From Nearly Unengaged to Transformative: A Typology of Austrian Physical Education Teachers’ Approaches to Social Justice

Abstract

Ensuring socially just, inclusive, and equitable education is a global imperative and, accordingly, a key concern for physical education (PE). While PE is widely recognized for its potential to contribute to these goals, research also highlights the persistence of discriminatory practices and injustices within the subject, underscoring the need to promote equity and social justice in PE. Social justice pedagogies (SJPs) offer a valuable framework for realizing these aims. This study explores how SJPs are understood and enacted in Austrian PE practice, with particular paid attention to how teachers describe, interpret, and navigate social justice in their pedagogical approaches. An exploratory qualitative design was employed, and 20 secondary school PE teachers were interviewed about their teaching practices. Teachers were recruited through an open call and volunteered to take part; their individual prior awareness or sensitivity to SJPs played no role in the selection process. The analysis, based on initial content–analytical structuring, led to the development of typologies. Findings revealed substantial variation in how SJPs are conceptualized and implemented in everyday teaching, reflecting differing levels of engagement with social justice principles. The predominance of approaches that fall short of fully embracing the critical and transformative potential of SJPs highlights a pressing need for professional development and systemic change in PE.

1. Introduction

The establishment of social justice across all societal levels, alongside the implementation of inclusive and equitable education, represents a central and pressing global demand. In line with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015), the aim is to create a world that is more equitable, inclusive, and socially just. Within this context, both sport and specifically physical education (PE) have been ascribed significant potential to contribute to these goals. However, empirical research simultaneously highlights the limitations of these contributions. The commonly attributed potentials of sport and PE include promoting social skills, encouraging a sense of community, fostering inclusion, and thereby contributing to greater social justice (Opstoel et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2021; United Nations Office on Sport for Development and Peace, 2013). Yet, empirical studies also point to numerous injustices, forms of discrimination, practices of othering, and marginalization within PE. These manifest in phenomena such as ableism, fatism, racism, classism, and (hetero)sexism (Azzarito et al., 2017; Dagkas, 2016; Fitzpatrick, 2019; Lynch et al., 2022). To realize the potential of PE as a site of social justice, the deliberate and conscious structuring of PE lessons is required (Bailey, 2006; Bailey et al., 2009; García López & Kirk, 2022). This positions PE with the challenging goal of being as socially just as possible while actively contributing to broader societal justice (Vickerman et al., 2021). This urgent need for action has been repeatedly emphasized by various scholars (e.g., Azzarito et al., 2017; Fitzpatrick, 2019; Kirk, 2020; Tinning, 2020).

1.1. Social Justice Pedagogies

Building on the outlined call for action, the enactment of Social Justice Pedagogies (SJPs) in PE offers transformative approaches to address systemic inequalities within educational spaces. Rooted in principles of equity, inclusion, and empowerment, SJPs challenge traditional practices that often reinforce social hierarchies based on race, gender, ability, and socioeconomic status (Gibson et al., 2022). By teaching inclusively for all students, disrupting heteronormative assumptions and unequal power relations, and fostering critical engagement, social justice-focused PE provides a framework for creating inclusive environments that goes beyond physical activity to encompass holistic personal and social development (Azzarito et al., 2017; Gibson et al., 2022). In this paper, SJPs are understood in line with Bell (2016), who conceptualizes them “as both a goal and a process” (Bell, 2016, p. 3). This conceptualization highlights the need for action on the following two levels: the instructional level, which focuses on enacting socially just teaching practices within PE settings and teaching in a socially just manner, and the transfer level, which seeks to foster broader societal change by enabling students to carry principles of social justice beyond the PE context into their everyday lives and communities. This dual focus on process and outcome is further elaborated by Walton-Fisette and Sutherland (2018), who explain that “effective SJE [social justice education] is both a goal and a process, where educators create a democratic environment that empowers students to actively engage in their education, understand the roles power, privilege, and oppression play in their lives, and through critical reflection how they can challenge and/or disrupt the status quo” (Walton-Fisette & Sutherland, 2018, p. 463). The following teaching principles illustrate how SJPs can be enacted in practice: Teachers should actively address stereotypes, structural inequalities, discrimination, and power imbalances that exist within the group. Providing individualized support may enable students to realize their full potential, while a shift from deficit-oriented approaches to emphasizing strengths and talents may help nurture students’ abilities. Teachers should also remain attentive to the social relationships and dynamics within their classrooms and recognize the diverse learning outcomes achieved by students. Additionally, incorporating reflective practices, experiential learning opportunities, and critical thinking activities can facilitate meaningful transfer into broader contexts (Adams, 2022; Nieto & Bode, 2018). Furthermore, and in line with Gerdin et al. (2021), SJPs are understood in a broad way in this paper, as teaching practices that support the achievement of the overarching aims of SJPs (Wright, 2004). This broader conceptualization is particularly relevant when considering the practical enactment of SJPs in everyday PE settings. Accordingly, teaching practices with reference to SJPs are not limited to those that explicitly address the overarching aims of SJPs, such as deconstructing structural inequalities, power imbalances, or stereotypes. Rather, they also include practices that implicitly contribute to the goals of SJPs or serve as an important foundation for achieving these aims. Such teaching practices include promoting fairness, promoting respectful interactions among students, or creating democratic structures (Gerdin et al., 2021).

1.2. State of Research

The extensive body of theoretical considerations surrounding SJPs is, however, contrasted by a persistent gap in empirical research (Gerdin et al., 2021; Lynch et al., 2020). This research gap is particularly evident when it comes to the enactment of SJPs in PE (Philpot et al., 2021; Linnér et al., 2022; Scanlon et al., 2022). The following quote supports this: “What is needed, however, are more strategies as to what SJE looks like and how it can be enacted within our classes on a daily basis, along with plans to ensure that we do not perpetuate inequity” (Lynch et al., 2020, p. 9).

