an alternative to the isolated application of any pedagogical model on its own, there has been a growing advocacy for a more flexible and coalesced use of foundational SCPs (based on student-led activities, peer-teaching, collaborative problem-solving) [22]. As each model has a core educational theme (sports culture, social development, game-based activities), and prioritizes slightly different outcomes (e.g., CL stresses students’ affective and social development), the coalesced use of some of the core pedagogies of these models can facilitate the achievement of more than one educational theme in the same intervention [23]. This may facilitate student engagement in more representative PE experiences through a wider active engagement of students in the experience and the use of democratic and reflective pedagogies [24].

As students are the main “consumers” of the approach’s teachers apply, it is imperative to access to how students view the use of SCPs, namely, established social interactions, performance of various roles within the PE class, cognitive involvement, contribution of all students regardless of their skill level, etc.

Some studies have been focused on empowering the student voice in PE [25,26,27], suggesting that the teacher and the curriculum, both negatively and positively, “impact the attitude formation of students toward PE” (p. 20) [28]. For example, Guadalupe and Curtner-Smith [29], through informal and focus group interviews with the students, found that teachers who allow their students to voice their opinions can improve students’ engagement. On the other hand, other studies that also collect students’ perceptions through qualitative data showed that teachers and curriculum could be barriers to learning when students lack decision-making power [28].

Nevertheless, without neglecting the importance of the studies carried out to date, an empirical analysis of the pedagogical implications of this flexible and coalesced curricular implementation of SCPs in PE through students’ voices is lacking [13]. Additionally, a year-long study is appropriate, considering issues that occur over time, which will allow students’ needs to be met promptly and, consequently, provide insights for teacher training into possible strategies to promote more representative learning experiences to students. Furthermore, such a study design will provide insights that can contribute to helping students become aware of the weaknesses, difficulties, and added value as consumers of these SCPs (e.g., which strategies used by the teacher are most beneficial for me? Which decisions are made? Why?). In agreement, in this study, students’ voices were examined concerning the impact of a flexible and coalesced curricular implementation of SCPs on their own PE learning experiences.

2. Materials and Methods

The Research Ethics Committee of this study’s institutional host granted ethical approval for the research project (CEFADE 18 2019) after gathering the consent of all students and respective legal guardians.

2.1. Design

This research is based on the ontology of the teacher–researcher, a relativist ontology (a belief that there are multiple social realities) [30] and is located in the interpretative paradigm, which argues that interpretation and knowledge are only considered significant as they are meaningful to stakeholders [31].

Following an interpretative methodology, in this study, students’ voices were examined concerning the impact of a flexible and coalesced curricular implementation of SCPs on their PE learning experiences within an action research (AR) design. The flexible and cyclical nature of AR reflected an epistemology that facilitated in-depth access to and keeping pace with the dynamic and situated development of teaching and learning [32]. An insider AR design was adopted with an NT taking up the dual role of teacher–researcher [33].

AR involving self-study with teacher-as-researcher methodologies typically tends to exhibit strong evidence of problematization of the experience and critical reflection by the teacher–researcher as they progress in their spiral of empowerment as teaching professionals. However, AR was used as background in the service of the purposes of this study and not as an object of analysis in itself. Indeed, the mapping of the students’ voices about the learning experiences designed through multiple SCPs in PE was the main purpose. As such a pedagogical pathway is depicted, it necessarily contains, implicitly, the critical reflection process that informed it.

This study involved three AR cycles (equated to three school terms), with each cycle including planning, acting, observing, and reflecting on practice [34]. All processes were centered on the events emerging during the program implementation, and a particular focus was given to students’ voices regarding the teacher’s interventions over time.

The first AR cycle aimed to develop the ‘big’ structures of CL, SE, and TGfU, for students to adapt to a new form of teaching; the central educational purposes set for the second AR were as follows: (i) the extension of the development of closer social interactions (tolerance, knowledge sharing, mutual trust) to a wider range of students and social groups, not just among students affiliated with the same team; (ii) the extension of the transfer of (peer-teaching) responsibility to all students; and (iii) the extension of learners’ active engagement in more inclusive experiences with the design of individually tailored learning challenges (according to students’ skill level); and in the third AR cycle, the NT set out the two following main educational targets: (i) transferring more responsibility to students for leading significant elements of the lessons (e.g., event managerial leadership), and for their leadership in negotiating and setting individually tailored levels of challenge; and (ii) providing appropriate scaffolding support to students. At the end of each AR cycle, the students’ reflections and fact-finding about the goals informed the subsequent planning and action steps taken in the following cycles.

