Dimensions of Meaning in Physical Education—Voices from Experienced Teachers

Abstract

Meaningful Physical Education (MPE) emphasizes six pedagogical dimensions, social interaction, enjoyment, fair challenge, motor competence, personally relevant learning, and enduring satisfaction, that contribute to students’ motor and emotional development. This study explores how experienced in-service Physical Education (PE) teachers perceive their capacity to foster these dimensions in their daily teaching practice. A qualitative, interpretative study was conducted through semi-structured interviews with 14 PE teachers (≥10 years of experience) from primary and secondary schools in Spain. A validated interview protocol, structured around the six MPE dimensions, guided data collection. Transcriptions were thematically analyzed using an inductive–deductive coding approach. Teachers described strategies to promote social cohesion, engagement through playful experiences, and differentiation to achieve fair challenges. They emphasized the importance of visible motor progress and emotional safety, and highlighted that when students perceive lessons as relevant, their motivation and long-term adherence to physical activity increases. Although teachers recognized challenges in implementing all dimensions simultaneously, they valued MPE as a guiding framework. The findings support MPE as a feasible and pedagogically rich model in real school contexts. Promoting these dimensions appears to be critical in fostering students’ sustained participation in physical activity and supporting their holistic motor development.

1. Introduction

Physical activity plays a crucial role in the holistic development of children and adolescents, encompassing physical, mental, cognitive, social, and emotional dimensions (Jerebine et al., 2024). Numerous scientific studies have extensively documented its benefits, demonstrating that regular physical activity is associated with significant improvements in cardiovascular health, muscular endurance, bone density, and body weight regulation (Warburton & Bredin, 2017). Beyond physical health, physical activity has also been shown to have a profound impact on mental well-being by reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety, and enhancing mood, self-esteem, and psychological resilience (Biddle et al., 2019).

At the cognitive level, research indicates that physical exercise can enhance academic performance and executive functions such as attention, working memory, and problem-solving skills, through neurobiological mechanisms related to neuroplasticity and increased cerebral blood flow (Donnelly et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2019). From a social perspective, participation in organized physical activities enables children and adolescents to form meaningful relationships, develop interpersonal skills, and foster values such as cooperation, respect, and empathy (Opstoel et al., 2020).

Taken together, these benefits position physical activity as an essential factor for the overall well-being of young people. However, despite the compelling evidence, global levels of physical activity among children and adolescents remain far from optimal. According to recent data from the World Health Organization, more than 80% of adolescents worldwide do not meet the minimum recommended levels of daily physical activity, a trend that persists and is even more pronounced in developed countries such as Spain (Guthold et al., 2020). This is particularly concerning, as adolescence is a critical period for establishing healthy habits that are likely to persist into adulthood (Steinberg, 2014).

One of the main institutional strategies to counteract this inactivity is the inclusion of PE as a compulsory subject within educational systems. In the school context, PE represents a privileged opportunity to promote active lifestyles, provide diverse motor experiences, and contribute to the integral development of students (Syaukani et al., 2023; Telford et al., 2020). Through PE, students are expected to acquire physical, social, and affective competencies that enable them to appreciate the importance of physical activity and sustain its practice beyond the school setting.

However, several studies have highlighted that, in its current form, school-based PE faces significant structural and pedagogical limitations. First, the limited instructional time allocated in most educational systems, typically two to three sessions per week, prevents students from reaching the daily physical activity levels recommended by the World Health Organization (Pearson et al., 2017; Vasconcellos et al., 2020). This time constraint not only reduces the direct impact of PE on students’ physical activity levels but also hinders its potential to create meaningful experiences that encourage physical activity during leisure time.

Second, numerous factors hinder students’ adherence to physical activity outside the classroom. Among these are a lack of motivation toward the subject, limited alignment with students’ personal interests, restricted autonomy in decision-making, and an instructional approach focused primarily on physical performance and technical skills (Baena-Extremera et al., 2016; Truelove et al., 2020). In many cases, the PE experience fails to foster the types of encounters that spark interest, engagement, and long-term commitment.

In response to these challenges, a renewed pedagogical approach has gained prominence in recent years: Meaningful Physical Education (MPE). This paradigm advocates for a qualitative shift in PE instruction, emphasizing the design of learning experiences that are personally meaningful to students and that, consequently, increases the likelihood of sustained physical activity in daily life (Beni et al., 2017; Fletcher et al., 2021).