When examining the current state of research on the enactment of SJPs in PE, studies on best-practice examples serve as key reference points. For instance, Gerdin et al. (2022) conducted a research project entitled EDUHEALTH (“Education for equitable health outcomes, the promise of school health and physical education” (Gerdin et al., 2022, p. 3)), which aimed to identify successful teaching practices aligned with SJPs. As part of this study, the teaching practices of 13 PE teachers from Sweden, Norway, and New Zealand were analyzed. These teachers were purposefully selected based on their strong commitment to social justice, representing best-practice examples. Their PE lessons were observed with a focus on critical incidents related to social justice, followed by interviews with the teachers on the identified critical incidents (Gerdin et al., 2021). The study identified nine pedagogies for social justice, which include “(i) relationships; (ii) teaching for social cohesion; and (iii) explicit teaching about, and acting on, social inequities” (Gerdin et al., 2020, p. 5). While only the explicit pedagogies for social justice directly address the overarching aims of SJPs, the remaining identified pedagogies provide an important foundation for their enactment. This supports a broader conceptualization of SJPs that acknowledges the significance of relational and socially oriented teaching practices in creating the conditions necessary for pursuing the overarching social justice goals in PE. Another best-practice study was conducted by Fitzpatrick in 2007, who carried out an ethnographic study over the course of one year, examining the enactment of critical pedagogy by one PE teacher. Fitzpatrick identified critical teaching practices such as “[d]econstructing power”, “[p]layfulness”, “[s]tudying critical topics”, and the teacher’s “embodied critical orientation” (Fitzpatrick & Russell, 2015, pp. 164–166). These findings were further supported by another ethnographic best-practice study by Lynch and Curtner-Smith (2019), who studied the transformative teaching practices of one PE teacher. The identified teaching practices include “(a) creating communities of learners through restorative practice principles, (b) building on what students bring to school with them for a democratic curriculum, (c) teaching skills, bridging gaps, and the affective component, (d) working with the communities in-between social justice illiteracy, and (e) utilizing divers forms of assessment” (Lynch & Curtner-Smith, 2019, p. 359). Furthermore, Lynch and Curtner-Smith (2019) conclude that there is no single approach to teaching for social justice; rather, the individuality of each teacher must be considered.

Beyond these best-practice studies, there remains a scarcity of research explicitly focusing on the enactment of SJPs while utilizing a more variable and less specific sample. As Gerdin et al. (2020) pointed out, “future studies could therefore […] include a larger and more varied sample of teachers” (p. 6917). A more varied sample can be found in a participatory action research study by Gerdin et al. (2024), which involved 11 Swedish PE teachers. This study aimed to explore the participating teachers’ understandings of SJPs and to develop pedagogies aligned with SJPs through various research methods, including “observations, interviews, focus groups, workshops and teacher reflections” (Gerdin et al., 2024, p. 1), analyzed using thematic analysis. The pedagogies developed by the teachers encompassed “conditions for building relationships,” “continuous engagement from teachers and students,” “student involvement and reflection,” and “connections with and within the subject” (Gerdin et al., 2024, p. 1). Another study by Heidrich and Meier (2025), conducted within the same larger research project as this paper, involved interviews with 20 PE teachers on their teaching in general. Teaching practices with reference to SJPs were identified in the data through qualitative content analysis informed by SJPs. The results revealed teaching practices reflecting different aspects of SJPs, with some aspects being more prevalent than others.

1.3. Research Aims

This overview of the current research on the enactment of SJPs in PE highlights both significant insights and areas requiring further investigation. For example, teaching practices aligned with SJPs have often been studied in isolation, leaving open the question of how SJPs can be integrated into overall teaching strategies in PE. Furthermore, it remains unclear how consistently SJPs already manifest within the overall teaching strategies of PE teachers in their everyday teaching life. Against this backdrop, the present study seeks to build upon the existing body of knowledge and aims to explore how SJPs are understood and enacted within Austrian PE practice, with particular attention paid to how teachers navigate inclusion, equity, and diversity in their pedagogical approaches. This investigation is based on interviews with PE teachers about their teaching practices (n = 20). The analysis, following an initial content–analytic structuring (Mayring, 2014), culminated in the formation of typologies (Kuckartz, 2014). The analysis of these typologies aims to address the following two key questions:

• How do Austrian PE teachers describe their teaching practices in relation to SJPs?
• And what patterns or types of engagement with SJPs emerge from their reported teaching strategies?

2. Materials and Methods

This study is part of a larger research project on SJPs in Austrian PE. A previous pub-lication presented findings on teaching practices with reference to SJPs, identified through qualitative content analysis informed by SJPs (Heidrich & Meier, 2025). While the present study addresses a distinct research question and adopts a different analytical focus, it draws on the same participants, data collection process, and initial stages of data analy-sis. These methodological elements are outlined below to ensure clarity and contextual consistency, though phrased differently, and are extended by the main analysis of this paper, which builds upon those initial stages.

To explore how SJPs are understood and enacted within Austrian PE, this study adopts an exploratory qualitative approach. The focus lies on gaining insights into pedagogical practices and perspectives that reflect commitments to inclusion, equity, and social responsibility in PE. Rather than seeking to measure effectiveness or implementation fidelity, the aim is to examine how teachers describe, interpret, and navigate the challenges and possibilities of teaching for social justice. As such, the study does not evaluate the actual enactment of SJPs in practice but rather examines how these pedagogies are articulated and made meaningful within teachers’ accounts of their teaching.

