Vaughan Cruickshank

Why it’s a nightmare to use Zoom to get moving

Schools around Australia were forced into online delivery of physical education (PE) in Term 2, 2020, due to measures taken to suppress and restrict the spread of Covid-19. We looked at what really happened in classrooms. The results show us exactly how marginalised PE became.

What we found in our research, ‘Just do some physical activity’: Exploring experiences of teaching primary school physical education online during Covid-19, is that few guidelines were provided to teachers by education departments, and that teachers found out ‘what works’ by ‘trial and error’. Our study found PE teachers missed the face-to-face interaction with students, and that often new teaching skills needed to be cultivated to meet the challenge of online lesson delivery, whether by synchronous or asynchronous delivery.

Students in Tasmania where this research occurred were required to study online from home for approximately 10 weeks, with schools only being ‘open’ to families of essential workers who continued in the workforce while the rest of the population were under work from home requirements.

In Australia, physical education (PE) is an essential education provision that is central to the development of the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary for lifelong health and wellbeing. It is a part of the essential learning area called Health and Physical Education (HPE), which all Australian students within compulsory ages of schooling are required to take. While regular physical activity is recommended for students to meet the achievement standards of the Australian HPE Curriculum (AC:HPE), it is important to remember that the rationale and objectives of the AC:HPE clearly indicate that PE should have an educative focus and an inquiry emphasis.

Regular participation in school PE is an important foundation to ‘becoming’ physically educated and to the physical literacy that informs physical activity as an ongoing lifestyle choice. Research has also noted that participation in PE has numerous affective, social-emotional and cognitive benefits. Despite the holistic outcomes associated with PE, it is often not given the time and resources it requires to develop students into independent, self-regulated and self-motivated seekers of physical activity by the end of compulsory PE in Year 10. This is due to schools prioritising time to other learning areas deemed more ‘academic’ and therefore ‘important’ to the priorities of the school. It needs to be acknowledged, that often PE has not helped its own image as a worthwhile site of learning through provision of school curricula that provides little more than a series of physical activity experiences. This has been described as keeping students busy, happy, active, and good (well behaved).

The study

This study was undertaken by researchers from the University of Tasmania and Flinders University, Adelaide. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects on the educative intent of PE when primary school teachers were forced into an online delivery of the curriculum. It is important to know more about this phenomenon to inform future situations like that experienced by Covid-19 suppression measures as well as existing distance education by online delivery.

Data was obtained from eleven Tasmanian HPE specialist teachers who were forced to shift to online delivery of primary school PE during 2020. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with these teachers, who taught in co-educational primary schools across a variety of Tasmanian locations.

Key themes

Analysis of teachers’ experiences led to the emergence of three key themes:

1. PE did not happen, but, in most cases, was altered to physical activity/fitness or educatively marginalised to just being a movement break between other subjects with higher status and priority;

2. Online learning platforms are already used by schools, but not with consistency. Using them to teach PE can be a lot of additional work and teachers had varying levels of willingness to use these platforms;

3. Connection with students is an important part of teaching, teachers preferred to connect with their students face to face and had concerns about delivery of feedback and student engagement online.

PE did not happen

Declining rates of physical activity participation, increasingly sedentary behaviour of Australian children and reports on low attainment of fundamental movement skills (and the problem of this when they are possibly predictive in the choice to be physically active) were already an issue before Covid-19. A focus on educative purposes for the progressive development of movement competence and confidence is one of the five interrelated propositions that shaped the writing of the AC:HPE. Yet, the educative ‘E’ in PE largely did not occur, rather, PE had been marginalised and replaced with physical activity tasks and in some cases to participating in online fitness activities. Online fitness videos can be a great resource for young people wanting to increase their movement levels during isolation, to accumulate sufficient physical activity through the day for healthy growth and development. However, physical activity provision of itself is not PE and HPE teachers are not personal trainers. Despite indicating an awareness of the difference between PE and physical activity, teacher comments indicated that they were happy just if their students were outside and active every day during isolation.