MPE does not merely aim to deliver motor content or achieve specific standards of physical fitness; instead, it focuses on the meanings students assign to physical activities and their bodily experiences. From this perspective, PE becomes an educational space where emotionally rich, culturally contextualized, and personally valuable experiences can unfold. To support this approach, Fletcher and Ní Chróinín (2021) have proposed a framework comprising six key dimensions that should guide the design and implementation of meaningful PE lessons: (1) social interaction, (2) fun, (3) fair challenge, (4) motor competence, (5) personally relevant learning, and (6) delight.

As shown in Figure 1, these interrelated dimensions provide a holistic framework for instructional planning. Social interaction refers to the creation of positive peer relationships and the strengthening of a sense of belonging within the classroom group, directly contributing to the psychological need for relatedness (Thijssen et al., 2022; Opstoel et al., 2020). Fun is associated with immediate enjoyment and playful participation, fostering active and voluntary engagement, whereas delight represents a deeper and more enduring form of enjoyment that can generate transformative and memorable experiences, both reinforcing relatedness through shared positive emotions (Kretchmar, 2007; Hastie, 2023). Fair challenge involves tailoring tasks to students’ ability levels to ensure progress without frustration, thereby supporting the need for competence (Ames, 1984; Lochbaum et al., 2023). Motor competence encompasses the development of skills that enhance students’ sense of self-efficacy and confidence, which are essential to competence and lifelong physical activity engagement (Utesch et al., 2019). Finally, personally relevant learning encourages connections between classroom content and students’ interests, needs, and prior experiences, fostering autonomy and facilitating the transfer of learning to wider life contexts (Fletcher et al., 2021; Howley et al., 2022).

This approach is theoretically grounded in Self-Determination Theory, which holds that intrinsic motivation is fostered when the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satisfied (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Personally relevant learning and opportunities for student choice promote autonomy by enabling learners to connect physical education content with their own interests and experiences (Salazar-Ayala & Gastélum-Cuadras, 2020). Motor competence and fair challenge contribute to competence, as they provide students with opportunities to experience progress, mastery, and confidence (Vasconcellos et al., 2020). Social interaction, together with fun and delight, reinforce relatedness by nurturing positive relationships and shared experiences in the classroom (White et al., 2021). By explicitly linking each dimension to these psychological needs, MPE offers a concrete framework for applying SDT in physical education, thereby fostering meaningful engagement and sustained motivation (Ahmadi et al., 2023).

Moreover, MPE aligns with international guidelines for Quality PE, such as those promoted by UNESCO, as well as with the current educational frameworks in countries like Spain, where the official curriculum emphasizes the importance of designing experiences that promote motivation, inclusion, emotional well-being, and the development of physical self-concept (Pérez-Pueyo et al., 2022; Rivero Alvea & Ries, 2023). From this perspective, MPE offers an opportunity to rethink the subject through a more inclusive, reflective, and student-centered lens.

Despite its transformative potential, the practical application of this model remains at an early stage. Most of the scientific literature on MPE has focused on theoretically defining its dimensions or exploring students’ perceptions using qualitative methodologies such as interviews, focus groups, or visual techniques (Ní Chróinín et al., 2018; Beni et al., 2019; Fernández-Río & Saiz-González, 2023). These studies have helped to illuminate how students experience and value MPE, as well as to identify barriers and enablers for its implementation from the learner’s perspective.

However, there remains a significant gap in the literature regarding the perspectives of in-service teachers. Few studies have addressed how teachers understand, interpret, and apply the dimensions of MPE in their daily practice. This omission is particularly relevant considering that teachers are the ones responsible for designing, implementing, and evaluating learning experiences in PE. Their perspectives are therefore essential to assess the actual feasibility of the approach and to identify potential pedagogical, institutional, or contextual barriers that may hinder its effective implementation. Moreover, understanding teachers’ views would allow for a comparison between the theoretical ideal of MPE and the practical realities of the classroom, offering a more comprehensive and critical perspective on its applicability. This knowledge could inform the development of initial and ongoing teacher training programs aimed at equipping educators to effectively integrate the six dimensions into their pedagogical practice. It could also lead to specific educational policy recommendations focused on creating structural conditions (e.g., time, space, equipment, student–teacher ratios) that support a more meaningful and transformative PE experience.