2.1. Participants

Sample criteria for the participating PE teachers included currently teaching PE at a secondary school in grades eight, nine, or ten (students’ ages approximately 14 to 16 years) and having completed university teacher education (excluding those who became teachers through alternative routes). Focusing on PE teachers who have completed a university teacher education program ensures a certain degree of comparability in terms of professional qualification and pedagogical training. Moreover, PE teacher education (PETE) in Austria explicitly addresses topics like inclusion, diversity, and equity (e.g., Kolb, 2019; Universität Wien, 2022), which are central to the study’s focus on SJPs. In addition, individual prior sensitivity to SJPs did not play any role in the selection of participants and was not considered a criterion for sampling. To recruit teachers, emails were sent to the principals of secondary schools, containing an invitation to participate in the study and a request to forward the information to the school’s PE teachers. Subsequently, teachers voluntarily contacted the author to express their interest in participating. Thus, the sample was formed through voluntary participation in response to an open invitation.

The sample comprised 20 PE teachers, working at 16 different secondary schools (15 general academic schools, one with a special focus on economics and business studies). Their ages ranged from 30 to 60 years (M = 38.8, SD = 8.364). Gender identification was as follows: 10 female, nine male, and one non-binary. On average, the participating teachers had 10.78 years of professional experience in teaching PE (SD = 8.761; min = 2, max = 34) and had been teaching their studied class for at least three quarters of the academic year, since the data collection was conducted in spring 2023. In order to reflect the diversity of student populations, schools from various city districts of Vienna were included, considering differences in social justice-related issues, such as migrant background and socio-economic status among students (Stadt Wien, 2020). Student diversity in the classes selected for this study was particularly apparent in aspects such as social class, migrant background, physical conditions, language, and religion. Dimensions like gender, sexual orientation, and disabilities were less prominent. However, precise statistical data on diversity dimensions present in the PE classes are not provided, as the study adopts a broad understanding of diversity. In this view, the perception of certain characteristics as markers of otherness can vary depending on the individual perspective, context, and situation (Lynch et al., 2022; Steyn, 2015), and an intersectional understanding of diversity categories is acknowledged (Azzarito et al., 2017; Lynch et al., 2022; McCall, 2005; Vertovec, 2015). Accordingly, this paper considers social justice and diversity in general, without focusing on specific diversity categories. A particular feature of Austrian PE is that it is typically taught in a single-sex setting, as required by national regulations. However, exceptions do exist. All participating teachers reported teaching PE in a single-sex setting, while six also indicated that they occasionally teach in coeducational settings.

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Ethics Committee of the University of Vienna on 28 December 2022, prior to the commencement of data collection (Ethics Committee Reference Number: 00908). Participants gave written consent.

2.2. Data Collection

Semi-structured guided interviews were conducted with the PE teachers, mostly in person at the teachers’ schools in quiet rooms. Three interviews were held via Zoom for organizational purposes. All interviews were conducted by the author of this paper. On average, each interview lasted 52 min (min = 34, max = 79).

The interview guide included a thematic outset with general questions that led into the interview, a main part on teachers’ teaching practices in detail, and an ending. To start the interview and motivate the participants to share their experiences, PE teachers were asked about their daily work and their students (“Could you please describe your students? Are there any commonalities, similarities, or differences among them?”). This initial characterization aimed to indirectly highlight diversity issues in the interview. The main part of the interview delved into PE teachers’ teaching practices. Based on the frameworks of Butt (2008) and Scheid and Friedrich (2015), this section was divided into teaching goals, teaching content, didactic–methodical approaches, teacher–student(s) interactions, and grading (e.g., “What does grading mean to you? What do you think is its purpose? What is your concrete approach to grading?”). Finally, PE teachers were asked for personal data and given the opportunity to add any final comments.

In advance, the PE teachers were not informed about the specific research interest and the focus of the analysis on social justice and diversity. Instead, teachers expected an interview on how they plan and teach PE in general. Accordingly, teachers were also not directly questioned about addressing diversity and social justice during the interview. Instead, they were asked in general about their teaching practices to uncover their perspectives without eliciting socially desirable responses and to avoid the atmosphere of an uncomfortable exam situation (Qu & Dumay, 2011). This approach was chosen to better capture the actual value teachers assign to social justice-related issues and the enactment of SJPs in their practice. If teachers did not mention diversity aspects they previously described in the interview, the researcher asked directly how they address those diversity aspects.

2.3. Data Analysis

The recorded and verbatim transcribed interviews were the basis for a qualitative content analysis according to Mayring (2014). The categories for the qualitative content analysis were jointly established and mutually agreed upon with a second researcher. To explore PE teachers’ teaching practices, the interviews were analyzed in two coding steps by using the software MAXQDA. The initial coding step organized the teaching practices mentioned by the teachers into the following predefined topics: teaching goals, teaching content, didactic–methodical approaches, teacher–student(s) interactions, and grading. In the second coding step, these codes were further classified according to whether they reflect aspects of SJPs or not. This categorization was guided by the previously outlined understanding of SJPs. The categories for both coding steps were developed deductively.

To maintain the quality of the coding process, 25% of the total dataset (five interviews) was coded by a second researcher applying the deductive category system. Interrater reliability was assessed by calculating Cohen’s kappa coefficient (K), comparing the consistency between the two researchers. The resulting value was K = 0.94 for a 90% overlap of coded segments, reflecting near-perfect agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977). Additionally, segments with minor coding discrepancies were reviewed and collaboratively reconciled.

