Sport, Education and Society

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cses20

Analysis of the assessment in Physical Education

curricula in Primary Education

Fernando Manuel Otero-Saborido , Francisco Javier Vázquez-Ramos , José

Manuel Cenizo-Benjumea & José Antonio González-Jurado

To cite this article: Fernando Manuel Otero-Saborido , Francisco Javier Vázquez-Ramos , José
Manuel Cenizo-Benjumea & José Antonio González-Jurado (2020): Analysis of the assessment
in Physical Education curricula in Primary Education, Sport, Education and Society, DOI:
10.1080/13573322.2020.1804349

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1804349

View supplementary material

Published online: 11 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cses20
SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1804349

Analysis of the assessment in Physical Education curricula in

Primary Education
Fernando Manuel Otero-Saborido , Francisco Javier Vázquez-Ramos ,
José Manuel Cenizo-Benjumea and José Antonio González-Jurado
Sport Department, Pablo Olavide University, Seville, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

One way to understand the Physical Education (PE) curriculum is through Received 4 February 2020
assessment. After the appearance in Spain of the learning standard (LS) as Accepted 29 July 2020
a reference for more specific assessment, the main objective of this work
KEYWORDS
was to analyse the assessment aspects for PE in Primary Education in the Formative assessment;
curricula of Spain’s 17 Autonomous Communities. Documentary analysis of neoliberalism; critical
the official regulations was used as a data collection technique. Qualitative pedagogy; qualification;
and quantitative variables were analysed for the 3,357 assessment Spain
references. Qualitative variables included: LS typology and sequencing,
and the existence of assessment orientations. Quantitative variables
included: the curricular size, the presence of the cognitive, motor, and
socio-affective dimensions in the different standards, percentages of
comprehensiveness (assessment references which include the three
dimensions) and curricular effectiveness (capacity of each curriculum to
optimise the standards to include the greatest number of dimensions).
The LS was the assessment element generally used by the majority of
curricula. The cognitive dimension (39.42%) predominated in the
assessment references, at the expense of the motor (30.94%) and socio-
affective dimensions (29.65%). Only 11.70% of the 3,357 assessment
references used incorporated the three dimensions (cognitive, motor
and socio-affective). An inversely proportional relation seemed to exist
between curricular size (number of standards) and its
comprehensiveness (r = −0.505) and effectiveness (AEC) (r = −0.646).
Likewise, it is noted that more LS including the motor dimension is
associated with a greater comprehensiveness (2D: r = 0.573) of the
curricula (r = 0.721). Lastly, the association between the ‘motor’ and
‘cognitive’ dimension variables was reversed. The curricula analysis
showed a very high level of standardisation of PE assessment, which
was oriented towards the measuring of theoretical know-how, foregoing
comprehensiveness. This trend underlines the curricula’s adopted
neoliberal nature and their distancing from assessment models based on
student participation and development. A more flexible, democratically
constructed curriculum as well as assessment benchmarks are necessary
in PE, where motor development and assessment become a means for
holistic education.

Introduction
A major distinguishing feature of a curriculum is its assessment system. Objective-based curricula or
exclusively technical curricula reduce assessment to the measuring of behaviours only. In this sense,

CONTACT Fernando Manuel Otero-Saborido fmotero@upo.es

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1804349
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 F. M. OTERO-SABORIDO ET AL.

they simplify a complex process such as assessment, yet they deprive it of its educational value. As
mentioned in the prologue of the Spanish translation of the work by Stenhouse et al. (1987), these
types of curricula reduce knowledge to a series of behaviours: they do not support teachers in
their development of deeper educational goals. The objectives can be attained by students
without real learning taking place. A different perspective on assessment is illustrated in a curriculum
such as the ‘Humanities Curriculum Project’ (Stenhouse et al., 1987): here, teachers and students for-
mulate their assessment criteria, adapting them to the specific context of their own learning situ-
ations. If we agree that for assessment to be meaningful, that is, it should be defined according to
each educational context, then we must acknowledge that the conditions (i.e. teaching resources,
students’ socioeconomic background, number of students per class, etc.) in which learning unfolds
play a key part. The terminological approach of Alcaraz (2015) sheds light on this matter: the
author emphasises that we should dedicate more assessment time to ensuring conditions of learning
than to the measurement of learning itself.
Following our review of PE curricula in Spain, to the best of our knowledge, no detailed analyses
have hitherto been conducted on the specific conditions of assessment in the Primary PE curricula.
Referring to PE curricula, Dinan Thompson and Penny (2018) comment: ‘they have received relatively
little attention across research and professional communities associated with primary physical edu-
cation’. The term ‘standard’ was recently included in the PE curricula in Spain as the major benchmark,
thus highlighting a view of assessment that is linked to performance, i.e. an almost entrepreneurial
view of assessment. We believe the criteria of ‘standards’ fails to contribute educational value to
the assessment process. Though standards-based measurement ceased to be obligatory in 20181,
a representative example of this neoliberal evolution of assessment in Primary PE curricula is New
Zealand’s curriculum National Standards, as indicated by Petrie and Lisahunter (2011). This is
similar to the evolution of the PE curriculum in Spain. In 2006, the assessment approach that was
introduced was more skills-based and comprehensive (i.e. assessment references which include all
three dimensions). However, with the enforcement of the LOMCE (the Organic Law for the Improve-
ment of Educational Quality) in 2013, this skills-based and integrated approach to assessment (Hay &
Penney, 2009) evolved towards a system based on fulfilling expected levels of performance, defined
according to behavioural standards and benchmarks. The discipline of Critical Pedagogy has voiced
criticisms regarding this understanding of assessment, emphasising its lack of educational value
(García-López & Gutiérrez, 2018). The following question should therefore be asked: from a critical
perspective, how should one understand assessment in the Primary PE curriculum?