The epistemology of this AR prioritized the use of more flexible and coalesced use of foundational SCPs. Although the pedagogical practice of the NT was strongly informed by a curricular perspective based on SCMs, the assumptions regarding model fidelity proposed by Hastie and Casey [35] were not fully met, for that was not the purpose. The pedagogical procedures in our study drew on recent suggestions of Casey and Kirk [36], that ‘teachers are at liberty to pick and choose whichever features of pedagogical models they wish to implement’ (p. 27). In the present study, it can be argued that a curriculum based on SCPs has been implemented. Rather than ‘blindly’ seeking the ‘ticking’ of any set of benchmarks of different pedagogical models (SE, CL, and GBAs), the NT selected the pedagogical features of each of these models that she felt she was capable of implementing (level of knowledge, career stage), or that best solved the constraints of practice, considering the nature of the sport taught (e.g., invasion or non-invasion games) and the skill level of the students.

2.2. Participants and Setting

This study involved 25 students aged 16–17 years (15 girls and 10 boys), enrolled in the 12th grade at a high school in Portugal. The school, class, and the teacher who designed and implemented the intervention process were selected for this study by convenience [37].

The teacher was a female novice PE teacher (25 years old) with two years of professional experience. This research allowed her to consolidate her previous experience gained in her master’s degree (PE Teaching in Basic and Secondary Education), and she was also a PhD student in the doctoral program in Sports Science. The co-authors were experienced academics with high expertise in SCPs, acting as advisors to challenge NT’s interpretations throughout the process.

The PE curriculum guidelines and the PE teacher education program adopted at the host institution of this study train the future teachers (and in-service teachers) to flexibly apply different SCPs based on SE, CL, and GBAs. The full, segmented, or hybrid application of the pedagogical features of several SCMs is used as central resources to solve the problems emerging from teachers’ professional practice as they strive to engage their students in meaningful PE experiences.

2.3. The Student-Centered PE Programme

As per the epistemology of AR, this section provides a snapshot of the pedagogical events that occurred during the school year. To provide this, the lesson plans (N = 100), which included the design of each learning situation intended to respond to the PE curriculum demands, were considered. The program lasted a full school year and was applied during regular PE classes (twice per week, 90 min PE lessons).

The first school term included futsal (20 × 45 min lessons), and dance (14 × 45 min lessons), the second included volleyball (22 × 45 min lessons), and badminton (12 × 45 min lessons) and the last one included basketball (22 × 45 min lessons), and athletics (10 × 45 min lessons).

Table 1. Overview of the first school term.

Model	Features	Operations	Sport Content
SE	Affiliation, learning teams, rituals	Team identity: team-tailored equipment, personalized team name, team anthems	Futsal Dance
SE + CL	Role-playing, responsibility hierarchy	Captains: motor performance peer-feedback, leadership in group discussion; other students: referees, record-keepers	Futsal
CL + SE + TGfU	Face-to-face, small group, group processing	Group discussions: warm-up tasks, game-play issues, competition assignments	Futsal
SE	Records, culminating event, formal competition, fair play awards	Motor performance, peer-feedback frequency, final matches/events, awards celebration, regular competition schedule, recognition of merit, trophies	Futsal
SE	Informal competition	Occasional competition	Dance
TGfU	Cognitive engagement	Questioning for tactical understanding	Futsal

Notes: SE = sport education; CL = cooperative learning; TGfU = teaching games for understanding.

,

Table 2. Overview of the second school term.

Model	Features	Operations	Sport Content
SE	Affiliation, learning teams, rituals, records	Team identity: team-tailored equipment, personalized team name, team anthems; motor performance, peer-feedback frequency	Badminton Volleyball
SE + CL	Democratic responsibility	Coaching teams (all students): motor performance peer-feedback, round robin peer-feedback, and participation negotiation	Badminton Volleyball
CL +SE + SGA	Face-to-face, small group, group processing	Group discussions: warm-up tasks, game-play issues, competition assignments	Volleyball
SE + SGA	Culminating event, formal competition, fair play awards, cognitive engagement, learning stage tasks, game- and problem-based activities	Final matches/events; awards celebration; competition in ability-level and mixed-ability matches; recognition of merit, trophies; questioning for tactical understanding; participation in relevant learning tasks	Volleyball

Notes: SE = sport education; CL = cooperative learning; SGA = step-game approach.

and

Table 3. Overview of the third school term.