For further analysis, portraits were generated for each teacher based on the codes from their individual interview. These portraits aimed to present an overall impression of the teaching practices of each teacher, including their overall teaching strategy, indicating how PE teachers’ teaching practices, as reported in the interviews, align with SJPs or not. This approach sought to provide insights into how the teachers’ reported practices contribute to socially just teaching and to social justice within and beyond PE. In doing so, it was further searched for a typology of PE teaching in the context of a successful enactment of SJPs. A type-building analysis is suitable, as it enables the identification of patterns and, thus, provides a structured overview of the range of practices and positions articulated across the data, as well as a deeper understanding of the complexity of a holistic enactment of SJPs (Kuckartz, 2014). This aligns with the research interest outlined in the research questions. The type-building process followed the “Five Phases of Empirical Type-Building” (p. 107) described by Kuckartz (2014). Based on the research questions, the first phase involved defining the attribute space, which was the dimensions along which the cases would be compared. A deductive–inductive approach was applied for this. In the second phase, the individual portraits were grouped according to shared features, and preliminary types were identified. The third phase involved refining and describing the types in more detail and clarifying their defining characteristics. In the fourth phase, each individual case was assigned to one of the developed types. Finally, in the fifth phase, the types were presented in relation to one another to show how they represent different ways of engaging with SJPs. The type-building process and its results are described in more detail in the results section (see Section 3.2).

3. Results

In order to obtain an overview and provide a better understanding of the identified teaching practices, the results of the qualitative content analysis are briefly presented using the structure of the categorization system (Section 3.1). Subsequently, the results of the type-forming analysis are presented, and the identified types are characterized in detail (Section 3.2).

3.1. Teaching Practices with and Without Reference to SJPs

The interviews were designed to provide comprehensive insights into teachers’ teaching practices concerning goals, content, didactic–methodical approaches, teacher–student(s) interactions, and grading. The data reveal teaching practices both with reference to SJPs and without reference to SJPs. At the outset, I want to explicitly emphasize that the categorization of teaching practices as referencing or not referencing SJPs is not intended as a general judgement. PE is subject to various demands, and SJPs represent just one specific dimension that this paper examines in greater detail. Teaching practices that are not classified as relating to SJPs in this study are not inherently inferior or contradictory to SJPs. Furthermore, it is important to note that individual teaching practices identified as related to SJPs reflect only certain aspects of SJPs rather than encompassing the entire concept. In many cases, they represent initial steps rather than fully developed enactments. This highlights the necessity of a holistic approach to the successful enactment of SJPs. Teachers’ varying enactments of this will become evident through the type-forming analysis.

To enhance the understanding of the identified teaching practices and their classification as with or without reference to SJPs, Figure 1 illustrates the categorization system along with exemplary key differentiations of the content analysis categories found in the data.

3.2. Results of the Type-Forming Analysis

The type-forming analysis (Kuckartz, 2014) is based on the previously presented teaching practices identified in the data and categorized according to the categorization system. Detailed portraits were generated for each teacher based on the individual codes. To enhance the clarity and manageability of the data, these portraits were transferred into a comparative table, which was later extended to include type assignments (see

Table 1. Overview of teacher portraits and type assignments.

Teacher	Teaching Dimensions	Instructional Level	Transfer Level	Overall Strategy	Type
Teacher’s name (pseudonym)	Teaching goals	Reported teaching goals with and without reference to SJPs	Reported teaching practices that aim at transfer. (Due to the limited number of teaching practices that seek transfer beyond the PE setting, I refrained from further subdividing this category into goals, content, didactic–methodical approaches, interactions, and grading.)	Summary of the overall strategy of the teacher	Teacher’s type
	Teaching content	Reported teaching content with and without reference to SJPs
	Didactic–methodical approaches	Reported didactic–methodical approaches with and without reference to SJPs
	Teacher-student(s) interactions	Reported interactions with and without reference to SJPs
	Grading	Reported grading strategy with and without reference to SJPs

).

To define the attribute space and develop the typology, a deductive–inductive approach was applied. On the one hand, a systematic framework was derived from the previously outlined conceptual understanding of SJPs (Bell, 2016; Walton-Fisette & Sutherland, 2018). As described above, SJPs indicate a need for action on the following two levels: the instructional level (enacting socially just teaching practices within PE settings and teaching in a socially just manner) and the transfer level (transfer of social justice beyond the PE context). This distinction was also evident in the data; while many practices focused on instructional-level actions, a smaller number extended beyond this and demonstrated potential for transfer. This two-step distinction was adopted for the typology. In addition, a closer examination of the coded material revealed that actions on the instructional level aligned with SJPs largely clustered around the following two domains: promoting social goals (e.g., social behavior, cooperation, and empathy) and adapting sport-related content (e.g., modifying exercises, differentiating tasks, or broadening the range of physical activities to address student diversity). This understanding and the comparison of the different strategies led to the construction of a multi-dimensional attribute space (see

Table 2. Attribute space and resulting types (“yes/no” indicates whether SJPs are enacted in the respective area; “promoting social goals” and “adapting sport-related content” are used as umbrella terms to group similar instructional practices).

		Transfer Level
		Yes	No
Instructional Level	Yes—adapting sport-related content
	Yes—promoting social goals
	No	Not applicable

), which enabled the identification and differentiation of five distinct types. These types reflect different overall teaching strategies and degrees of engagement with SJPs. All individual cases could be clearly assigned to one of the types based on their alignment with the identified dimensions of the attribute space.