The PE curriculum from a critical perspective

To understand how PE is approached today, it is useful to highlight the expression put forward by
Tinning (2018), ‘The cult of slenderness’, which summarises the concept underlying the PE model,
i.e. a model influenced by the cult of body image. As Kirk (2020) recently stated, PE has been con-
ceived based mainly on physical and physiological objectives. Thus, based on these dimensions,
health is the main argument to justify PE at school. And such is the conclusion of the UNESCO’s
report (2013) on worldwide PE curricula: the majority include health as the subject’s main objective.
In spite of this dominant paradigm, according to Kirk (2019), evidence has yet to be produced that
physical education can make a valuable contribution to young people’s health and wellbeing. Like-
wise, though most curricula put PE at the exclusive service of health, educational objectives include
that of training students to be critical and autonomous regarding their environment, beyond the
physiological paradigm of health. The data in both Primary and Secondary curricula worldwide
underscore the widespread absence of PE oriented towards personal and social development
(UNICEF-ONU-UNESCO, 2013). Concretely, Primary School PE curricula barely incorporate comprehen-
sive and ethical dimensions. Examples such as the PE curriculum of the state of São Paulo are few and
far between. The São Paulo curriculum understands PE from a critical perspective regarding cultural
and social standards; it embraces students’ diversity and range of socioeconomic backgrounds (Betti
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 3

et al., 2015). In this specific case, recent policies of economic cuts have hindered the application of the
São Paulo curriculum (Secretaría Municipal de Educaçao, 2019). Nonetheless, Paulo Freire’s ideas of
Critical Pedagogy endure and are reflected in the document. A clear example is that though the
objectives of worldwide curricula are to make students learn, students themselves don’t actually
take part in their design: the curricula are designed for the students … but without them. In the
case of the PE curriculum of São Paulo, 43,000 students were asked about what contents they
wished to include in the curriculum. This design of a study programme ‘for’ and ‘together with’
the students demonstrates how Critical Pedagogy constructs the curriculum taking into account
the cultural diversity of different communities.

Assessment in PE curricula from a critical perspective

Drawing on Bernstein’s (1977) conceptualisation of the curriculum, assessment in PE curricula would
incorporate two (curriculum and assessment) of the three interrelated codes (pedagogy, curriculum
and assessment) which constitute educational knowledge, according to the author. In the same way,
Penney et al. (2009) explore these three interrelated systems within PE. This work highlights the
concept of ‘quality PE’ and underlines that the meaning of quality always needs to be contextualised
in relation to socio-cultural surroundings. That is to say, a ‘curriculum’ is linked to a specific edu-
cational community. In the case of ‘pedagogy’, innovative teaching practices are not enough (Teach-
ing Games for Understanding, Sport Education or Teaching for personal and social responsibility).
Rather, these practices must be chosen according to the very concrete needs and interests of the
specific educational context. Lastly, ‘assessment quality’ refers, among other characteristics, to a situ-
ation of genuine assessment; that is to say, contextualised in circumstances of real learning (TGfU,
Tactical Games or Sport Education).
On the other hand, given that curriculum and pedagogy can be understood through assess-
ment, it is important to approach how PE curricula address assessment. As both concepts are inti-
mately related, the PE curricula’s traditional focus on improving students’ physical condition has
led to reducing assessment to the measuring of performance through physical tests. The physical
test evaluation model has become less prominent in recent years as global concerns such as
excess weight and children’s health have had to be addressed (López-Pastor et al., 2013). This
evolution, however, does not mean or guarantee that assessment becomes learning-oriented.
Different authors point out that for curricular assessment models that evolve from physical apti-
tude towards health to be really educational, students must understand the meaning of their edu-
cational practice, learn to self-regulate and to commit to healthy lifestyles (Hopple & Graham,
1995; Keating et al., 2009; López-Pastor et al., 2013)
Moreover, the effects of technical rationality and measurement rationality lead PE curricula to
include an increasing amount of assessment standards (López Pastor, 1999). This excessive tendency
to measure leads to formulating independent assessment standards, which separate traditional
human dimensions (cognitive, motor and socio-affective) because they are thus easier to evaluate.
Conversely, very few reference points incorporate all the dimensions, given that this latter type of
criteria are harder to measure and tend to open up the curriculum. This operationalisation of stan-
dards coincides with the fact that PE curricula, the world over, include very few references points
oriented towards personal and social development (UNICEF-ONU-UNESCO, 2013). An appropriate for-
mative assessment approach offsets the physical and sport performance measurement model. It
centres on students’ participation in their own assessment through strategies such as co-assessment,
self-assessment or discussed qualification (Lamb et al., 2013; López Pastor et al., 2007; Ní Chróinín &
Cosgrave, 2013). Despite advances in the practical implementation of this model, traditional assess-
ment models based on measurement continue to prevail (López-Pastor et al., 2013).
In this sense, the requirements in the official curriculum influence the choice of assessment. That
is, highly standardised assessment instructions, composed of analytical and measurable criteria
encourage PE teachers to apply traditional assessment approaches. Conversely, more open curricula
4 F. M. OTERO-SABORIDO ET AL.

with more holistic assessment references allow PE teachers to perform assessments of the student’s
participation and development. Curricular designs that do not take into account the needs of the
educational community encourage the adoption of traditional assessment practices (that is, that
focus exclusively on physical or sport performance). Ultimately, they are unlikely to be educational,
as they do not include values of cooperation or comprehensive education. They are not inclusive
either, as specific, individual student needs fail to be addressed. That is, dominant models and
forms are reproduced. In the case of PE, we have examples of minority PE models which are silenced
by a Eurocentric dominant culture, as occurs with Indigenous games in New Zealand (Dagkas et al.,
2011; Fitzpatrick, 2013; Flintoff, 2018; Pang & Macdonald, 2016; Williams, 2018). Furthermore, non-tra-
ditional assessment proposals are possible that include student participation (co.evaluation, self-
assessment …) and which include social –not exclusively cognitive– dimensions. Practical proposals
exist such as TGfU (Butler, 2006; Penney et al., 2009) and/or GPAI (Memmert & Harvey, 2008) which
advocate a more holistic and participative PE; they could be applied to any PE games from cultural
minorities (buroinjin, edor, etc.) which are excluded in the curricula. Though very few studies
thoroughly analyse how assessment is conducted across different curricula (Otero-Saborido &
Vázquez-Ramos, 2019a), it has been reported that curricular assessment models ‘by objectives’ (or
standards) (Stenhouse et al., 1987) reward practices based on physical and sport performance
measurements. In this model, descriptions of theoretical standards tend to abound as they are
simpler to qualify.
Therefore, the selection of assessment standards under a closed curricular model where the
teacher has little autonomy is not only the result of some specific values. It also contradicts edu-
cation’s transformative and critical spirit. In this sense, from the PE perspective, the contributions
of Fitzpatrick (2013) and Kirk (2020) are highly relevant. Both authors describe PE as an empowering
tool: its use, therefore, must not be restricted by such narrow assessment standards. Moreover, some
open curricular proposals in PE are in line with the precept of Giroux (1998), for whom it is not poss-
ible to separate what happens in the classroom from the reality outside the classroom. Examples of
this are the approaches of Azzarito (2010), Oliver and Kirk (2016), Lynch and Curtner-Smith (2019) and
(2010) who broaden the PE curriculum, including social topics such as gender equality, racism, acti-
vism or curriculum negotiation. It is worth nothing that in the field of assessment, the concept of
‘social justice’ as a means of educational transformation is not new (Garrett & Wrench, 2008). Com-
ponents such as transparent decision-making regarding marking and assessment with respect to stu-
dents, students’ participation in the different assessment processes, or learners having various
opportunities to improve their learning all contribute to social justice in PE assessment (Hay &
Penney, 2009, 2012)