Model	Features	Operations	Sport Content
SE	Affiliation, learning teams, rituals, records, formal competition	Team identity: team-tailored equipment, personalized team name, team anthems; motor performance, peer-feedback frequency; regular competition schedule	Basketball Athletics
SE + CL	Democratic responsibility	Coaching teams (all students): motor performance peer-feedback, round robin peer-feedback, and participation negotiation	Athletics
CL +SE + TGfU	Face-to-face, small group, group processing	Group discussions: warm-up tasks and competition assignments	Athletics
		Group discussions: warm-up tasks, game-play issues, competition assignments	Basketball
SE	Culminating event Fair play awards	Final matches/events; awards celebration; recognition of merit, trophies	Basketball
TGfU	Cognitive engagement, game- and problem-based activities	Questioning for tactical understanding, participation in relevant learning tasks	Basketball

Notes: SE = sport education; CL = cooperative learning; TGfU = teaching games for understanding.

provide an overview of the SCPs applied across the three school terms, considering the SCMs (SE, CL, GBAs), pedagogical strategies (student-centered features), respective practical operations, and the sport contents. This summary was based on the analysis of all lesson plans, which were cross-checked with data from the FD of the NT and from student voices collected from the FGs.

An alignment between the pedagogical features of CL, SE, and GBAs and the respective PE content (teaching unit) is shown. For example, SE’s ‘Affiliation’ feature was both used in dance and futsal in the first school term. GBAs were applied to teach the sport-based content. Features of the GBAs (TGfU and SGA) were used in futsal, volleyball, or basketball [8].

2.4. Data Collection

Data were compiled along each AR cycle through focus group (FG) interviews to gain an exhaustive understanding of the topic under study [38]. The teacher–researcher conducted three semi-structured FG interviews at the end of each school term (nine in total) to allow students to discuss opinions in their own words, understand interactions with peers, and grasp their views [37]. In considering the proximity of the teacher–researcher and how ‘too much involvement’ could influence students’ answers to what they perceived the NT wanted to hear, the teacher–researcher was aware that students needed to take the lead in the FG discussions. The NT read the questions to the students and only occasionally asked prompting questions, allowing them to expand on peer answers [33]. Students were encouraged to share their ideas in a comfortable way, and all points of view were equally valued [37]. FG interviews were conducted after the school day (in the school setting), each interview was video recorded, lasted approximately 90–130 min, and was transcribed verbatim.

2.5. Data Analysis

In keeping with the on-the-spot, interactive, and cyclical epistemology nature of AR, data collection and analysis were intertwined and were based on the collaborative qualitative analysis proposed by Richards and Hemphill [39]. A thematic analysis was used to evaluate data [40]. The initial stage involved immersion and familiarization with the transcribed data. Specifically, this involved reading the texts several times and identifying relevant data segments.

The second phase involved the production of initial codes from the data and labeling basic segments deemed meaningful. This step, completed manually by-hand, was systematic and rigorous, with the aim of building ‘solid foundations for theme development’ (p. 9) [40]. We critically engaged with the data mostly at a semantic level (i.e., the obvious meanings expressed) but also at a latent level (i.e., more implicit ideas that underpin what is explicitly expressed). For example, the following FG excerpt ‘there are young teachers who are already very stiff (…) Not you Miss, you get students have different problems and that they will overcome them in different ways’, was coded by its explicit meaning as ‘respecting student individuality’. On the other hand, the next excerpt ‘Miss you don’t tell us to do like this because you think that’s the only way (…) each student does it in their one way, as long as they find an appropriate way’ was similarly coded for its implicit meaning.

The third phase involved generating (initial) themes (i.e., patterns of shared meaning united by a core concept) relevant to this study, by addressing concepts and sorting codes into themes. In the same example, at this phase, the code ‘respecting student individuality’ and other codes, such as ‘giving students an active role’, were summoned under the main theme ‘student valued facilitative behaviors’.