For these reasons, the present study aims to explore, from a qualitative perspective, the opinions and perceptions of in-service PE teachers regarding the feasibility of developing the six dimensions of MPE in their lessons. Through semi-structured interviews, the study seeks to examine how teachers understand each of these dimensions, to what extent they perceive them as part of their regular practice, and what barriers or facilitators they identify for their systematic integration. This approach will contribute to advancing the understanding of the current state of MPE from the perspective of teachers and will help to inform future proposals for improving the teaching of school-based PE.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and Methodological Approach

This study is framed within a qualitative, interpretative approach (Martínez-Miguélez, 2004), aiming to understand the perceptions of in-service PE teachers regarding the potential of PE to foster meaningful experiences in students through the six dimensions of MPE (Fernández-Río & Saiz-González, 2023). The research is grounded in the notion that the meaning of educational experiences is subjective and constructed through teachers’ lived experiences in real teaching contexts.

2.2. Participants and Selection Criteria

The sample consisted of 14 in-service PE teachers (eight men and six women), each with a minimum of 10 years of professional experience within the Spanish education system, covering both primary and secondary education stages (

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample.

Educational Stage	n	Age ($\overline{\mathbf{x}}$ ± SD)	M Experience	Men	Women
Primary	6	43.2 ± 3.4	17.5 ± 3.1	3	3
Secondary	8	45.6 ± 4.1	19.2 ± 2.8	5	3
Total	14	44.5 ± 3.9	18.5 ± 3.0	8	6

). The sampling strategy was intentional and non-probabilistic (Bisquerra, 2004), based on the following inclusion criteria: (a) currently practicing as a PE teacher, (b) having a teaching experience of at least 10 years, and (c) having taught in at least two different educational stages.

2.3. Instrument and Data Collection Procedure

A semi-structured interview guide was developed to collect data, consisting of open-ended questions designed to explore in depth teachers’ perceptions of each MPE dimension. Each of the six dimensions was introduced at the beginning of the interview to ensure a shared understanding of their meaning. The following section presents the specific questions associated with each dimension (

Table 2. Guiding questions for exploring teachers’ perceptions of the six dimensions of Meaningful Physical Education.

Dimension	Guiding Questions
1. Social Interaction	How do you encourage relationships among students during your classes? What types of dynamics do you use to foster a sense of belonging and collaboration? Do you think your students feel part of the group during PE classes? Why?
2. Fun	How do you value the importance of fun in your PE classes? What signs do you observe in students to know if they are having fun? What strategies do you use to make lessons engaging and motivating?
3. Fair Challenge	What criteria do you use to adapt task difficulty to students’ abilities? Can you give an example of an activity where you set an appropriate challenge for different levels? How do students respond to challenges? Do they feel capable of overcoming them?
4. Motor Competence	How important is the development of physical skills in your planning? What evidence do you observe that students are improving their motor competence? Do you think they feel more confident and effective in their movements over time?
5. Personally Relevant Learning	How do you try to connect physical activities with students’ interests or life experiences? Do you allow them to suggest or adapt activities? What outcomes have you observed when you do? Have you noticed greater engagement when tasks are more connected to their reality?
6. Delight	Do you think students leave your classes with a positive feeling? What tells you so? What elements do you believe are key to making the experience memorable and long-lasting? How does enjoyment influence their attitude toward physical activity outside of school hours?

).

The interview guide was reviewed by three experts in qualitative research and PE pedagogy, who assessed the relevance, clarity, and coherence of the questions (Creswell & Poth, 2018). After incorporating their suggestions, a pilot test was conducted with a teacher who met the inclusion criteria but was not part of the final sample. This pilot allowed for adjustments in the language and sequence of the questions to ensure clarity and appropriateness. All interviews were conducted by the same researcher, who had previous training in qualitative methods and physical education pedagogy. To minimize interviewer bias, the researcher followed the same semi-structured interview guide across all participants.

2.4. Procedure and Data Analysis

Individual interviews were conducted between April and June 2024, in locations previously agreed upon with participants, and scheduled to accommodate their work hours. All interviews were audio-recorded and had an average duration of 40 to 50 min. Voluntary participation, anonymity, and data confidentiality were guaranteed in accordance with the ethical code of the University of Alicante (UA-2024-10-01_1).