Assessment in Primary Physical Education in Spain

In PE assessment in Primary Education in Spain, the emergence of the LOMCE (the Organic Law for the
Improvement of Educational Quality) has been decisive. The regulations deriving from this law have
included the Learning Standard (LS) as a new element in the curriculum. In this case, (‘Royal Decree
126/2014 of 28 February, which establishes the basic curriculum in Primary Education (BOE num 52,
1/3/2014)), understands the LS as ‘specifications of the assessment criteria which enable defining
the results of learning and that specify what the student must know, understand and make known
in each subject; they must be observable, measurable and assessable and allow grading the perform-
ance or the achievement attained. Its design must contribute and facilitate the layout of standardised
and comparable tests’. Later, the Autonomous Communities (AC)2, following the mandate of the Royal
Decree 126/2014, have mainly used LS to supplement the ‘assessment references’ in their respective
curricula. Nevertheless, the studies conducted in Spain on Primary PE curricula have not analysed
the standards’ educational profile in detail (Julián et al., 2016; Méndez Alonso et al., 2015; Otero-Sabor-
ido & Vázquez-Ramos, 2019a; Otero-Saborido et al., 2020). Therefore, we propose the following ques-
tions: What type of assessment references exist in the PE curricula of Spain’s 17 autonomous
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 5

communities? Are there any assessment orientations aimed at learning regarding the application of
these references? What is the weight of the motor dimension compared to the cognitive and socio-
affective dimensions? To what extent are the assessment references comprehensive? Is there a relation
between the degree of comprehensiveness and the number of assessment references?
In view of all the above, the main objective of this work was to analyse the significance of PE
assessment in Primary Education included in the respective curricula of Spain’s 17 autonomous com-
munities. This main objective was broken down into the following specific objectives:

. To investigate qualitative aspects of PE curricular assessment in Primary Education, such as the

typology and sequencing of the assessment references, their curricular relations and the existence
of concrete assessment orientations.
. To define variables which explain the prevalence of the curricula’s different SL dimensions, their
comprehensiveness and their effectiveness.
. To study the relations between curricular size, comprehensiveness, effectiveness and their LS
dimensions.
. To formulate predictive models which explain the comprehensiveness and the effectiveness of the
curricula’s assessment references in view of future designs.

Method
Sample
Documentary analysis was used to compare the PE curricula of the 17 autonomous communities
(hereon AC). This data collection technique was employed in the study of the PE curriculum
(Benites et al., 2016; Zaytsev et al., 2017). All the regions’ curricula have been published in the respect-
ive official bulletins of their Autonomous Communities. They are in PDF format in open and free
access. The search and analysis were performed by three experts in didactics in PE in Primary Edu-
cation during the year 2019. The 17 curricula were published in 2014 and 2015, and, therefore,
they were valid when this work was written and are detailed in Appendix I.

Instruments and variables

Firstly, an initial exploratory analysis was conducted to understand and compare the quality of the cur-
ricula. We later examined the weight of the different quantitative variables. In the qualitative exploratory
analysis, a control sheet which included the following categories: typology, sequencing of the assess-
ment references, curricular relation and the existence of specific assessment orientations such as that
used by Otero-Saborido and Vázquez-Ramos (2019a) (Table 1). The instrument validated by Otero-
Saborido and Vázquez-Ramos (2019b) was employed to analyse Educational Comprehensiveness, effec-
tiveness and the weighting of the dimensions of the regional curricula’s assessment standards. Based on
the literature, this instrument considers the criteria to apply to each of the 3,357 assessment references
to detect the presence of the following dimensions: cognitive, motor and socio-affective.

Procedure and reliability

The curricular documents were passed to three PE curricula experts. In the case of the quantitative
variables, though the instrument validated by Otero-Saborido and Vázquez-Ramos (2019b) presents
almost perfect reliability coefficients, for this study, the experts underwent three training sessions of 1
h and 30 min each. The first session was dedicated to explaining the study’s objectives and to illus-
trating the characteristics of the cognitive, motor and socio-affective dimensions using a sample of
the 17 regional curricula assessment references. In the second session, the three experts used the
tool, codifying 10% of the 3,357 assessment standards. Lastly, in the third session, the three
6 F. M. OTERO-SABORIDO ET AL.

Table 1. Qualitative and quantitative variables of the comparative analysis of the 17 autonomous curricula.
Exploratory analysis: Typology Variable aimed at knowing the references which the curricula consider:
qualitative variables area aims, assessment criteria and assessment standards.
Sequencing Differentiates if the curricula sequence their references by educational
cycles or levels.
Curricular relation Differentiates which curricular elements the relation is explicitly
established with.
Assessment orientations Detects if there are specific assessment orientations for the different
assessment references.
Quantitative variables Assessment size of the Measures the quantitative magnitude of the curriculum from the total
curriculum number of assessment references. In the case of various assessment
references, the most specific is taken as the reference, the standards
being the limit of the specification.
Comprehensiveness Measures the degree of inclusion of the dimensions (cognitive, motor
and socio-affective) in each of the standards. This construct appears in
3 variables:

. 3 dimensions (3D): Quantifies the maximum degree of

comprehensiveness by measuring the percentage of standards
which contain the three dimensions.
. 2 dimensions (2D): Quantifies a degree of average
comprehensiveness by extracting the percentage of standards which
contain two dimensions.
. 1 dimension (1D): Quantifies a degree of minimum
comprehensiveness by extracting the percentage of standards which
contain a single dimension.