The fourth phase involved going back through the data to check if the analysis was not misrepresenting the data through poor coding, and if the ‘narrative’ being told was addressing the purpose of this study. In this case, the provisional theme ‘student valued facilitative behaviours’ was refined into a new core theme (i.e., ‘Key elements for a positive experience in PE’), which more fully captured the different (interacting) properties of this phenomena component.

The fifth phase involved (re)naming the identified themes in ways that captured the temporal effect of the AR epistemology (i.e., the main themes adopted different configurations across the three cycles). These main themes are presented in Section 3.

As an additional step, there was a dialogue between the emerging data related with the student-centered pedagogies. This relationship is depicted in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3.

2.6. Research Trustworthiness

To acknowledge the potential consequences of researcher presence and to establish a balance between closeness and distance [41], multiple trustworthiness criteria were adopted, as follows: data triangulation, which involved cyclical and interactive data collection from different sources and intended to describe the phenomena through different perspectives [42]; stakeholder checking of the accuracy of the interpretations made, based on questioning students about the implicit meanings of their verbal actions and interventions [43]; and regular peer debriefings and collective interpretational analysis among the research team to minimize the risk of individual researcher bias [37].

3. Results

The pedagogical intervention conducted by the NT was inspired by the three following overarching goals: (i) in the first AR cycle, to develop the ‘big’ structures of CL, SE, and TGfU, for students to start to adapt to a new form of teaching; (ii) in the second AR cycle, to extend the development of closer social interactions, to extend the transfer of peer-teaching responsibility to all students and learners’ active engagement in more inclusive experiences with the design of individually tailored learning challenges; and (iii) in the third AR cycle, to transfer more responsibility to students for leading significant elements of the lessons and for their leadership in negotiating and setting individually tailored levels of challenge, as to provide appropriate scaffolding support to students. At the end of each AR cycle, the students’ reflections and fact-finding about the goals informed the subsequent planning and action steps taken in the following cycles.

3.1. First AR Cycle: Time to Discover the Adventure and Challenges of Student-Centered Curriculum

During the first AR cycle, the SCPs used by the NT prompted student’s effective engagement in social interactions, enthusiasm, and delight; a sense of accomplishment and an augmented sense of usefulness and rising consciousness of the responsibility inherent to the performed roles; and an increased cognitive engagement and an implicit feeling of being nurtured. Nevertheless, a minority of students perceived the use of role-playing as a behavioral control measure and, in some formal competition moments, disruptions in the social interactions among students due to high skill students putting their personal achievement goals ahead of collective goals.

Regarding the contribution of CL pedagogies, some students felt that group discussions and decision-making were an effective strategy for the external accountability of their effective engagement in social interactions because it was a way to “push students for discussion and sharing of ideas” (Lip, SR) (FG December). Although students’ engagement in activities that combined SE and CL occurred in reference to low-complexity content (warm-up tasks); hence, with less perceived “responsibility weight”, the respective transfer of decision-making power to students prompted enthusiasm and delight: “You let us make contributions and gave us responsibilities, at the same time you wanted to understand our point of view (…) we were not just told what to do, we had an active role, we interacted with you on the teaching stuff” (Megan) [FG December].

On SE pedagogies, the students valued the extension of the meaning of competence beyond the sole focus on their game-play ability. There was a wide sense of accomplishment (expressed not only by the higher-skilled students), apparently due to participation in a “different context where we were granted merit awards for being responsible” (James), with “real-life tournaments” (Natalie), and because “we had the opportunity to perform other sporting roles”. The opportunity for scoring “extra points for fair-play and being a cooperative mate in all sports” (Joanna), and “especially in Futsal, the festive culminating event designed to celebrate the achievements of all the teams” (RD). The team-captains expressed an augmented sense of usefulness and rising consciousness of the responsibility inherent to the ‘job’, “the captain had a job, to help everyone” (Brad, SR).

The effect of role-playing in enhancing students’ perceptions of learning and competence was also brought to light, especially in futsal, where students had the opportunity to play the referees’ role in competition events. Students saw and had an ‘instrumental’ purpose in it as they were given the “opportunity for learning more about game rules” (Joanne) as students “had to pay more attention to the rules of the game”; hence, when transferring to game-play practice, “we already knew how to apply those rules” (Adam) (FG, December).