While students being active outside should be encouraged, particularly in light of recent research noting physical activity decreases during Covid-19, this physical activity should be undertaken in addition to PE lessons, just as it is in a ‘normal’ school day where physical activity breaks and ‘active classrooms’ are encouraged.  The educative focus of PE plays an important role in children becoming ‘competent’ in being active and developing the skills and dispositions required for lifelong health and activity, and the self-efficacy required to continue to independently seek to be physically active. While substituting physical activity for PE long term is going to be highly detrimental to this aim, it is important to acknowledge that expectations on teachers during Covid-19 suppression measures were unprecedented in living memory. Teachers were given very little time or professional development to prepare online content and teach online, and many participants perceived online teaching to be a temporary move until suppression measures had eased and teaching returned to normal.

Online learning platforms

Most participants appeared to be confident users of technology, yet some were concerned about the amount of screen time students were experiencing while learning online. This concern might go some way to explaining why some teachers chose to prioritise movement accumulation by setting physical activity tasks that would require students to get off their laptops but doesn’t mitigate against the expectation of teachers of all subjects to continue to progress students towards attainment of the student achievement outcomes outlined in the curriculum.

Participants who did teach online noted an increased workload due to different platforms being used and the time required to provide feedback to students. As one participant noted; “I’m giving myself a lot of work because I’m uploading the video to the 15 classes I teach, so it goes out to over 300 children and I had over 100 children respond every day. So, I’ve been on my computer the whole time responding to the children and watching their videos”. Using videos is a sensible solution to the challenge of online PE delivery, but teachers do need to be aware of the time required to give feedback.


Perhaps a reason for the loss of educative intent was the loss of connection teachers felt with the students and becoming physical activity leaders was seen as providing an online connection. Participant comments indicated both a concern for students missing the social benefits of learning together and working within a team, and their personal feelings related to missing their students. The ‘learning with others’ and the intra and inter-personal social skills development possibilities that come from PE teachers who deliberately plan for personal and social skills learning in PE, connects with the education through movement dimension that frames the AC:HPE.

While participants predominantly detailed the challenges of adapting their PE program for online delivery, several participants shared anecdotes of positive experiences with student engagement that had emerged during the move to online delivery. These included successful virtual cross-country carnivals and increased physical activity for some families. Exercise was one of the few reasons that Tasmanians were permitted to leave their homes during isolation, so it is important to acknowledge that some families may have increased their physical activity levels due to boredom and ‘cabin fever’. Nevertheless, these teacher comments indicated that online delivery of PE did have some benefits for students and their families, which teachers may be able to build on in the future.


The results suggest that for these teachers, the influence of Covid-19 forcing school curricula delivery online was (further) marginalisation of expectations for PE. PE is already recognised in the literature as a valued but not necessarily priority focus of learning, especially in primary schools. It appeared that the significant degree of contradiction between the value of PE and the provision of PE as a vague notion of physical activity accumulation became accentuated during online delivery. The departure of the ‘education’ in physical education became acceptable as physical activity accumulation was pursued.

For those who want more:

A second paper focussed on the online teaching experiences of secondary HPE teachers during COVID-19 suppression measures is currently under review.

From left to right:

Vaughan Cruickshank is a Senior Lecturer in Health and Physical Education (HPE) at the University of Tasmania and is currently Program Director of the Bachelor of Education(HPE) and Bachelor of Education(Science/Maths) programs. His research interests are focussed on HPE, health literacy and how we can encourage people to be active and healthy for life.

Shane Pill is an associate professor in physical education and sport at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. He researches using qualitative methodology in curriculum, pedagogy, school leadership, and sport coaching. Shane is an award winning teacher educator, including the Australian Award for University Teaching (2016 and 2020) and Life Membership of the Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation.