Effectiveness Measures the capacity of each curriculum to optimise the standards to

include the greatest number of dimensions. It is measured through
the Assessment Effectiveness Coefficient (AEC) which is the ratio
between the total comprehensiveness score obtained for each
curriculum (the sum of the total of the dimensions considered in all
the standards) and the maximum score possible according to its size
(the number of standards of the curriculum multiplied by the 3
dimensions which each one of them could include)
Dimensions Gathers the different spheres which could consider each one of the
standards. According to the instrument validated by Otero-Saborido
and Vázquez-Ramos (2019b), three dimensions are considered:
cognitive, motor and socio-affective.

experts unified the criteria of standards they thought were confusing. Later, they again codified
another, different 10% of the total of the 17 regional curricula standards. Almost perfect Kappa
reliability coefficients were obtained for all three dimensions (Cognitive: 0.92, p = 0.000; Motor:
0.98, p = 0.000; Socio-affective: 0.96, p = 0.02).

Statistical analysis
A sheet designed in the Excel v.2013 programme was used to both explore the qualitative variables
and to categorise the dimensions incorporated in the 17 AC’s assessment references. The Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences v. 20 was used to analyse the quantitative variables. The percentages
and the averages were used for the descriptive analysis, and the Pearson coefficient to determine the
associations between the different variables. Lastly, a simple linear regression technique was applied
to the variables which had a direct and significant relation, and linear multiple regression was used to
determine the predictive models.

Results
To address the first objective of this work, five qualitative aspects of the 17 AC’s curricula (Table 2)
were analysed: area objectives (general purposes of each subject), assessment criteria, LS, the
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 7

curricular relation and the existence of specific assessment orientations. The analysis reflects that only
5 ACs support the subject area’s objectives, all use references to formulate the assessment criteria,
and the majority sequence them by educational level. As for the new curricular element, the LS,
only two ACs exclude them as assessment references (the Basque Country and Catalonia). Concern-
ing the relationship between the assessment references and curricular elements, only 8 ACs relate
them with the key competences and all, except the Basque Country, associate them with the con-
tents. Lastly, within this first quantitative analysis, only three ACs (Andalusia, Catalonia and Murcia)
include specific methodological orientations about how to use the assessment references.
Secondly, another objective of the work was to define and quantify the variables across the curri-
culum regarding the assessment reference dimensions, comprehensiveness and effectiveness. To do
so, a relative analysis was performed of each AC’s percentages concerning the dimensions (cognitive,
motor and socio-affective), the percentage differences between the dimensions, the degree of com-
prehensiveness of the references at three levels (three dimensions, two dimensions and one dimen-
sion) and the assessment references’ effectiveness measured using the Assessment Effectiveness
Coefficient (AEC). Regarding the dimensions, a general analysis of the 3,357 standards of the 17
ACs showed that the cognitive dimension prevailed (39.42%) over the motor dimension (30.94%)
and socio-affective dimension (29.65%). An exploration by AC reflected that 14 of the 17 ACs dedi-
cated a greater percentage to the cognitive dimension than to the motor dimension except Catalo-
nia, Castile-León and Asturias. The latter regions prioritised the motor dimension over conceptual
know-how. These data explain that the percentage difference between the motor dimension and
the cognitive dimension across all ACs was 7.83% in favour of the latter. On the other hand, regarding
the references’ comprehensiveness, understood as the capacity to integrate more dimensions, the
exploration of the 17 curricula showed that: only 11.70% of the 3,357 LS incorporated the three
dimensions (3D); 27.28% integrated two dimensions (2D); and, at the other extreme, the majority
of the LS (61.02%) only contained one dimension. The result of the individualised analysis by AC is
the contrast between, on the one hand, ACs which have a low percentage of standards with the
maximum comprehensiveness (the Canary Islands, 4.55%; Cantabria, 4.15%; Castile-La Mancha,
4.67%), and on the other hand, ACs with a high percentage of assessment references incorporating
all three dimensions (Andalusia, 22.73%; Aragón, 16.87%; the Basque Country, 50%).
Lastly, addressing the objective of ‘creating and analysing variables which diagnose the curricula’s
LS’, we examined each curriculum’s capacity to optimise the standards so as to include more

Table 2. Comparison of assessment aspects of the autonomous curricula of PE in Primary Education.

AO Assessment criteria Standards SAO
E N° E N° SEQ. E N° SEQ KC CT Curricular relation
Andalusia Yes 7 Yes 38 Cycle Yes 44 Cycle Yes Yes Yes
Aragón Yes 10 Yes 85 Level Yes 166 Level Yes Yes No
Asturias No No Yes 13 Level Yes 352 Level No Yes No
Balearic Islands Yes 10 Yes 39 Cycle Yes 105 Cycle No Yes No
Canary Islands No No Yes 8 Level Yes 44 Level Yes Yes No
Cantabria No No Yes 253 Levels Yes 482 Levels Yes Yes No
Castile-LM No No Yes 104 Levels Yes 407 Levels No Yes No
Castile-León No No Yes 91 Level Yes 328 Level No Yes No
Catalonia Yes 8 Yes 25 Cycle No Yes Yes Yes
Extremadura No No Yes 13 Level Yes 278 Level No Yes No
Galicia No No Yes 83 Level Yes 260 Level Yes Yes No
La Rioja No No Yes 92 Level Yes 310 Level Yes Yes No
Madrid No No Yes 13 Level Yes 44 Level No Yes No
Murcia No No Yes 13 Level Yes 203 Level No Yes Yes
Navarre No No Yes 67 Level Yes 199 Level No Yes No
Basque Country Sí 7 Yes 8 Stage No 0 No No No
Valencia No No Yes 101 Level Yes 102 Level Yes Yes No
AP: Area Objectives; E: They exist: N°: Number; SEQ.: Sequencing; KC: Key competences; CT: Contents; AO: Specific assessment
orientations.
8 F. M. OTERO-SABORIDO ET AL.