However, not all pedagogical interactions generated positive feelings in all students. The students who were not captains and played roles of less responsibility (usually less qualified students), perceived the use of role-playing as a behavioral control measure, “it was for keeping us busy” (Eric, SR) because “if you’re in role you are not distracted or making a fuss” (Lisa) (FG December). The generalized feelings of fun and excitement generated by the ‘formal competition’ emerged in concurrence with occasional disruptions in the social interactions among students. Some higher-skilled students put their personal achievement goals ahead of collective goals of inclusion, fair-play, and contribution to a democratic environment,

“Lip: Sometimes when they were losing the match, they took the ball and play on their own.

Carol: That’s not how you solve problems, you need to work as a team to get to the group goals” [FG December].

Regarding the role of GBAs, several students emphasized the increased cognitive engagement prompted by the questioning and an implicit feeling of being nurtured,

“Brad: Rather than memorizing, understanding is being in a different situation and knowing, ‘in this situation, these tactics will be the best’.

Nichole: We felt, ‘We will actually be learning something today’. That’s exciting.

Alice: Being questioned in a gentle way, ‘let’s check if they know this’ if it feels like you care for what we think, that our knowledge is also good, and we feel, ‘I believe in myself’” [FG December].

3.2. Second AR Cycle: The Sweetness of Appreciating a New Way of Learning

During the second AR cycle, the SCPs used by the NT increased, feelings of positive interdependence and empathy; personal accomplishment and a sense of competence; and helping to legitimize the contribution of students of different ability levels to the achievement of team goals. Notwithstanding, some lower-skilled students stressed the highly demanding responsibilities placed upon them.

Regarding the role of CL, according to students’ voices, the inclusion in the tasks of explicit accountability mechanisms (round-robin interactions) was an important element given that “Miss made sure every one of us had to provide feedback, and teams scored higher if all members participated in the coaching bits”. Importantly, students ascribed increased meaning to their social interactions, with increased feelings of positive interdependence and empathy,

“Brad: Achieving your own goal, being the best player, is not enough, unless everyone works together, we don’t really win.

Lisa: Some guys changed, they sensed that listening and accepting their mates’ opinions helped the team improve.

Oliver: Our reflective skills improved (…) even if we said something wrong one of us promptly corrected it, ‘likely it isn’t quite like that, have you thought about this possibility or that possibility?” [FG March]

Regarding the contribution of SE pedagogies, whereas the work on learning stages was applied solely in volleyball, each team took turns coaching the other teams in all units of the second term (badminton and volleyball). This involved the extension of peer-teaching duties to all students, with the associated extension of knowledge-sharing interactions between students affiliated in the same teams. Students felt both personal accomplishment and a sense of competence. According to Adam (SR), “coaching was a big thing now because we also taught the other teams (…) we felt we helped more mates to overcome their game problems”. Chris stressed, “was like, I teach you, you teach me, in Badminton I really liked to help and learned more as I was coaching (…) I suck at Volleyball but then Melissa helped me in the overhead pass” [FG March].

As a less positive facet of the experience, some students (all lower-skilled and mostly girls) stressed the highly demanding responsibilities placed upon them, as, according to Lisa, “(coaching) is demanding, you need to identify mistakes and then transmit good information to others, but the game is complex” (FG March).

On GBA pedagogies, the use of learning stages according to students’ skill level helped legitimate the contribution of different students (of different ability levels) to the achievement of team goals, something noted by them:

“Caroline: Completely different from previous years, there was not that same old, ‘I suck at this sport, so, the sporty players will line-up and I’ll be left out’.

John: We had a spot to play at our level.

Brad: And it made me want to help my mates more, because we knew that after doing that job you had those matches against the most apt fellows in the other teams” [FG March].

3.3. Third AR Cycle: “Now It Makes a Lot More Sense”

During the third AR cycle, the SCPs used by the NT allowed students to feel valued by colleagues, competent, capable of contributing to team goals, and that they had been involved in game-based activities of high cultural relevance, being owners of the learning experiences.

Regarding the contribution of CL pedagogies, according to students’ voices, the inclusion in tasks where they needed to discuss and negotiate the participation prompted a high sense of social achievement, that is, being socially valued by peers. Students expressed a sense of individual competence and accomplishment, and contribution to collective goals. Nevertheless, students’ voices could not separate the contribution of these SCPs from SE pedagogies (the opportunity to provide peer-feedback on motor performance and the regular competition schedule). That is, the positive learning experiences were due, simultaneously, to the fact that there was a lot of competition (SE). At the same time, all students could contribute to the team’s score, regardless of their skill level, which made them feel included. They noted the interweaved use of the abovementioned pedagogies:

“Brad: More competition moments made it more challenging. We’re used to ‘run each one for itself’, but Miss had us cooperate with one another to improve.