The following section provides a description of the five types identified through the analysis: Nearly Unengaged, Sport-Centered Adjuster, Values-Oriented Teacher, Comprehensive but Contained, Transformative Practitioner. The Nearly Unengaged type represents teachers who either do not incorporate SJPs into their teaching at all or do so only to a minimal extent. Their instructional approach remains largely unaffected by considerations of social justice. The Sport-Centered Adjuster demonstrates adaptations primarily in the realm of sports-specific content. These teachers acknowledge student diversity by modifying exercises or expanding the range of physical activities offered. However, their engagement with SJPs does not extend beyond these adjustments; social learning, critical reflection, and the pursuit of broader social goals remain absent. Moreover, there are no intentional efforts to facilitate the transfer of these concepts beyond the immediate context of PE. In contrast, the Values-Oriented Teacher actively integrates social goals and social learning into their teaching. Yet, they do not implement significant adaptations in sports-related content, nor do they explicitly foster transfer beyond the PE setting. Their focus remains on fostering interpersonal and ethical dimensions rather than modifying the physical activities themselves. The Comprehensive but Contained type reflects teachers who implement SJPs at the instructional level, incorporating both social learning and diversity-responsive adaptations within their teaching practices. However, their engagement with SJPs does not extend beyond the PE setting, as they do not actively promote transfer to broader social contexts. Finally, the Transformative Practitioner represents the most holistic approach to SJP enactment. This type not only integrates social and sports-related adaptations within teaching but also actively seeks to facilitate transfer, ensuring that students apply the principles of social justice beyond the immediate educational setting. These teachers embrace SJPs as a fundamental guiding framework, fostering both inclusive practices in PE and broader societal change. While teachers can be clearly assigned to one of these types, it is important to note that their teaching practices are not static but fluid, and they may shift along a continuum between the identified types.

Table 3. Frequency of the different types.

Type	Amount
Nearly Unengaged	10
Sport-Centered Adjuster	3
Values-Oriented Teacher	1
Comprehensive but Contained	3
Transformative Practitioner	3

illustrates the frequency of the different types within the dataset.

The distribution of the identified types within the sample reveals clear tendencies. Among the 20 interviewed teachers, half (n = 10) belong to the Nearly Unengaged type, indicating that diversity and social justice considerations play little to no role in their teaching. This suggests that a substantial portion of the sample does not actively engage with SJPs. Three teachers can be classified as Sport-Centered Adjusters, while only one teacher belongs to the Values-Oriented Teacher type. Similarly, three teachers demonstrate characteristics of the Comprehensive but Contained type. Finally, three teachers exhibit an almost comprehensive enactment of SJPs and can therefore be categorized as Transformative Practitioners. This small but notable group actively integrates both social- and sports-related adaptations while also fostering the transfer of these principles beyond the PE context.

To provide differentiated insights into the teaching strategies of different types, one representative teacher from each of the Nearly Unengaged, Comprehensive but Contained, and Transformative Practitioner types is described in detail below. While all data were fully taken into account for the development of the typology and its overall interpretation, it is not feasible to present all individual cases in depth. Since the data have been analytically condensed into types, a “representative case interpretation” (Kuckartz, 2014, p. 116) is used instead. The selected cases are each representative for all teachers assigned to the respective type (Kuckartz, 2014). The selection of the three types was made to illustrate the overall range of approaches to SJPs. The Nearly Unengaged and the Transformative Practitioner types represent the two ends of the spectrum, with the former showing little to no practical enactment of SJPs and the latter demonstrating a relatively comprehensive enactment on both the instructional and the transfer level. The Comprehensive but Contained type reflects an approach that incorporates SJPs solely on the instructional level, without extending beyond it to a broader transfer. The two remaining types express partial aspects already encompassed by the Comprehensive but Contained type and are therefore not illustrated with separate examples in order to avoid redundancy. All names are pseudonyms.

3.2.1. Maeve—Nearly Unengaged

Maeve’s pedagogical approach to PE is primarily centered on exposing students to a variety of sports, with the goal of fostering long-term motivation for physical activity. Her focus lies in promoting enjoyment and health benefits, while also encouraging motor skill development. While she acknowledges that PE has the potential to support social learning, she expresses doubt as to whether she implements this in any meaningful way.

“I don’t know, social processes are certainly central in PE. I think there is definitely potential for students to engage in social learning. But it really depends on whether I, as a teacher, actively make it a focus—hmm, I’m not sure if I really do that. Maybe sometimes.”

(Maeve, pos. 24)

Maeve follows a broad annual outline based on the curriculum, but remains flexible in adapting her long-term planning based on her preferences and student reception and engagement. In terms of didactic–methodical design, Maeve does not account for student diversity. Differentiation is either minimal or nonexistent, as she considers it organizationally unfeasible.

“In planning, [the differences between students] are not really relevant. […] There are always differences—some students are more advanced or have prior experience, while others don’t—and you have to try to address that in class. But in practice, it’s often difficult. Most of the time, I structure exercises from easy to difficult, which means that sometimes it’s less suitable for some and other times less suitable for others. But in the end, everyone still does the same thing because, organizationally, there’s usually no other way.”

(Maeve, pos. 20)

Instruction is largely structured around methodical exercise progressions, with all students engaging in the same tasks without modifications. Consequently, the learning environment remains highly structured and teacher-controlled. While Maeve indicates that students have some degree of input in lesson design, she simultaneously emphasizes that PE is not a “wishful-thinking exercise”. Regarding interaction, Maeve claims to communicate with students on an equal footing, but again, only within strict limits. There is little to no negotiation of lesson content, and while she considers empathy important, she also reports that students sometimes perceive her as lacking understanding.

“I want to be understanding, and I actually believe that I am. But sometimes I get feedback that I’m not. Well… yeah, self-perception is often quite different from the feedback you receive—that’s actually quite interesting.”

(Maeve, pos. 46)

Her approach to grading reveals contradictions. She asserts that effort and engagement are her primary grading criteria, with absolute performance levels being irrelevant for grading. Nonetheless, she conducts standardized performance assessments that rely on absolute performance measurements, arguing that tracking individual progress would be too time-consuming.

“And it’s also difficult to track individual students’ improvement. I mean, of course, you have a sense of which students are more athletic, and you just assume that they will probably be much better at the beginning than others. But yeah… I actually think it would make more sense to assess individual progress, but measuring that is even more complicated. I would have to test at the beginning and then again at the end, and that would be a lot of effort.”

