To Örebro University

A growing anxiety around intergenerational touch in educational settings has both emerged and increased in recent years. Previous research reveals that Physical Education (PE) teachers have become more cautious in their approaches to students and they avoid physical contact or other behaviour that could be regarded as suspicious (Fletcher, 2013; Öhman, 2016; Piper, Garratt, & Taylor, 2013). Some also feel anxious about how physical contact might be perceived by the students. The purpose of this article is to investigate physical contact between teachers and students in PE from a student perspective. This is understood through the didactic contract. For this purpose, focus group interviews using photo elicitation have been conducted with upper secondary school students in Sweden. One of the major findings is that intergenerational touch is purpose bound, that is, physical contact is considered relevant if the teacher has a good intention with using physical contact. The main agreements regarding physical contact as purpose bound are the practical learning and emotional aspects, such as learning new techniques, preventing injury, closeness and encouragement. The didactic contract is in these aspects stable and obvious. The main disagreements are when teachers interfere when the students want to feel capable or when teachers interfere when physical contact is not required in the activity. In these aspects the didactic contract is easily breached. It is also evident that personal preference has an impact on how physical contact is perceived. In conclusion, we can say that physical contact in PE is not a question of appropriate or inappropriate touch in general, but rather an agreement between the people involved about what is expected. Consequently, we should not ban intergenerational touch, but rather focus on teachers’ abilities to deal professionally with the didactic contract regarding physical contact.

Research within the field of intergenerational touch has shown that there is a tension between the need to use physical contact as an obvious pedagogical tool, and the no-touch discourse. Within this tension physical contact between physical education teachers and students has also been shown to be a gender/ed issue with heteronormative points of departure. The aim of this study is to investigate how young adult female students’ talk about physical contact between teachers and students in physical education is related to heteronormativity. The study takes its starting point in Foucault’s work on discourses and Butler’s performative perspective. Thirteen female students in upper secondary school were interviewed in four focus groups using photo elicitation. In the findings, three performatives are identified that show how the students’ talk about physical contact between teacher and student in physical education is related to heteronormativity. The three performatives are: (a) gendering with age; (b) being wary of men; and (c) feeling sympathy for men. The paper discusses the effects the heteronormative discourse has on young adult female students and male teachers in relation to physical contact in physical education.

Physical contact is common in physical education (PE) and is often also perceived as necessary in the subject. At the same time, no-touch discourses in sport and PE affect both teachers and students in many western countries. Teachers in the subject have for example become increasingly reluctant to touch their students due to risks of allegations. In addition, many European countries have recently experienced a great influx of immigrants from non-western countries, which has resulted in more multicultural classrooms across Europe. This can be problematic in PE due to cultural differences regarding physical contact, especially with the opposite sex. The purpose of this study is to investigate physical contact between teachers and students in PE from an immigrant student perspective. This is understood through the didactic contract. For this purpose, interviews using photo elicitation have been conducted with immigrant upper secondary school students in Sweden. The major findings suggest that the following negotiation aspects determine whether physical contact can be regarded as legitimate by the students: the professionalism of the teacher, the teacher-student relationship, teachers’ instructive skills, the emotionally engaged teacher, opposite sex issues and teachers and students with similar immigrant backgrounds. These aspects are also part of the process of developing a didactic contract regarding physical contact between teachers and students. In conclusion, it is clear that some of the aspects legitimise physical contact and build trust between the teachers and the students, while others challenge this legitimisation and trust.