Alice: Felt like, there was a place for everyone.

Lip: We gave it our best shot, every time.

Melissa: We scored whether you jumped 2 or 5 m, and whoever progressed the most got extra points.

Joanne: I never been more praised in my life before!

Julian: I thought it was going to be harder, but we learned a lot, like, we tested our ability to the limit” [FG June].

Regarding GBA pedagogies used in the basketball unit (one of the sports least enjoyed by most students till that moment), the problem-based learning format of the GBA content development provided the stage for peer- and self-assessment activities. In the form of group processing moments, “at the end of each lesson”, the teams “analyzed the records and on that basis set the game-tasks of the next lesson” (John, SR). The increased active engagement of students in the learning experience was supported by indirect teaching strategies (team-handbook with a detailed and focused description of performance criteria of progressive complexity).

Students felt they had participated in game-based activities of high cultural relevance. According to Steve, “I don’t really like Basketball, but I tried my best to play well. In the past it was all about passing and shooting drills. Now, there was nothing but game-play, it felt real” (Steve) (FG June).

Students also appreciated having been more thoroughly scaffolded along their active engagement in assessment and problem-solving activities. The data unveiled augmented feelings of competence, ownership of the experience, and social connectedness:

“Nichole: Miss was demanding but also provided the tools we needed for making good assessments.

Amy: The success criteria sheets were super, easy to follow! I began noticing, ‘is my mate using the open space’?

Eric: Improving our tactics, became easier.

Lip: … and they did the same for you. We looked out for each other.

Steve: Things made more sense, ‘we are building up our team’s own game style’” [FG June].

4. Discussion

In this study, the aim was to explore students’ voices concerning the impact of a flexible and coalesced curricular implementation of SCPs on their own PE learning experiences. Through the year-long implementation of a PE curriculum based on multiple SCPs pertaining to CL, SE, and GBAs, the pedagogical intervention conducted by the NT was inspired by the following three overarching goals: (i) in the first AR cycle, to develop the ‘big’ structures of CL, SE, and TGfU, for students to start to adapt to a new form of teaching; (ii) in the second AR cycle, to extend the development of closer social interactions, to extend the transfer of peer-teaching responsibility to all students and learners’ active engagement in more inclusive experiences with the design of individually tailored learning challenges; and (iii) in the third AR cycle, to transfer more responsibility to students for leading significant elements of the lessons and for their leadership in negotiating and setting individually tailored levels of challenge, so as to provide appropriate scaffolding support to students.

Overall, the results showed that a flexible and coalesced curricular implementation of various SCPs over an extended period of time, considering the sport content, the context, and the skill level of students, seems to contribute to the development of more positive learning experiences for students. Indeed, students emphasized specific student-centered pedagogies of different models to solve the practical challenges faced by them through the teaching and learning process, which leads us to state that SCMs should not be used as a ‘recipe’ but in a flexible and contextualized way.

It is important to highlight that students progressed from an initial starting point where they were discovering how to adjust to a new way of teaching and learning to a point where they appreciated a new way of learning and gave it meaning, which was only possible due to the extension of the implementation of SCPs across several units for a full year. The findings of the study conducted by Farias et al. [44], who is an expert teacher and researcher, showed that students acknowledged a transformation in their attitudes toward participation in PE during a year-long SE, perceiving, among other aspects, the development of understanding the sport, their autonomy, and the ownership of decision making, and highlighting the positive impact of the longer teaching units (four consecutive SE seasons with 12–24 lessons each).

Further, the AR and the immersion of the teacher–researcher in the real-life context of this study (i.e., Portuguese high school) allowed the teacher to continuously adjust procedures to the dynamic nature of the teaching–learning process leading to select the pedagogical features of each SCM that best solved the constraints of practice, considering students’ voices, the nature of the sport taught (e.g., invasion or non-invasion games), the skill level of the students, and her own reflections. This finding aligns with the work of Casey, Dyson, and Campbell [32], where the teacher–researcher, through an AR project, sought to implement a new pedagogical approach (CL) and was able to ‘restart the unit’ (p. 44), based on students’ reflections and changes within the AR cycles.