The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using Atlas.ti software (v.7.5.18). The analysis followed a thematic approach combining inductive and deductive elements. While specific subthemes were allowed to emerge from the teachers’ narratives (inductive phase), the six dimensions of MPE served as the main meta-categories of analysis (deductive phase), aligned with the previously established theoretical framework (Fernández-Río & Saiz-González, 2023). This means that the dimensions were predefined prior to fieldwork and used as a guiding structure for coding and data organization, whereas analytical codes and subthemes emerged directly from the interview content.

The analysis was conducted independently by two researchers, who subsequently compared and discussed their categories and codes to ensure coherence and internal validity. A high level of inter-coder agreement was achieved, with more than 85% of codes independently assigned in the same way by both researchers. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. Both theoretical and methodological triangulation were employed to strengthen the credibility of the process. Theoretical triangulation was ensured by interpreting the data through different conceptual lenses relevant to the field, while methodological triangulation was applied by integrating complementary analytic strategies, such as thematic categorization, frequency counts, and the use of illustrative quotations, in order to capture both the breadth and depth of participants’ perspectives (Gavira & Osuna, 2015).

3. Results

The thematic structure that emerged from the analysis was organized around the six dimensions of MPE. For each dimension, interpretative subthemes were identified, along with specific micro-level codes. The frequency (FA) and relative frequency (%FA) of each code were calculated to illustrate their representativeness across the dataset. In addition, illustrative quotes were selected to exemplify the perspectives expressed by the participants. This synthesis, detailed in

Table 3. Thematic structure of teachers’ perceptions by dimension of Meaningful Physical Education.

Dimension (Theme)	Interpretative Subtheme	Code (Micro Level)	FA	%FA	Illustrative Quote
Social Interaction	Educational value of interaction	‘PE as a relational space’	10	71%	‘It’s in PE where they get to know each other best.’ (TEACH_6)
	Cooperative strategies	‘Use of mixed and rotating groupings’	9	64%	‘I try to make them work with someone different each day.’ (TEACH_3)
	Conflict management	‘PE as a coexistence lab’	5	36%	‘Many conflicts that arise in class are used to educate.’ (TEACH_13)
Fun	Relevance of playfulness	‘Play as a methodological axis’	13	93%	‘If they don’t have fun, they lose interest quickly.’ (TEACH_1)
	Emotional conditions for enjoyment	‘Relaxed and safe atmosphere’	10	71%	‘I really care that there’s no fear of failure.’ (TEACH_11)
Fair Challenge	Perception of students’ level	‘Inequality in motor skills’	8	57%	‘It’s hard to adapt tasks when there’s so much difference in levels.’ (TEACH_5)
	Progressive task adjustment	‘Grading difficulty within the same activity’	6	43%	‘Sometimes I create three versions of the same exercise.’ (TEACH_9)
Motor Competence	Valuing technical progress	‘Importance of visible improvement’	11	79%	‘They feel motivated when they see they’re mastering the movements.’ (TEACH_2)
	Positive feedback	‘Reinforcing effort, not just outcome’	7	50%	‘I praise them when I see they’re trying, even if they don’t succeed.’ (TEACH_10)
Personally Relevant Learning	Connection to students’ context	‘Activities linked to daily life’	5	36%	‘We adapt some games to what they do at home or in the street.’ (TEACH_12)
	Student participation	‘Partial choice of content or dynamics’	4	29%	‘Sometimes I let them choose between two options, and that motivates them.’ (TEACH_4)
Delight	Lasting emotional impact	‘Experiences that stay in memory’	6	43%	‘Years later, they tell you they remember a specific class.’ (TEACH_8)
	Personal satisfaction	‘Classes that make them feel good’	10	71%	‘You can tell when they leave happy, even if they’re sweating.’ (TEACH_7)

, reflects both the guiding theoretical framework and the situated meanings attributed by teachers to each dimension in their daily practice.

3.1. Social Interaction: Physical Education as a Relational Space

The findings of this study show that social interaction is one of the most widely recognized and intentionally addressed dimensions by the participating teachers. Most interviewees (FA = 10; 71%) identified PE as a unique context for fostering interpersonal bonds among students. This perception aligns with previous research highlighting the potential of PE to promote social skills, cooperation, and a sense of belonging (Opstoel et al., 2020; Vasconcellos et al., 2020).