dimensions. To do so, the AEC was formulated as the ratio between each curriculum’s obtained score
on comprehensiveness (the total sum of all dimensions considered in all standards) and the
maximum score possible according to size (the number of curriculum’s standards multiplied by
the 3 dimensions included in each of them). A special analysis showed that the Basque Country
(0.79), Catalonia (0.60), Valencia (0.58) and Andalusia (0.55) optimised the amount of assessment
references the most to incorporate the different dimensions. Conversely, the lowest coefficients
were obtained by Cantabria (0.42), La Rioja (0.43), Asturias and Castile – La Mancha (0.44). The effec-
tiveness of the assessment of the 17 curricula places the AEC in the middle range (0.50) Table 3.
Another objective of the study was to determine the relationships between the curricular size
(‘Number of standards’), comprehensiveness (3D; 2D; 1D), effectiveness (ACE) and ‘Dimensions’ (Cog-
nitive, Motor and Socio-affective) included in their standards. To do so, the Pearson correlation coeffi-
cient was used (Table 4). In the case of the first variable, the results show that there is a reverse and
significant association between the curricular size (‘Number of standards’) and two other variables:
Effectiveness (AEC) and ‘Comprehensiveness’ (‘3D’). Therefore, an increase in the ‘Number of stan-
dards’ in the curricula could be associated with a lower effectiveness of these assessment references
(r = −0.646; p = 0.005). Likewise, it seems that a large quantity of assessment references decreases
their capacity to incorporate more dimensions (3D: r = −0.505; p = 0.039; 2D: r = −0.575; p = 0.016;
1D: r = 0.687; p = 0.002).
Secondly, regarding Effectiveness (AEC), it appears that the most effective curricula are those
which at the same time correlate more strongly with the comprehensiveness which incorporates
the three dimensions (r = −0.907; p = 0.000). However, no relations can be observed between the
Effectiveness and any of the three dimensions. In the same way, there is an association between
average comprehensiveness, understood as the capacity of the assessment references to incorporate
two dimensions (2D) and two of the subject areas (Cognitive and Motor). In the first case, a larger
number of cognitive standards is associated with a curricula’s lower capacity to incorporate at
least two dimensions (r = −0.460; p=0.05). In the second case, the relation is direct: a larger
number of motor references lead to a greater capacity of the curricula to incorporate at least two
dimensions ( = −0.573; p = 0.016). Lastly, in the relations between the dimensions, it seems that a

Table 3. Percentages of the standards of Primary Education in PE in the 17 curricula of the AC organised by dimensions, differences
between dimensions and comprehensiveness.
Percentages
By dimensions Difference Comprehensiveness
C M SA M-C M-SA C-SA 3D 2D 1D AEC
Andalusia 44 38.36 26.03 35.62 −12.33 −9.59 2.74 22.73 20.45 56.82 0.55
Aragón 166 38.29 25.28 36.43 −1.86 −11.15 1.86 16.87 28.31 54.82 0.54
Asturias 352 32.32 37.96 29.72 5.64 8.24 2.60 6.82 17.33 75.85 0.44
Balearic Islands 105 41.89 28.38 29.73 −13.51 −1.35 12.16 5.71 29.52 64.76 0.47
Canary Islands 44 43.33 26.67 30.00 −16.67 −3.33 13.33 4.55 27.27 68.18 0.45
Cantabria 482 36.87 27.24 35.89 −9.62 −8.65 0.98 4.15 18.88 76.97 0.42
Castile-LM 407 38.50 31.78 29.72 −6.73 2.06 8.79 4.67 22.11 73.22 0.44
Castile-León 328 35.46 37.67 27.09 2.20 10.57 8.37 9.15 20.12 70.73 0.46
Catalonia 25 31.11 46.67 22.22 15.56 24.44 8.89 8.00 64.00 28.00 0.60
Extremadura 278 41.04 29.61 29.35 −11.43 0.26 11.69 6.47 25.54 67.99 0.46
Galicia 260 41.21 31.04 27.75 −10.16 3.30 13.46 7.69 24.62 67.69 0.47
La Rioja 310 45.52 24.38 30.10 −21.14 −5.72 15.42 7.10 15.48 77.42 0.43
Madrid 44 45.31 25.00 29.69 −20.31 −4.69 15.63 11.36 22.73 65.91 0.48
Murcia 203 43.46 27.21 29.33 −16.25 −2.12 14.13 8.37 22.66 68.97 0.46
Navarre 199 43.82 34.63 21.55 −9.19 13.07 22.26 9.55 23.12 67.34 0.47
Basque Country 8 36.84 36.84 26.32 0.00 10.53 10.53 50.00 37.50 12.50 0.79
Valencia 102 36.87 29.61 33.52 −7.26 −3.91 3.35 15.69 44.12 40.20 0.58
TOTAL 3357 39.42 30.94 29.65 −7.83 1.29 9.78 11.70 27.28 61.02 0.50
Abbreviations: N°: Number of standards; C: Cognitive; M: Motor; SA: Socio-affective; 3D: Percentages of standards which contain the
three dimensions; 2D: Percentages of standards which contain two dimensions; 1D: Percentages of standards which contain one
dimension; AEC: Assessment Effectiveness coefficient.
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 9

Table 4. Correlation between the variables Number of standards, comprehensiveness, dimensions and comprehensiveness
coefficient in the 17 curricula of the AC.
Comprehensiveness Dimensions
N° AEC 3D 2D 1D C M SA
N° Pearson
p
AEC Pearson −.646**
p .005
Comprehensiveness 3D Pearson −.505* .907**
P .039 .000
2D Pearson −.575* .627** .242
P .016 .007 .350
1D Pearson .687** −.967** −.771** −.805**
P .002 .000 .000 .000
Dimensions C Pearson −.094 −.362 −.181 −.470 .419
P .720 .153 .487 .057 .094
M Pearson −.052 .365 .130 .573** −.456 −.721**
P .843 .149 .618 .016 .066 .001
SA Pearson .174 −.158 −.003 −.348 .231 .014 −.702**
p .503 .545 .990 .171 .373 .959 .002
Abbreviations: **. The correlation is significant at the level 0.01 (bilateral). *. The correlation is significant at the level 0.05 (bilateral).
No.: Number of standards; C: Cognitive; M: Motor; SA: Socio-affective; 3D: Percentages of standards which contain the three
dimensions; 2D: Percentages of standards which contain two dimensions; 1D: Percentages of standards which contain one dimen-
sion; AEC: Assessment Effectiveness Coefficient.

greater number of standards of a cognitive nature is inversely proportional to the number of motor
standards (r = −0.721; p = 0.001). This same inverse relation (when one variable increases, the other
decreases) was found for the socio-affective and motor references (r = −0.702; p = 0.002).
On the other hand, another study objective was to determine complex models which explain both
the curriculum’s comprehensiveness (3D) and its Assessment Effectiveness (AEC). No valid complex
models were found. Nevertheless, from a simple regression viewpoint, three significant predictions
were found that quantified some of the previously described associations (Table 5). Firstly, the
relation between average comprehensiveness ‘2D’ (standards incorporating two dimensions at the
same time) and the motor dimension explains 32% of the variance. One observes that for each per-
centage point increase regarding the number of standards dedicated to motor development, average
comprehensiveness increases by 0.573. Secondly, concerning the relation between ‘2D’ average com-
prehensiveness and the cognitive dimension, the results show that for each additional cognitive
dimension percentage point, average comprehensiveness decreases by −0.470. Lastly, the inverse
association prediction which existed between the cognitive and motor dimensions reflects that for
each unit of cognitive dimension increase, the motor dimension decreases by −0.721.