(Maeve, pos. 66)

From the perspective of SJPs, Maeve’s overall teaching strategy demonstrates little to no engagement with SJP principles. She does not consciously implement SJP-oriented strategies and, in some instances, deliberately rejects certain aspects, believing them to be impractical within the constraints of PE instruction. While she acknowledges the theoretical potential of PE for social learning, she does not meaningfully integrate it into her practice. Her rigid instructional structure, lack of differentiation, and limited student agency further reinforce a teaching style that remains detached from SJPs. In some cases, her choices even actively contradict these ideas. Thus, Maeve exemplifies the Nearly Unengaged type, as she neither intentionally incorporates SJPs nor demonstrates a commitment to their core principles, and some of her practices may even be considered counterproductive in this regard.

3.2.2. Maggie—Comprehensive but Contained

Maggie’s teaching approach in PE is characterized by a focus on social competence, which she identifies as a central goal of her practice. She further elaborates on what she means by social competence, recognizing its broad scope.

“For me, promoting social competence and fair play is extremely important, but in this particular class, it is very difficult to achieve. This includes helping each other, putting away equipment, providing support and assistance, and especially in ball games—where some students are highly competitive—encouraging fair play and social skills. However, as I said, in this group, it is particularly challenging.”

(Maggie, pos. 18)

In addition to this, Maggie also emphasizes the development of coordination skills and the enjoyment of physical activity. The emphasis on fun is reflected in her approach to content selection within PE. Maggie offers a wide range of activities to foster motor and coordination skills, aiming to increase enjoyment while addressing the diverse interests of the students. In some lessons, she provides students with a choice between two parallel activities to better cater to different preferences.

“Yes, student diversity definitely plays a role in my lesson planning. In one weekly PE session, I often try to divide the gym. One half is usually used for games—sometimes different games in each half—while the other half is dedicated to activities like rings, floor gymnastics, or partner acrobatics. By offering these two different options, I aim to better accommodate the students’ varying interests.”

(Maggie, pos. 14)

In terms of didactic–methodical strategies, Maggie uses structured exercise sequences that allow for the gradual learning of target movements. She provides feedback particularly to those who are struggling with the exercises. However, she also gives students the freedom to adapt or further develop the exercises to suit their individual needs.

“Everyone starts with the same exercise. Sometimes I specify, ‘You do this, and you do that,’ but most of the time, a natural dynamic develops on its own. Those who have already mastered the exercise tend to start adapting it, for example, by rallying back and forth. Students know they are allowed to modify exercises by themselves to better suit their needs.”

(Maggie, pos. 36)

Regarding interaction, Maggie emphasizes the importance of minimizing hierarchy and building trust with her students. She values socially just behavior and acknowledges this through positive reinforcement of appropriate actions and issuing warnings for inappropriate behavior. Her grading approach is multifaceted, explicitly incorporating social aspects alongside physical achievements. There is no sole focus on athletic performance.

Looking at Maggie’s overall teaching strategy, a common thread throughout her approach is the commitment to addressing the varied interests and abilities of the students. She offers diverse content, at times providing multiple activities simultaneously. Students are encouraged to modify exercises according to their individual needs, and grading is based on a variety of factors, rather than just athletic performance. Maggie places a strong emphasis on social competence and fair play, which she fosters by acknowledging positive behavior and correcting inappropriate conduct. While Maggie enacts several elements of SJPs in her practice, particularly in terms of social learning and diversity-responsive adaptations, it is important to note that she does not intentionally target transfer beyond the immediate PE setting. Thus, Maggie exemplifies the Comprehensive but Contained type, as her teaching is inclusive and responsive to student diversity, without an explicit focus on broader transfer of social justice principles.

3.2.3. Nick—Transformative Practitioner

Nick demonstrates a strong and intentional engagement with SJPs. He consistently emphasizes socio-pedagogical goals throughout the interview, even without being explicitly asked. His stated objectives highlight a clear focus on student individuality, alongside an emphasis on enjoyment in PE and theoretical learning goals. In alignment with these objectives, Nick explicitly incorporates socio-pedagogical content into his PE lessons.

“Martial arts are currently very popular among young people. […] Fortunately, I have a lot of experience in this area and am open to incorporating it into my lessons. However, when I do so, I make sure to introduce it gradually. My focus is not solely on competition or the fight itself but also on the proper behavior that comes with it. This means we have a formal greeting at the beginning and a farewell after each match, regardless of the outcome. It is essential that both of these interactions take place with respect.”

(Nick, pos. 8)

Activities such as self-reflection and learning to articulate thoughts using “I-statements” are central components of his teaching practice.

“Respectful behavior, refereeing, and also self-reflection—thinking about what went well in my role as a referee […] or taking a situation and discussing it with the students: What was right, or what felt right to you, and what was wrong, and why did you feel that way? They quickly realize how to rephrase things, and ‘I-statements’ often come up very naturally without referencing others, because they learn to consider these things from their own perspective. These are the learning processes I try to encourage.”

(Nick, pos. 8)

Furthermore, he ensures variability in lesson content to accommodate the diverse needs of all students. To achieve this, he sometimes assigns individualized tasks, allowing students to engage in ways that suit their abilities and experiences. Regarding the didactic–methodical design of his lessons, Nick grants students a significant degree of autonomy. They are encouraged to retrieve material aids and seek assistance from peers.

“I completely leave it up to them; they are allowed to go into the equipment room […] and they can take out anything they want. This way, they also learn to handle the equipment and get to know their bodies […] they are free to choose on their own […] There are no restrictions on the types of support because I see no reason to limit their creativity, and they come up with great ideas.”