One of the emerging subthemes was the educational value of social interaction, where teachers not only acknowledged that students interact during PE classes, but also viewed these interactions as pedagogical opportunities worth planning and fostering intentionally. As TEACH_6 exemplified: “It’s in PE where they get to know each other best.” This quote reflects a vision of PE as a privileged space for interpersonal development, fully aligned with the MPE framework, in which social interaction is one of the six key dimensions (Fernández-Río & Saiz-González, 2023).

Another emergent subtheme was cooperative strategies, particularly through the use of mixed and rotating groupings and small-group games, which encouraged interactions among diverse students. As TEACH_3 stated: “I try to make them work with someone different each day.” Such practices not only strengthen peer relationships but also reflect principles of inclusion and social justice in PE (Casey & Kirk, 2021).

Finally, although mentioned less frequently, the theme of educational conflict management was pedagogically valuable. Several teachers indicated that conflicts arising during gameplay can be transformed into learning opportunities about respect, listening, and peaceful resolution. As TEACH_13 noted: “Many conflicts that arise in class are used to educate.” This finding connects with Hall-López et al. (2019) and supports the idea that movement and play generate tensions that can be pedagogically channeled toward moral and social development.

Taken together, these findings underscore that the social dimension is not a byproduct of PE, but a core content that many teachers already address intentionally. They reinforce the argument that PE should be conceived as a relational space in which shared movement experiences contribute to students’ holistic development and potentially strengthen their long-term adherence to physical activity from an emotionally and socially meaningful perspective (Kretchmar, 2006; Fletcher et al., 2021).

3.2. Fun: The Playful Component as a Driver of Participation

The dimension of fun was one of the most frequently mentioned and highly valued aspects among the teachers interviewed, with 13 out of 14 participants (93%) referring to it. Play and immediate enjoyment were considered central elements for capturing and maintaining students’ motivation. This perception aligns with the MPE approach, where fun is not seen as a superficial goal but as a fundamental means for generating meaningful learning experiences (Fletcher et al., 2021).

Several teachers emphasized that, in today’s context of academic overload and evaluative pressure, PE classes represent an emotional release for many students. The subtheme plays as a methodological axis clearly emerged in the teachers’ narratives, as illustrated by TEACH_1: “If they don’t have fun, they lose interest quickly.” This idea echoes the literature that underscores the value of playfulness in fostering students’ motivational and affective development (Kretchmar, 2007; White et al., 2021).

Likewise, the subtheme of emotional conditions for enjoyment referred to the importance of creating a relaxed and safe environment, where mistakes are not penalized and where students are encouraged to express themselves freely through movement. As TEACH_11 explained: “I really care that there’s no fear of failure.” This quote highlights the teacher’s role as a facilitator of a positive emotional climate, an essential condition for meaningful learning in PE, as identified in recent studies (Saiz-González et al., 2025).

From a theoretical perspective, fun also aligns with Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020), as intrinsic enjoyment supports the satisfaction of autonomy and competence needs. Moreover, when fun is experienced in a socially positive context, it also strengthens the need for relatedness, shaping a more complete and fulfilling educational experience.

In short, the findings show that fun is not treated by teachers as a mere accessory, but as a structural component of PE lessons, one that can generate positive emotions, facilitate motor learning, and increase students’ adherence to physical activity both within and beyond the school setting (Sampasa-Kanyinga et al., 2020). However, fun is not an uncontested concept. Its absence can reduce motivation, but excessive emphasis may risk trivializing learning or masking the role of challenge and effort (Beni et al., 2019). Recent contributions also argue that it is important to balance enjoyment with pedagogical challenge so that fun supports, rather than replaces, meaningful engagement with learning (Howley et al., 2024).

3.3. Fair Challenge: Balancing Demands with Students’ Abilities

The qualitative analysis revealed that fair challenge is a dimension recognized as important by teachers, but difficult to implement in practice. While eight teachers (57%) reported that they try to adapt tasks to students’ abilities, they also pointed out several challenges related to the heterogeneity of skill levels, limited class time, and curriculum pressure. These structural limitations are consistent with previous studies highlighting the barriers to personalized teaching in diverse school contexts (Ferriz-Valero et al., 2024).