Discussion and conclusions

The literature review revealed that research on assessment in PE has notably increased (López-Pastor
et al., 2013; Lorente-Catalán & Kirk, 2014). Studies which thoroughly analyse how PE is assessed in the

Table 5. Predictive models which predict the associations between the average comprehensiveness (2/3) and the motor and
cognitive dimensions.
Variables Summary of the model ßeta Coefficients
R Durbin Non- p-
Dependent Independent squared Anova Watson standardised Standardised value
Motor dimension 0.328 0.16 2.248 1.125 .573 0.16
2/3 comprehensiveness
Cognitive dimension 0.221 0.57 2.069 −1.301 −.470 0.57
Motor dimension Cognitive dimension .520 0.01 1.220 −1.106 −0.721 0.001
10 F. M. OTERO-SABORIDO ET AL.

official curricula have not, however, known such a surge (Otero-Saborido & Vázquez-Ramos, 2019a).
This is why the present work’s main aim was to analyse assessment in the Primary Education PE cur-
ricula of 17 Spanish autonomous communities. Four aspects were analysed: qualitative factors of the
curricula (assessment orientations, typology of references, and so on); quantitative variables which
describe the predominant dimensions, the standards’ comprehensiveness and effectiveness; possible
associations between the variables; and, lastly, the existence of predictive models among the 17
curricula.
First of all, before starting to discuss the statistical data obtained, it is worth returning to Bernstein
and his message system cited in the introduction. Given the results of the 17 autonomous curricula, it
is worth noting the proposals of Penney and Chandler (2000, p. 74) regarding the curriculum / assess-
ment / pedagogy dynamics (referring to Bernstein) that underpin the whole subsequent discussion:

. ‘a change in the principle of classification of physical education curricula;

. a weakening of that classification. and weaker framing in physical education;
. a new voice to be established for the curriculum; and
. the development of new messages in teaching’

The performed analysis shows that generally, the curricula are evolving towards implementing and
standardising their assessment references employing a range of strategies (Table 2). Firstly, many LS
appear in almost all the curricula as a more specific and measurable element than the original assess-
ment criterion. Secondly, the subject area objectives as more general and flexible references have
almost disappeared (only 5 ACs maintained them). Thirdly, the lack of any specific assessment orien-
tations directed to teachers (only 3 AC include them), explaining how to apply these assessment
references. Therefore, we find ourselves with closed and prescriptive, non-orienting curricula. This
marked trend in PE assessment in Primary Education curricula undoubtedly results from the
States’ subservience to private powers, that extol the culture of measurement and ‘uniformity in
the way of being, thinking and acting’ (Biesta, 2014). Such subservience has taken place in Spain
since the LOMCE was enforced (2013) and later regulatory development. Schools, and therefore PE
as a curricular subject, have not escaped the negative impact of this financial approach, i.e.
valuing only what can be easily quantified. Macdonald (2014) pointed this out as he clarified that
PE is included within the call of international financial organisations (IMF, OCECD, etc.) for stan-
dard-based curricula. This standardising trend contrasts with experiences such as those of the PE cur-
riculum in Sao Paulo, which was designed collectively based on the needs and opinions of the whole
community (Betti et al., 2015). Furthermore, not only do these curricula lack flexibility, but their
assessment systems are of low educational value and the main cause of stress for PE teachers. A
recent systematic review points out that aspects such as inappropriate curricular guidelines or exces-
sive curricular specification are the major reasons PE teachers experience stress, ahead of other
causes, such as lack of materials or equipment, students’ lack of discipline or relations with their col-
leagues (von Haaren-Mack et al., 2020).
The list above, together with the analysis of the major dimensions and the comprehensiveness of
the standards offers us a distinctive curricular panorama (Table 3). Conceptual standards (39.42%)
predominate at the expense of the motor (30.94%) and socio-affective standards (29.65%). Further-
more, the legislators clearly seem incapable of bringing together the different dimensions under a
single standard: only 11.70% of the 3,357 LS across the 17 autonomous communities integrated all
three dimensions. Both the priority given to the assessment of theoretical know-how and the curri-
cula’s low comprehensiveness are due to legislators obeying the design guidelines to achieve mea-
surable curricula rather than educational curricula. Curiously, the curricular trend towards assessing
theoretical know-how contrasts with the perception of Spanish PE teachers, who opt for the motor
dimension (Otero Saborido et al., 2014; Sicilia et al., 2006). Thus, there appears to be a dissonance
between legislators’ intentions and teachers’ perceptions. In this line, different studies describe the
opinions of PE teachers from different countries: the latter describe their difficulties in applying
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 11

their curricula due to social, personal and cultural factors, especially when students and teachers have
been excluded from their design in spite of being the recipients of the curriculum (Jin, 2013; MacLean
et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2011).
Based on the previous objective, a third aim of this work was to determine the relations between
the different variables mentioned (Table 4). Two associations are worthy of note. First, it seems that
the ACs that designed curricula with more LS were less capable of being comprehensive. They thus
construct more analytical assessment references which, we believe, are less educational. Second, the
prevalence of one dimension or another seems to be associated with the ability to incorporate two
dimensions in the same LS. It seems that formulating LS which include motor development favours
comprehensiveness, while including more cognitive standards impairs comprehensiveness. There-
fore, this situation may reveal a change in the design of assessment references that is more oriented
towards motor development.
Having conducted a literature review on the subject of the present study, and analysed and dis-
cussed the results of the research of the 17 regional PE curricula in Spain, we now turn towards four
proposals on how to approach assessment in PE. Firstly, each social context has its own needs, there-
fore, the PE curriculum should be built by the educational community; the same curriculum cannot be
imposed across different realities. In this sense, it is worth going back to São Paulo’s PE curriculum
described earlier. The programme of study was created based on the opinions of 43,000 students.
But it is not only a question of participating in the curriculum’s design. It offers an example of a
study programme which goes beyond the dichotomy of body and mind, achieving the transforma-
tive nature that should be proper to PE (Betti et al., 2015).
Secondly, and relating to this latter idea, motor development is the main pillar of PE and as such, it
should lie at the heart of the assessment references which, in turn, should include all the dimensions
of the human being. In this sense, Hay (2006, p. 317) comments, referring to a genuine assessment:
… assessment should redress the mind/body dualism propagated by traditional approaches to assessment, cur-
riculum and pedagogies in PE, through tasks that acknowledge and bring to the fore the interrelatedness of
knowledge, process (cognitive and motor), skills and the affective domain