(Nick, pos. 24)

Individual movement solutions are explicitly welcomed and valued. Students are not required to conform to standardized movement patterns typically associated with a sport; instead, they are given the freedom to find movement solutions that work best for them. Additionally, Nick strives to tailor movement tasks to individual students whenever possible. He is also highly responsive to student suggestions and makes a conscious effort to include all students in lesson activities. To implement his numerous socio-pedagogical goals, Nick conducts structured reflections with students, discussing topics such as behavior and language use. He actively models the values he aims to instill, for example, by challenging gender stereotypes through his own behavior toward female students and colleagues.

“Dodgeball, the simplest ball game. […] The boys often look down on some girls with a dismissive attitude, thinking, ‘Well, you’re a girl, so it’s okay.‘ In such situations, either I or my colleague frequently join the game to support the girls. […] They need to see my female colleague succeed. Some students have even asked me, ‘Doesn’t it bother you when your colleague beats you?’ I tell them, ‘No, because she throws well. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. There are many things she excels at more than I do, and it has nothing to do with gender or physical capability. It’s sometimes about training, sometimes about talent. Just as one of you might be a better thrower, she might excel in mathematics or something else, and will find and enjoy her own talents […].’”

(Nick, pos. 14)

In terms of interaction, Nick emphasizes mutual respect. He facilitates joint negotiation processes and collective reflections, actively soliciting students’ opinions and integrating their input into his teaching practice. Rather than merely acknowledging student perspectives, he meaningfully incorporates them into lesson design.

“I involve them in decision-making processes and also give them the feeling that they can make a difference, […] that I’ve tried it a hundred thousand times and that it has worked a thousand times, yes, that’s great, but that still doesn’t mean it works for everyone. I’ve had classes where they say, first, that it’s a boring exercise, and second, that it’s a pointless exercise because everyone can do it right away. Well, that’s a statement I can live with, they’re right, it was a bad idea from me, let’s do something else.”

(Nick, pos. 22)

Additionally, he values students’ individual achievements and encourages autonomy in their learning processes. Nick’s grading approach explicitly avoids a focus on athletic performance. Instead, he prioritizes progress in any form, whether motor, athletic, personal, or social. He strives for a multifaceted and individualized evaluation process while ensuring it remains objective.

“Our grades simply reflect whether someone has performed very well, well, satisfactorily, sufficiently, or not sufficiently. But why can’t someone who isn’t athletic perform their tasks well? I don’t understand that. I often have this discussion with other colleagues.”

(Nick, pos. 16)

His grading criteria include a variety of social aspects, and he continuously reflects on his grading practices to ensure that they align with his pedagogical principles. Nick also demonstrates a strong commitment to fostering transfer beyond the immediate PE setting. His approach to socio-pedagogical content is highly intentional, aiming for its transfer to broader school and life contexts rather than relying on incidental learning. He provides concrete examples of how such transfer has already manifested within the school environment.

“And you can tell that this also carries over into school life. They draw a clear distinction between a combative situation and a conflict situation, and they tend to dismiss the latter more easily because they believe it doesn’t belong there. They feel that the important social aspects like respect, tolerance, and those kinds of things are missing.”

(Nick, pos. 8)

Overall, Nick consistently emphasizes SJP-aligned aspects across all levels of teaching—goals, content, didactic–methodical approaches, teacher–student(s) interaction, and grading—without requiring external prompting. His explanations are concrete and reflective, suggesting a deliberate integration of SJP principles into his teaching. He employs a diversity-sensitive approach, actively considering student individuality at every level. He pursues goals in line with SJPs, challenges stereotypes, seeks to flatten hierarchies, and promotes appropriate social behavior. Importantly, he does so with a strong awareness of underlying issues and with clear intentionality regarding transfer. Thus, Nick exemplifies the Transformative Practitioner type.

4. Discussion

This paper aimed to explore how SJPs are understood and enacted within Austrian PE. The analysis focused on how PE teachers describe and make sense of pedagogical practices that reflect commitments to inclusion, equity, and social responsibility. The findings reveal considerable variation in how such pedagogies are conceptualized and embedded in everyday teaching, illustrating varying levels of engagement with the principles of social justice in PE.

The majority of the interviewed PE teachers represent the Nearly Unengaged type. These teachers either do not engage with SJPs at all or implement only minimal aspects of them. This finding aligns with previous research, which has similarly pointed out that (physical) education often lacks inclusivity, social justice orientation, and efforts to prevent discrimination (Berti et al., 2010; Lynch et al., 2022; Thorjussen & Sisjord, 2018). This can be supported by the present study. A closer look at the overall teaching strategies of teachers categorized as Nearly Unengaged reveals a strong emphasis on health promotion and self-optimization. These tendencies reflect neoliberal values, which are also prevalent in broader societal discourses. Neoliberalism, in this context, refers to an ideology that prioritizes individual responsibility, competition, and performance, often at the expense of collective well-being and structural awareness. Such values stand in contrast to the aims of SJPs, which emphasize equity, inclusion, and systemic change (Azzarito et al., 2017; Fernández-Balboa, 2017). Interestingly, although teachers in this category rarely translate social justice aims into practice, many of them do not reject PE’s potential to promote inclusion, equity, and social learning. On the contrary, they often acknowledge this potential but either assume it will emerge naturally through sport itself or express significant challenges in implementing such approaches, frequently citing a lack of know-how or resources. These barriers to enactment are also reported in other studies (Dover, 2013; Fine-Davis & Faas, 2014; Silva et al., 2021). This underlines a broader lack of guidance, which is evident both in the Austrian PE curriculum (Meier et al., 2022) and in PETE more generally (Shelley & McCuaig, 2018). Yet, intentional and reflective implementation of PE’s social potential is crucial. Without it, this potential cannot be fully realized (Bailey, 2006; Bailey et al., 2009; García López & Kirk, 2022). In fact, in the absence of deliberate efforts to foster inclusion and social justice, the negative impacts of PE—such as reinforcing exclusion or marginalization—may instead come to the fore (Lynch et al., 2022). This highlights the importance of a conscious enactment of SJPs in PE and the need for the adequate preparation of pre-service teachers, as well as targeted professional development opportunities for in-service teachers.