Casey Mainsbridge is a Lecturer in Health and Physical education at the University of Tasmania, Australia. His research areas are in health, physical activity, sedentary behaviour, pedagogy, habits and behaviour change. Casey is the Director of Student Engagement in the School of Education at the University of Tasmania, and has also been a registered exercise professional for twenty three years.

How can a ‘learn by making mistakes’ approach work for outdoor education teachers?

Within many contemporary social, workplace and sporting contexts, mistakes are often perceived to be negative, resulting in underperformance and something to be avoided. Within education, in contrast, mistakes are widely seen to be“the essence of learning”. Such an approach is well researched and long recognised, even though it seems in direct competition with the prevalent mindset of ‘helicopter’ or ‘bulldozer’ parents who see mistakes as obstacles on the pathway to success for their child.

But how does the ‘learn by making mistakes’ approach work for outdoor education teachers?  In traditional outdoor education, where risky activities are often a central feature, the role of mistakes in the teaching and learning process has seldom been examined. 

A child making a mistake in the classroom is one thing, but making a mistake in an outdoor education environment is another. Classroom teachers can create safe situations for students to learn from their mistakes without fear of injury. This is much more difficult for outdoor education teachers, as a rock climbing mistake for example, is likely to have far more serious physical consequences than a mistake on an in-class task. In essence, one could be perceived to be acceptable the other simply is not. 

So risk management practices in outdoor education tend to control, manage and avoid authentic opportunities for students to make mistakes. Students become recipients of a learning activity, rather than participants in it. When working in this scenario we, outdoor education teachers, perhaps find ourselves becoming  “helicopter teachers”. 

So, how do schools and teachers navigate this complex situation, especially given the added known benefits of outdoor play in nature?

Our recent research explored how secondary outdoor education teachers perceive the notion that mistakes are ‘the essence of learning’, and how they view the role mistakes have in the learning processes in their outdoor education programs.

Our research

Our research was guided by the following research questions:

  1. How do outdoor education teachers in Tasmania perceive the role of student mistakes accompanied by feedback within outdoor learning processes?
  2. How does risk impact on the creation of a learning environment where mistakes are welcomed?

We learned that when teachers value mistakes, this type of pedagogy can still be applied to the risky activities of outdoor education and one teacher in particular, in our study, managed to make it work quite well.

Our initial research targeted the 73 members of the Tasmanian Outdoor Education Teachers Association, however, the practicalities of the study refined our focus to seven teachers who were willing to be interviewed and participate in the research. These seven teachers came from a range of Tasmanian secondary schools working across the three school sectors within Tasmania (government, catholic and independent). As predicted, all participants agreed that mistakes are an essential part of the learning process. Most participants also believed that student error and accompanying feedback were important, however this belief was not always present in the teaching practice. 

Key themes

There were five key themes that emerged from our research. Through an understanding of these, we believe we can better cater for mistakes in the outdoor learning environment and prevent ourselves from becoming “helicopter teachers”.

Five key themes that emerged. 1) goals of outdoor education; 2)  relationship between mistakes and feedback in the teaching and learning process; 4) learning environments, trust and time in outdoor education programs; 5) the impact of risk on mistakes and teaching and learning. 

When asked to outline the key goals of their programs, all of the teachers involved indicated that their programs aimed to create experiential learning opportunities to develop character traits such as resilience, independence and initiative. 

Some teachers see a link between challenge and opportunities for learning from mistakes. Of course it is important to acknowledge here that a mistake, in and of itself, does not always lead to good learning.  Rather, student mistakes might be better viewed as astarting point, but not the final destination in the learning process.

A common sentiment held by the teachers interviewed was that mistakes are indeed a powerful opportunity for learning, as they often occur in what are considered real and authentic ways. 

But how such opportunities for students to learn from mistakes can be built into Outdoor Education programs and pedagogical practices is less clear. There is a difficulty in teachers translatingtheir belief that mistakes are essential for learning into practice in an outdoor education context.