Thirdly, a curriculum that includes comprehensive assessment helps to shape a PE teacher profile
oriented towards designing genuine assessment situations with an educational value. The literature
highlights a multitude of proposals which use action research cycles in PE, where both teachers and
students are assessing the process, and where marks are not the only modus operandi (Farias et al.,
2017).
Lastly, regarding the design of future PE curricula, the curriculum should provide educational
orientations to teachers, as well as instruments to conduct formative assessment, and strategies
based on student participation, such as self-assessment, co-assessment or dialogical grading. The
PE curriculum as Educator serves as an example: PE teachers are guided and given examples on
how to conduct positive interdependence in cooperative learning. They can also be given examples
of questions they can put to students in view of their own self-assessments. There is also the case of
São Paulo, cited in this work, where teachers are exposed to Freire’s pedagogy, reflected in each pro-
posal. The curricula include plenty of bibliographic references, transforming it, beyond a merely hier-
archical document, into a document that provokes questions and, therefore, learning.

Notes
1. Since 2018, schools in New Zealand are no longer required to report National Standards annually to the Ministry
of Education
2. There are 17 autonomous communities in Spain. The autonomous communities constitute the highest level of
territorial organisation in Spain. Each Autonomous Community (an administrative structure similar to a State in
the USA or a Land in Germany) has the competences to elaborate its own PE curriculum, following minimum
national level guidelines.
12 F. M. OTERO-SABORIDO ET AL.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Fernando Manuel Otero-Saborido http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7016-2414
Francisco Javier Vázquez-Ramos http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5646-2018

References
Alcaraz, N. (2015). Evaluación versus calificación. Aula de Encuentro: Revista de Investigación y Comunicación de
Experiencias Educativas, 17(2), 209–236.
Azzarito, L. (2010). Future Girls, transcendent femininities and new pedagogies: Toward girls’ hybrid bodies? Sport,
Education and Society, 15(3), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2010.493307
Benites, L. C., Do Nascimento, J. V., Milistetd, M., & Farias, G. O. (2016). Content analysis in educational research in physical
education: A study on curricular internship. Movimento, 22(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.53390
Bernstein, B. (1977). Class codes and control, towards a theory of educational transmissions (Vol. 3). London: Routledge and
Keegan Paul.
Betti, M., Knijnik, J., Venâncio, L., & Neto, L. S. (2015). In search of the autonomous and critical individual: A philosophical
and pedagogical analysis of the physical education curriculum of São Paulo (Brazil). Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 20(4), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2014.882891
Biesta, G. (2014). ¿Medir lo que valoramos o valorar lo que medimos? Globalización, responsabilidad y la noción de
propósito de la educación. Pensamiento Educativo: Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 51(1), 46–
57. https://doi.org/10.7764/pel.51.1.2014.17
Butler, J. I. (2006). Curriculum constructions of ability: Enhancing learning through teaching games for understanding
(TGfU) as a curriculum model. Sport, Education and Society, 11(3), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13573320600813408
Dagkas, S., Benn, T., & Jawad, H. (2011). Multiple voices: Improving participation of muslim girls in physical education and
school sport. Sport, Education and Society, 16(2), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.540427
Dinan Thompson, M., & Penny, D. (2018). Assessment and standards. In G. Griggs, & K. Petrie (Eds.), Routledge handbook of
primary physical education (pp. 74–85). Routledge.
Enright, E., & O’Sullivan, M. (2010). Can i do it in my pyjamas?” negotiating a physical education curriculum with teenage
girls. European Physical Education Review, 16(3), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X10382967
Farias, C., Hastie, P. A., & Mesquita, I. (2017). Towards a more equitable and inclusive learning environment in sport
Education: Results of an action research-based intervention. Sport, Education and Society, 22(4), 460–476. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2015.1040752
Fitzpatrick, K. (2013). Brown bodies, racialisation and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 18(2), 135–153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.559221
Flintoff, A. (2018). Diversity, inclusion and (anti) racism in health and physical education: What can a critical whiteness
perspective offer?: Fritz Duras Lecture, Melbourne University, 22 November 2017. Curriculum Studies in Health and
Physical Education, 9(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2018.1488374
García-López, L. M., & Gutiérrez, D. (2018). Primary Physical Education in Spain. In G. Griggs, & K. Petrie (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of primary physical education (pp. 285–296). Routledge.
Garrett, R., & Wrench, A. (2008). Connections, pedagogy and alternative possibilities in primary physical education. Sport,
Education and Society, 13(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320701780514
Giroux, H. A. (1998). Sociedad, cultura y educación (P. Mac Laren, Ed.). Miño y Dávila.
Hay, P. (2006). Assessment for learning in physical education. In D. Kirk, & D. Macdonald (Eds.), International handbook of
research in physical education (pp. 312–325). SAGE Publications.
Hay, P., & Penney, D. (2009). Proposing conditions for assessment efficacy in physical education. European Physical
Education Review, 15(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X09364294
Hay, P., & Penney, D. (2012). Assessment in physical education a sociocultural perspective (D. Penney, Ed.). Routledge.
Hopple, C., & Graham, G. (1995). What children think, feel, and know about physical fitness testing. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 14(4), 408. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.14.4.408
Jin, A. (2013). Physical education curriculum reform in China: A perspective from physical education teachers. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2011.623231
Julián, J. A., Abarca, A., Zaragoza, J., & Aibar, A. (2016). Análisis crítico de la propuesta del currículum básico de la LOMCE
para la asignatura de Educación física. Acciones derivadas en la Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón y propuestas de
futuro. Retos, 29, 173–181.
 SPORT, EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 13