In addition to the Nearly Unengaged type, three further types were identified, each reflecting different aspects and degrees of SJPs enactment in PE: the Sport-Centered Adjuster, the Values-Oriented Teacher, and the Comprehensive but Contained type. The Sport-Centered Adjuster primarily focuses on adapting sports-specific content. Teachers of this type recognize student diversity by, for instance, modifying tasks or broadening the selection of physical activities. However, their engagement with SJPs is limited to these surface-level adjustments. Aspects such as social learning, critical reflection, or the promotion of broader social objectives remain largely absent. Furthermore, they do not make deliberate efforts to support the transfer of these ideas beyond the PE context. In contrast, the Values-Oriented Teacher places a strong emphasis on social learning and ethical education. Teachers of this type actively integrate social goals into their teaching practice, particularly in terms of fostering interpersonal relations and value-oriented education. However, they tend not to make significant adaptations in terms of sports-related content and also do not intentionally support a transfer of these values beyond the PE setting. The Comprehensive but Contained type includes teachers who engage with SJPs more holistically at the instructional level. Their teaching strategies combine socially oriented content with adaptations that respond to diverse student needs. Nevertheless, their efforts remain confined to the PE context, as they do not actively encourage the transfer of social justice principles to broader societal or school-wide contexts. While these three types demonstrate a partial engagement with SJPs, their efforts remain limited in scope. None of them actively promote the transfer of social justice principles beyond the immediate PE setting, which highlights a key limitation in their potential to contribute to broader societal change. This suggests that, despite varying degrees of commitment, these approaches fall short of realizing the full transformative potential envisioned by SJPs (Bell, 2016). Similar patterns have been identified in previous research. For example, Smith et al. (2021) noted that “in many instances, the participant teachers foregrounded teaching for social cohesion rather than teaching for social justice.” (Smith et al., 2021, p. 510). Likewise, Philpot et al. (2021) argued: “Although the findings presented in this paper are examples of explicit teacher actions that aim to address social inequity, we suggest that teaching for social justice requires teachers to take action on social inequities and also teach about social injustice to prepare students to become agents for change and act on social inequities themselves, beyond HPE [health and PE].” (Philpot et al., 2021, pp. 662–663). These findings underline a broader challenge in operationalizing the transformative character of SJPs within PE. While there is a willingness to address certain dimensions, the more radical, justice-oriented aims—such as raising critical consciousness and enabling students to challenge social inequities—are often absent or underdeveloped. This highlights the need for deeper structural and educational support if PE is to move beyond inclusion and cohesion toward true social transformation. One potential starting point lies within PETE. Although issues such as inclusion, diversity, and equity are explicitly addressed in (Austrian) PETE programs, the field often remains closely tied to a traditional sports culture (Fahlenbock & Bindel, 2022), reinforcing established values rather than critically questioning them. In a similar vein, Klinge (2007) argues that academic and practical engagement in PETE tends to prioritize sport-specific performance skills over the exploration of bodily and movement experiences as meaningful pedagogical content. These institutional orientations may restrict the scope of pedagogical engagement and contribute to a limited realization of the transformative aims of SJPs.

The final type identified in the data is the Transformative Practitioner. Teachers of this type succeed in enacting SJPs in a comparatively comprehensive and consistent manner. Their teaching practices reflect not only adaptations to address diversity and promote inclusion within the PE setting but also a deliberate effort to foster the transfer of social justice principles beyond the immediate context of PE. This includes, for instance, encouraging critical reflection, promoting student agency, and connecting PE content to broader societal issues. As such, Transformative Practitioners can be considered best-practice examples, offering valuable insights into how SJPs can be meaningfully embedded within an overall teaching strategy. Their approaches illustrate the potential of PE to move beyond surface-level adjustments toward a more socially responsive and change-oriented pedagogy. Nevertheless, it should also be noted that, even among this type, no teacher enacts SJPs perfectly or in a fully comprehensive way, highlighting that realizing the full transformative potential of SJPs remains a considerable challenge.

5. Conclusions

This study has explored the diverse ways in which PE teachers enact SJPs through a type-forming analysis. The identified types reflect varying degrees of engagement with SJPs, ranging from minimal implementation in the Nearly Unengaged type to a more comprehensive and transformative approach embodied by the Transformative Practitioner. While some teachers demonstrate efforts to respond to student diversity or integrate social learning, most fall short of fully realizing the critical and change-oriented potential of SJPs. Particularly, the lack of deliberate transfer beyond the PE setting highlights a key gap in current teaching practices. These findings underscore the need for clearer guidance, targeted support, and more robust teacher education to foster the intentional and meaningful integration of social justice aims in PE. To achieve this, action is required from multiple actors, including policy makers, PETE scholars, school leaders, and teachers themselves. While this study is situated within the Austrian context, its findings are also relevant internationally, as the forms of marginalization, discrimination, and injustice—as described earlier—are not specific to Austria but reflect broader dynamics in PE and sport.

Looking ahead, future research should continue to examine the conditions under which transformative teaching practices emerge from a critical and explanatory perspective and how they can be supported systemically. This includes addressing structural barriers, providing ongoing professional development, and revising curricula to explicitly include social justice goals. Moreover, amplifying the voices and practices of transformative practitioners can help inspire and inform broader pedagogical change. In addition, gaining insight into students’ perspectives would offer a valuable complement to teacher-centered analyses. Understanding how students perceive and experience social justice and the enactment of SJPs in PE could provide important insights for more effectively embedding SJPs into PE practice. Ultimately, if PE is to contribute to a more just and equitable society, a stronger and more intentional commitment to SJPs—both in theory and in everyday teaching practice—is essential.