Regarding the analysis of each intervention cycle, the first AR cycle was marked by a time of change for students, and a time to discover a new form of PE as well. Several students confessed that the CL pedagogies “forced” them to discuss and share ideas, and although in reference to low-complexity content, they felt that they began to contribute to the lessons and noted that the NT sincerely wanted to “let us make contributions and gave us responsibilities, at the same time you wanted to understand our point of view”.

A possible reason that may explain these student perceptions about PE lessons during the first school term is their lack of student-centered experiences in their previous PE years of schooling. The existing research suggests that students’ attitudes toward PE are positive through grade five but become less positive as grade levels increase [28], making the high school grade (where our study was conducted) critical. In the same study, the participants (i.e., students from middle school) had the belief that every year they do the same activities, making PE repetitive and not enjoyable, reinforcing the idea that PE teachers need to innovate to engage students meaningfully in content that is relevant [45].

During the first AR cycle, such innovation occurred mostly through the SE and GBA pedagogies, where students valued the extension of the meaning of competence beyond the sole focus on their game-play ability and emphasized the increased cognitive engagement prompted by the questioning. The student active engagement in various SCPs (e.g., role playing and game-based problem-solving) aligned with ‘Teaching for Meaning’ pedagogical practices [46] (p. 2). These findings are in line with Gil-Arias et al. [47], where during an SE-TGfU unit, students had significantly higher mean scores for interest, perceived competence, and pleasure. Similarly, in the studies conducted by Úbeda-Colomer et al. [48] and Gil et al. [49], where TGfU was used, the students also highlighted the comprehensive approach in which the tactical principles were explained, and they were able to improve their decision-making ability, being pleasant learning experiences.

Despite the positive results of this cycle, two pedagogical interactions used by the NT (i.e., the performance of roles of less responsibility by the less qualified students and the use of formal competition in the futsal unit) generated some difficulties. Regarding the first SCP, these students perceived the use of role-playing just as a behavioral control measure. In fact, a lot of studies where students assumed other roles besides the player indicate that students had difficulty efficiently performing their assigned duties (for example, coaching, officiating) [50], resulting in complaints about the highly cognitively demanding responsibilities embedded in role-playing [51] which, in some cases, lead to a rejection of participation in the role-playing [52].

Nevertheless, in our study, the students did not refuse to participate, maybe because the assignment of less demanding roles for the less qualified students was purposeful, as the NT considered that to promote ‘equitable participation’ between all students, they should perform roles depending on their individual needs and their ability at that moment, an explanation that was also shared with students. This shows the importance of PE teachers sharing the decisions made about students with them so that they understand the ‘why’s?’ and trust the process, thus promoting the development of “thinkers” rather than merely “doers” [8].

On the other hand, during the formal competition moments, some higher-skilled students put their personal achievement goals ahead of collective goals of inclusion, fair-play, and contribution for a democratic environment. Recent studies have corroborated these findings, where unsporting behaviors and winning at all costs emerged once students engaged in formal competition events [14,15].

Keeping this in mind, during the second AR cycle, the NT maintained the formal competition events but based on CL pedagogies, involving students in tasks of explicit accountability mechanisms, which ‘forced’ students to include all team members if they wanted to win. Furthermore, the NT also extended knowledge-sharing interactions between students affiliated in the same teams, which involved playing the role of coach in all sport units (badminton and volleyball).

The coalesced curricular implementation of SCPs of SE (formal competition and knowledge-sharing interactions) and CL (round-robin interactions) seems to have contributed to increasing students’ feelings of positive interdependence and empathy. This result is in line with the study of Gil-Arias et al. [53], where students involved in a hybrid season of SE-CL reported the development of students’ cooperative skills and social learning. Therefore, as Casey and MacPhail [54] noted, hybridizations enable innovation to fit current educational frameworks and could be considered an innovative trend necessary to increase the benefits and possibilities for the implementation of SCMs [23].