Keating, X. D., Harrison, L., Chen, L., Xiang, P., Lambdin, D., Dauenhauer, B., … Piñero, J. C. (2009). An analysis of research
on student health-related fitness knowledge in K-16 physical education programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 28(3), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.28.3.333
Kirk, D. (2019). A new critical pedagogy for physical education in ‘turbulent times’: What are the possibilities? In R. Pringle,
H. Larsson, & G. Gerdin (Eds.), Critical research in sport, health and Physical Education (pp. 106–108). Routledge.
Kirk, D. (2020). Precarity, critical pedagogy and physical education. Routledge.
Lamb, P., Lane, K., & Aldous, D. (2013). Enhancing the spaces of reflection: A buddy peer-review process within physical
education initial teacher education. European Physical Education Review, 19(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1356336X12457293
LOMCE. (2013). Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad educativa (Madrid, Ministerio de
Educación).
López-Pastor, V. M., Kirk, D., Lorente-Catalán, E., MacPhail, A., & Macdonald, D. (2013). Alternative assessment in physical
education: A review of international literature. Sport, Education and Society, 18(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13573322.2012.713860
López Pastor, V. M. (1999). Prácticas de evaluación en educación física: Estudio de casos en primaria, secundaria y formación
de profesorado. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Valladolid.
López Pastor, V. M., Barba Martín, J. J., Monjas Aguado, R., Heras Bernardino, C., González Pascual, M., & Manrique Arribas,
J. C. (2007). Trece años de evaluación compartida en Educación Física. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de La
Actividad Física y Del Deporte, 7(26), 69–86.
Lorente-Catalán, E., & Kirk, D. (2014). Making the case for democratic assessment practices within a critical pedagogy of
physical education teacher education. European Physical Education Review, 20(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1356336X13496004
Lynch, S., & Curtner-Smith, M. (2019). ‘You have to find your slant, your groove:’ one physical education teacher’s efforts
to employ transformative pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(4), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17408989.2019.1592146
Macdonald, D. (2014). Is global neo-liberalism shaping the future of physical education? Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 19(5), 494–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2014.920496
MacLean, J., Mulholland, R., Gray, S., & Horrell, A. (2015). Enabling curriculum change in physical education: The interplay
between policy constructors and practitioners. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17408989.2013.798406
Memmert, D., & Harvey, S. (2008). The game performance assessment instrument (GPAI): some concerns and solutions for
further development. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(2), 220–240. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.27.2.220
Méndez Alonso, D., Fernández Río, J., Méndez Giménez, A., & Prieto Saborit, J. A. (2015). Análisis de los currículos
autonómicos LOMCE de Educación física en Educación Primaria. Retos, 28, 15–20.
Ní Chróinín, D., & Cosgrave, C. (2013). Implementing formative assessment in primary physical education: Teacher per-
spectives and experiences. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17408989.2012.666787
Oliver, K. L., & Kirk, D. (2016). Towards an activist approach to research and advocacy for girls and physical education.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(3), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2014.895803
Otero-Saborido, F. M., & Vázquez-Ramos, F. J. (2019a). La Evaluación Educativa en el Currículo LOMCE en Primaria: Análisis
de los Currículos Autonómicos en Educación Física. Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa, 12(1), 47–58.
https://doi.org/10.15366/riee2019.12.1.003
Otero-Saborido, F. M., & Vázquez-Ramos, F. J. (2019b). Validación de un instrumento para la valoración de la globalidad de
los estándares curriculares: Estudio de caso del currículo de educación física en Andalucía. Revista Infancia, Educación y
Aprendizaje, 5(2), 379–384. https://doi.org/10.22370/ieya.2019.5.2.1543
Otero-Saborido, F. M., Vázquez-Ramos, F. J., & González-Jurado, J. A. (2020). Analysis of the assessment in Physical
Education curricula in High School. Educacion XX1, 23(2), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.25662
Otero Saborido, F. M., Calvo Lluch, Á, & González-Jurado, J. A. (2014). Análisis de la evaluación de los deportes de invasión
en Primaria. Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte, 9(26), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.12800/ccd.v9i26.432
Pang, B., & Macdonald, D. (2016). Understanding young Chinese Australian’s (dis)engagement in Health and Physical
Education and school sport. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(4), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17408989.2015.1043257
Penney, D., Brooker, R., Hay, P., & Gillespie, L. (2009). Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment: Three message systems of
schooling and dimensions of quality physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 14(4), 421–442. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13573320903217125
Penney, D., & Chandler, D. (2000). Physical education: What future(s)? Sport, Education and Society, 5(1), 71–87. https://doi.
org/10.1080/135733200114442
Petrie, K., & Lisahunter, L. (2011). Primary teachers, policy and physical education. European Physical Education Review, 17
(3), 325–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X11416729
Royal Decree 126/2014 of 28 February, which establishes the basic curriculum in Primary Education.
14 F. M. OTERO-SABORIDO ET AL.

Secretaría Municipal de Educaçao. (2019). Currículo da cidade Sao Paulo: Ensino Fundamental: componente curricular:
Educaçao Física.
Sicilia, A., Delgado, M., Sáenz-López, P., Manzano, J., Varela, R., Cañadas, J., & Gutiérrez, M. (2006). La evaluación de apren-
dizajes en educación física. Diferencias en función del nivel educativo. European Journal of Human Movement, 17, 71–
95.
Stenhouse, L., Hopkins, D., & Rudduck, J. (1987). La investigación como base de la enseñanza. Morata.
Tinning, R. (2018). Critical pedagogy in physical education as advocacy and action: A reflective account 1. In R. Pringle, H.
Larsson, & G. Gerdin (Eds.), Critical research in sport, health and Physical Education (pp. 93–105). Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203702598-7.
UNICEF-ONU-UNESCO. (2013). World-wide Survey of School Physical Education. In Unesco. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/
ark:/48223/pf0000229335.
von Haaren-Mack, B., Schaefer, A., Pels, F., & Kleinert, J. (2020). Stress in Physical Education teachers: A systematic review
of sources, consequences, and moderators of stress. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 91(2), 279–297. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2019.1662878
Williams, J. (2018). ‘I didn’t even know that there was such a thing as aboriginal games’: A figurational account of how
Indigenous students experience physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 23(5), 462–474. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13573322.2016.1210118
Zaytsev, A. A., Kovalenko, T. G., Soroka, B. V, & Ulyanov, D. A. (2017). Content analysis of academic physical education
curricula. Teoriya i Praktika Fizicheskoy Kultury, 2, 103–104.
Zhu, X., Ennis, C. D., & Chen, A. (2011). Implementation challenges for a constructivist physical education curriculum.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408981003712802