The most prominent subtheme was the perception of motor inequality, as many teachers reported that their classes include students with very different levels of physical competence. As TEACH_5 stated: “It’s hard to adapt tasks when there’s so much difference in levels.” This statement reveals a common tension between ensuring equity and maintaining pedagogical challenge. As Beni et al. (2017) argue, a fair challenge should be calibrated to students’ competence levels, avoiding both frustration and boredom.

To address this issue, some teachers described strategies such as internal differentiation of difficulty, offering multiple versions of the same task. TEACH_9 illustrated this by saying: “Sometimes I create three versions of the same exercise.” This practice aligns with the “just-right challenge” principle of MPE (Ní Chróinín et al., 2018), which emphasizes a fine-tuned match between task complexity, student ability, and the feedback provided.

These findings suggest that although teachers are aware of the pedagogical value of fair challenge, its implementation requires not only specific training but also supportive organizational conditions. As Casey and Kirk (2021) have pointed out, structural and training frameworks must be reconsidered to enable multilevel proposals, especially in schools with high levels of diversity.

In summary, fair challenge emerges as a dimension with significant transformative potential, yet its integration into PE lessons remains partial. Providing teachers with concrete tools to design differentiated tasks may represent a key path toward more meaningful and inclusive PE.

3.4. Motor Competence: Feeling Capable as a Driver of Engagement

Motor competence was widely valued by the participating teachers as a central educational goal. Eleven teachers (79%) reported that when students perceive improvement in their motor skills, their self-esteem and engagement with the subject increase. This perception is consistent with research that identifies perceived competence as a key predictor of motivation toward physical activity (Utesch et al., 2019; Lubans et al., 2016).

The most recurrent subtheme was valuing visible progress, which was described as a key motivational factor. TEACH_2 exemplified this by stating: “They feel motivated when they see they’re mastering the movements.” This experience of personal progress contributes to the development of self-efficacy and is closely linked to the need for competence within Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020), one of the theoretical pillars of MPE.

In addition, several teachers highlighted the importance of positive feedback focused on effort. Rather than valuing outcomes alone, many chose to reinforce perseverance and improvement. As TEACH_10 explained: “I praise them when I see they’re trying, even if they don’t succeed.” This pedagogical approach helps create a realistic and motivating classroom climate, aligned with approaches that prioritize meaningful learning and student autonomy.

It is also worth noting that this dimension has a strong link with long-term physical activity adherence. Students who feel competent are more likely to stay engaged, both within and beyond the school setting (Durden-Myers et al., 2018). Thus, fostering motor competence is not only a matter of curriculum content but also a long-term strategy for students’ holistic development.

In conclusion, motor competence is viewed by teachers as an essential dimension that directly influences students’ perceived abilities, supports long-term engagement with physical activity, and contributes to the development of a positive physical self-concept.

3.5. Personally Relevant Learning: Connecting PE to Students’ Lives

This was one of the least frequently mentioned dimensions by teachers, although several highlighted its potential importance. Only five out of fourteen participants (36%) explicitly referred to the need to connect PE experiences with students’ interests, realities, or everyday contexts. This limited presence suggests that, although the value of personally relevant learning is acknowledged in theory, its practical implementation remains underdeveloped.

One of the emergent subthemes was the difficulty of linking school-based content with students’ daily environments. As TEACH_7 explained: “It’s hard to find activities that connect with what they enjoy outside of school.” This perceived disconnect can undermine the meaningfulness of PE tasks, reducing student engagement and the transfer of learning. Previous research has emphasized that meaning does not lie in the activity itself, but in its ability to resonate with students’ biographies, contexts, and motivations (Kretchmar, 2007; Fletcher & Ní Chróinín, 2021).

Another subtheme was the limited participation of students in pedagogical decisions. Some teachers reported that, although they occasionally offer options or listen to student suggestions, rigid curricular demands often hinder deeper involvement. As TEACH_4 stated: “Sometimes I let them choose between two options, and that motivates them.” Such participation can foster students’ autonomy and sense of ownership, two key elements for meaningful learning (Ryan & Deci, 2020).

The results point to a gap between the theoretical recognition of personally relevant learning and its actual application in PE lessons. This gap may be linked to factors such as initial teacher training or the prevailing curricular frameworks, which tend to prioritize technical content over contextualized and lived experiences.