Nevertheless, the extension of the coach role to all students meant that less-skilled students (mostly girls) stressed the highly demanding responsibilities placed upon them due to the complexity of the games. Although the NT created grids to support the performance of the role (something that is not the focus of analysis in this article), this result could show that maybe the teacher had underestimated the complexity of this role and should have prepared the less-skilled students more effectively. This difficulty was also expressed in other studies, where there was a lack of efficient progressive scaffolding for the responsibility delivered to students to conduct peer-teaching tasks [21].

Regarding the use of SGA pedagogies in the volleyball unit, the use of learning stages according to students’ skill level (i.e., 2 vs. 2 game form to lower-skill students and 4 vs. 4 game form to higher-skill students) helped all students to feel included instead of just the sporty players. Indeed, this model involves the extensive participation of students in modified game forms according to their abilities [8], where equity and inclusion are key educational banners [38].

In the third AR cycle, after the previously described difficulties related to the highly demanding responsibilities placed upon less-skilled students, the NT felt that it was time to support them more appropriately. That is, the increased active engagement of students in the learning experiences was supported by the creation of a team-handbook with detailed and focused descriptions of the performance criteria of progressive complexity. As a result, students appreciated the fact that they had been more thoroughly scaffolded. This finding is consistent with other longitudinal AR studies [16,33], where inexperienced teachers progress from having a poor scaffolding of students’ managerial and instructional leadership to being able to help them. This reinforces that for an in-depth understanding of the problems that emerge in practice and teachers’ interventions for overcoming them, it will be necessary to use interventional research designs that track change over time.

Within this cycle, the positive learning experiences, the high sense of social achievement, individual competence, and accomplishment were the result of the interweaved use of CL and SE pedagogies. In other words, students mentioned that the competition aspect (SE), combined with the opportunity for all students to contribute to the team’s score (regardless of their skill level), made them feel included and engaged. Ennis [55] explains that disengagement can lead to students seeing PE as meaningless, and this happens, among other things, because students may not feel skillful enough to participate. To counter this, it is essential that PE teachers modify activities to meet students’ developmental needs to optimize their success engagement [1].

Finally, the use of the problem-based learning format (GBA) in the basketball unit was perceived by students as activities of high cultural relevance that make more sense than focusing on game technique. This assertion corroborates evidence from studies that have analyzed students’ perceptions of GBAs [48], concluding that students valued the explanations given about tactical principles and the opportunity to create and play their own games. Furthermore, the high amount of lesson time dedicated to the practice of small-sided games instead of decontextualized technical situations was decisive in promoting students’ self-determined participation in PE activities [47].

5. Conclusions

In this study, students’ voices were examined concerning the impact of a flexible and coalesced curricular implementation of SCPs on their own PE learning experiences. The results of this study highlight the importance of not using SCMs as a recipe but in a flexible and contextualized way, considering the sports content (invasion or non-invasion games), the context, and the students’ skill level. It is essential to listen to students about their learning experiences over time and not in isolated and discontinued moments, as this allows the NT to help them, correcting and improving her teaching process, which results in a higher quality of learning experiences, as reflected by the students. The findings highlight that learning to listen and respond to students’ voices demands an intentional commitment that contributes to the development of more positive PE learning experiences not only in the high school where this study was conducted but in all educational cycles.

6. Practical Implications, Limitations, and Proposals for Future Studies

The results of this study highlighted the positive experiences lived by the students but also mentioned some implementation difficulties. In particular, (i) the performance of roles of less responsibility by the less qualified students, (ii) the extension of roles of more responsibility to all students, and (iii) the use of formal competition.

In future studies, we recommend that PE teachers assign responsibilities to students depending on their individual needs and their ability at each moment of the year, sharing the decisions with them. When extending the responsibilities to all students, support and prepare the less-skill students properly, making an efficient progressive scaffolding. Concerning formal competition, it might be beneficial to use formal competition events based on CL pedagogies (e.g., involve students in situations where they need to include all members of the team if they want to win).

In practical terms, based on our findings, we recommend that learning to listen and respond to students’ voices should be developed in teacher training programs so that pre-service teachers learn to create relationships of reciprocity and openness concerning a more active and committed involvement of students, which is optimized when they are given a voice.

This study is not without limitations. Despite the use of multiple FG interviews and several trustworthiness criteria, future studies could benefit from using video–audio as a complementary data source for strengthening the interpretational analysis. Collecting images and voice recordings of teachers and students, such as the interactions between them and among students, could help provide a more accurate analysis of the teaching and learning process and collect students’ voices in real-time.