Most of the participants in this study were unable to align their beliefs regarding the value of mistakes and their pedagogical practice in discouraging them. However they were also responsible for leading compulsory, short-term (often one week being the maximum duration), off-campus programs for all students in their schools. In these settings, risk was used and managed to push students outside of their ‘comfort zone’ and have them overcome a physical challenge with high levels of perceived risk (e.g. abseiling down a 20m wall). The role of mistakes is limited in such circumstances as the consequences of something going wrong are dire. 

The one participant in this research who was able to align their belief with their pedagogical practice was a teacher who taught a year-long timetabled class to the same group of students. We will call him Harry.

Goals in Harry’s program weren’t solely about personal development, but were to (in his own words) “where we can, use the local area of the school. I want the students to be confident and independent in the outdoors. I don’t focus too much on hard skills. I want them to understand a bit more about the places we go. Part of that is understanding a little bit about ecology, and learning to appreciate what’s there and why it’s fragile”. 

In this setting, high levels of perceived risk becomes less relevant. The activity being conducted is simply a vehicle and a location for a different, possibly deeper, type of learning to occur. Spending more time with students also allows the teacher to develop stronger relationships with the group. Combining these different goals with a longer time-frame can aid in the creation of a learning environment where student mistakes are welcomed and can be capitalised on educationally. 

The greatest contrast between these two approaches, Harry’s and the other teachers of short-term courses, is the time available to be spent with students. 

Participants were really clear on the idea that the time of making the mistake is not the actual moment for learning to occur, it is the catalyst for further conversation, feedback and reflection. With greater time comes greater opportunity to learn from the mistakes that happened. Sometimes relying just on increased perceived risk as the key driver for learning can be a bit blunt. That is, it does not allow for the richer learning that may come through employing alternative educational strategies or philosophies that are relied upon in a more traditional classroom setting. 

When students are placed in artificial situations that do not require significant decision-making by the learner, there is little to reflect upon and learn from. How risk intertwines with opportunities for students to learn from their mistakes in ways that result in rich and authentic learning, raises interesting questions about how activities and experiences in outdoor education are conceived, designed and facilitated. 

The one participant in this study, Harry, who managed to cater for mistakes, did so via gradually releasing decision-making processes to students, allowing them to make mistakes and then undertaking a structured process of reflection when they occurred. This teacher did not bulldoze the obstacles, but helped their students overcome them. We believe there is a lot to be learnt from Harry’s approach for teachers, parents and the wider educational community. 

Rather than hovering over an activity and charging through the crowded curriculum, we should take more time to complete rich learning activities. In doing so, we gradually release some responsibility and decision-making to children. As their responsibility and authenticity around decision-making grows, we are encouraging them to learn how to keep themselves safe, whilst being able to make mistakes and learn from them along the way. Rather than needing to always be there to protect them, through gradually stepping back we are teaching them to do it themselves. 

For those who want more Mistakes, risk, and learning in outdoor education

Samuel Cure is an HPE Teacher and Assistant Principal in Tasmania. Sam’s pedagogical focus is aligned quite closely with his research and constantly examines the role mistakes have in the learning process. Sam is interested in the incorporation of digital technologies and 21stCentury Learning skills across the curriculum. Sam is on Twitter at @SCurePE.

Dr Allen Hill is Principal Lecturer in Sustainability and Outdoor Education at the Ara Institute of Canterbury.He has key responsibilities in building research and supervision capacity and capability in theinstitution. He also leads the development of post-graduate qualifications in Sustainable Practice. His role is to provide academic leadership in the Sustainability and Outdoor Education program.

Vaughan Cruickshank is a Lecturer in Health and Physical Education (HPE) at the University of Tasmania and is currently Program Director of the BEd(HPE) and BEd(Science/Maths) programs. He teaches a variety of practical and theoretical subjects to predominantly BEd(HPE) students and is also closely involved in the BEd(HPE) and BEd(Science/Maths) Professional Experience programs. Vaughan’s research interests include the challenges faced by male primary teachers, student centred approaches to HPE teaching, and the potential use of technology to enhance HPE teaching.