Strengthening this dimension requires a more flexible pedagogical approach, one that allows space for student voice and encourages the design of tasks connected to students’ interests, cultures, and lifestyles. To the extent that PE can align with what students experience and value beyond the classroom, the chances of fostering lifelong engagement in meaningful physical activity will significantly increase (Beni et al., 2017; Fernández-Río & Saiz-González, 2023).

3.6. Delight: Emotional Experience as a Key to Adherence

The dimension of delight emerged as a cross-cutting theme in many of the teachers’ narratives. Ten teachers (71%) reported being able to perceive when students are genuinely enjoying the class, and associated this emotional state with greater engagement, motivation, and positive memories. In line with Kretchmar (2007), delight is not merely an immediate hedonic experience but can be understood as a deep emotional event that leaves a lasting imprint.

One of the most significant subthemes was the lasting emotional impact of certain PE experiences. Several teachers pointed out that, even years later, some students recall specific activities that they experienced as particularly meaningful. As TEACH_8 illustrated: “Years later, they tell you they remember a specific class.” This emotional memory highlights the formative potential of experiences that integrate movement, emotion, and social context.

A second subtheme related to personal satisfaction perceived during the class. Teachers identified clear signs of delight in their students, which they associated with a state of physical and emotional well-being. TEACH_7 noted: “You can tell when they leave happy, even if they’re sweating.” This perception suggests that delight may serve as an informal indicator of the educational quality of the session.

Within the MPE framework, delight is closely tied to intrinsic motivation and long-term adherence to physical activity (Fletcher et al., 2021). Positive, enjoyable, and emotionally fulfilling experiences increase the likelihood that students will want to repeat the activity, even outside the school setting. In this sense, delight acts as a bridge between present experience and future continuity.

Moreover, delight connects directly to the satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs outlined in Self-Determination Theory: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2020). When PE classes successfully integrate these conditions, students tend to engage more deeply and develop a more positive attitude toward physical activity. In summary, delight was perceived by teachers as a fundamental dimension of PE, not only for its immediate emotional effects but also for its ability to create positive memories, strengthen students’ connection with movement, and promote the development of active lifestyles over the life course (Durden-Myers et al., 2018; Sampasa-Kanyinga et al., 2020).

4. Conclusions

The main objective of this study was to explore in-service PE teachers’ perceptions regarding the real-world applicability of the six dimensions proposed by the MPE framework: (1) social interaction, (2) fun, (3) fair challenge, (4) motor competence, (5) personally relevant learning, and (6) delight. Through the analysis of semi-structured interviews, it was found that these dimensions are largely recognized by teachers as essential components of a transformative PE, although their degree of implementation varies. Dimensions such as social interaction, fun, and motor competence are regularly integrated into teaching practice, indicating a strong alignment between the MPE approach and everyday classroom dynamics. However, other dimensions, particularly personally relevant learning and fair challenge, present greater operational difficulties, often due to structural limitations and a lack of specific training.

These findings should be interpreted with caution in light of certain methodological and contextual limitations. First, the sample consisted of 14 teachers from different educational levels and schools, which offers diversity but does not allow for generalization to the broader population of PE teachers. While the qualitative approach does not aim for statistical representativeness, future research could complement these findings through mixed-methods or quantitative studies involving larger samples. Second, the use of individual interviews may have influenced the type of responses collected, depending on each teacher’s level of reflection or familiarity with the MPE framework. Future phases would benefit from incorporating complementary techniques such as focus groups, classroom observations, or the analysis of instructional units in order to triangulate data.

From a prospective standpoint, this study opens relevant pathways to advance the development and implementation of the MPE approach. One promising direction involves designing initial and ongoing teacher training programs that systematically integrate the principles and dimensions of MPE, particularly personally relevant learning and fair challenge, which were the least frequently addressed dimensions. Another line of work could focus on developing curriculum resources and teaching materials tailored to support practical application of the approach. In addition, it would be worthwhile to examine how organizational conditions within schools, such as class time, student–teacher ratio, and facility availability, affect the feasibility of implementing MPE. Creating institutional environments that support pedagogical innovation in PE may be a key facilitating factor.

In summary, this study reaffirms the pedagogical value of the MPE framework as a viable approach for guiding teaching practice toward the holistic development of students. Its future consolidation will depend on the ability to articulate a pedagogical, institutional, and policy framework that enables a sustained transition from intention to implementation in school settings.