‘No One Is Left Behind?’: A Mixed-Methods Case Study of Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education Teacher Education

Abstract

Equity and inclusion are requisites of high-quality Physical Education (PE). However, there is a substantial gap in understanding PE Teacher Education’s (PETE) effectiveness in preparing Preservice Teachers (PSTs) to implement equity-driven pedagogies. Moreover, focused on individual retrospective gameplay engagement rates (participation time), current research fails to provide a holistic perspective of the practical manifestations of equity and inclusion in PE. This study fills this void with novel insights offered by a mixed-methods case study examining the following: (i) the process-oriented teaching strategies employed by a PST trained to deliver inclusive pedagogies, alongside student voices on lived experiences; and (ii) the outcome-oriented gameplay patterns across two teaching units (Basketball and Volleyball). Participants included one PST and 26 students. Extensive observations and focus groups mapped the applied teaching strategies and student responses. Video-based social network analysis captured equity and inclusion in students’ gameplay patterns, using metrics such as degree prestige. Findings indicate the PETE impact in inducing PSTs’ inclusive manipulation of learning activities and the fostering of inclusive team membership and positive collaboration. SNA metrics evidenced equitable and inclusive gameplay patterns. Despite pedagogical efforts, content-specific factors may influence students’ gameplay inclusion. Hence, a reflection on the multifaceted and non-linear nature of promoting inclusive participation is prompted.

1. Introduction

Quality education ensures gender inclusion and equity in participation opportunities and learning for all students, irrespective of their individual characteristics and social background [1]. This drive to deliver high-quality Physical Education (PE) has been strongly influenced by recommendations from the United Nations 2030 sustainable development goals agenda. Hence, ensuring equity and inclusion are educational concerns explicitly reflected in international PE curricula for elementary and secondary education. Teachers receive guidelines to ‘plan lessons for pupils under equal opportunities’, whereby learners are entitled to ‘fully and effectively participate in all educational settings, demonstrating respect for human and cultural diversity and acting in accordance with human rights principles’, ‘display positive social behaviours, recognising that everyone is equal but unique in his/her own way’ [2], and learn ‘strategies to interact positively with others’ [3].

In agreement, in the present study, pursuing equity in PE encompasses the teacher’s commitment to offering tailored pedagogical support to each student, recognising and fostering their unique learning possibilities [4]. Concurrently, inclusion aims to ensure the full participation of every student in activities pivotal to their holistic development, fostering central involvement and decision-making in personally relevant learning experiences (e.g., deciding what to learn) [5]. A relevant idea on this matter is that the core mission of academia is to keep pace with societal progress by implementing state-of-the-art and informed teacher education and teaching practices in PE Teacher Education (PETE) and PE [6]. Therefore, PETE programmes increasingly face the challenge of addressing the following question: how can future teachers (i.e., Pre-Service Teachers; PSTs) be equipped to provide equitable participation and learning opportunities while nurturing students’ pro-social attitudes?

Thus, one of the main aims of this study was to examine the teaching practices of a PST (i.e., the ‘PETE in action’) enrolled in a PETE programme designed deliberately to provide continuous support for PSTs in implementing more inclusive and equitable PE activities. An additional goal was to employ video-based social network analysis to access the evolving patterns of equity and inclusion present in students’ participation across different game-based activities. Insights offered through a mixed-methods approach distinctively integrate crucial process-oriented aspects, allowing us to unveil in greater depth intricate nuances of the practical manifestation (i.e., outcome-oriented) of equity and inclusion. Knowledge about ‘how’ the teacher taught during the teaching-learning process is used to inform the understanding of ‘what’ objective metric manifestations of inclusion and equity emerged during students’ gameplay participation.

How has equity and inclusion been researched and how can social network analysis expand current knowledge?

Although equity and inclusion are complex constructs manifested in the pedagogical and social-interactional dimension of the teaching-learning process (e.g., teachers’ pedagogies and student interactions) [1], this study of equity and inclusion in student-centred PE has predominantly used qualitative research concerned with teachers’ perspectives of student engagement in game-based activities. For instance, Harvey, Pill [7] explored teachers’ voices regarding the main successes in students’ learning outcomes related to SCAs, and Baek and Dyson [8] investigated teachers’ perspectives of student engagement through an equity-based approach for social and emotional learning. In addition, Farias, Hastie and Mesquita [9] examined students’ progress from peripheral to fuller participation in the teams’ dynamics, decision-making, and gameplay activities. The findings primarily focused on how the social bonding trajectory among students positively influenced their readiness to become active agents and guardians of inclusive social interactions.

Quantitative studies have attempted to capture inclusion and equity in the context of gameplay mainly through assessing the level of student engagement in games. While some quantitative studies have explored individual rates of engagement (the number of game-actions) and on-the-ball participation time, such metrics lack the analytical sensitivity to comprehensively capture equity and inclusion in students’ participation [10]. For instance, even with active efforts from peers to establish gameplay connections, students might exhibit reduced on-the-ball participation time and gameplay engagement rates, influenced by gameplay dynamics induced by specific game modifications and/or the skill levels of both peers and the opposing team.

In this context, nuanced insights into equity and inclusion necessitate an approach that considers the broader social dynamics during game-based activities to be able to respond to long-standing queries such as ‘Do students interact equitably with all their peers?’ and ‘Are both genders equitably valued during gameplay?’ [11,12]. Social network analysis (SNA) emerges as a powerful tool to unravel the intricate social architecture embedded in game-based activities [13]. By employing SNA, one can represent students’ gameplay networks, transforming them into graphs featuring nodes (representing students) and edges (representing interactions). Through this method, detailed metrics can be computed, offering insights into equity and inclusion within students’ gameplay participation profiles, for instance, discerning whether the connections established between students reflect inclusive interactions across sexes [14].

Only one study on PE has harnessed SNA techniques, albeit beyond the realm of game-based activity participation, as peer interactions were gathered through questionnaires rather than gameplay data (e.g., ‘state two favourite teammates’) [15]. By scrutinizing the intricate social networks within game-based activities, this study also aims to unveil the presence of equity and inclusion in students’ gameplay participation. In the context of SNA applied to game-based activities, there are three specially designed metrics that provide objective insights into the presence of equitable and inclusive participation: the clustering coefficient, density, and degree prestige (see Methods) [13].

A conceptual and empirical rationale for researching equity and inclusion in PETE.

The rationale of this study is grounded on several conceptual and evidence-based premises. Firstly, we argue that social development, as evidenced by student social skills improvements (e.g., empathic communication, cooperative problem-solving, and providing support to less proficient peers), is vital for creating equitable and inclusive learning environments. As social development progresses, students actively embody the promotion of equity and inclusion within their PE learning environments [16].

Secondly, promoting inclusive and equitable learning contexts heavily relies on the nature of teachers’ pedagogical intervention, which may occur through more explicit or implicit means. Explicit means involve deliberate intervention in content development and task structure. Teachers design and adapt tasks, setting challenging, self-referenced learning goals to meet diverse student needs and ensure individual success [17]. Explicit means also include inclusion and equity debates as subject matter integrated into the lesson pacing and the active mediation of power relations and social interactions within learning teams (e.g., modelling inclusive and socially responsible peer-teaching dynamics). Implicit means generate learning contexts where constructions of success are broadened, students feel secure about their ‘Self’, the unique combination of skills, interests, and movement-related experiences of each student is valued, and inclusion and equity in participation opportunities are self-determined by students. For example, students take self-regulated action to ensure equitable participation among all teammates during gameplay activities [16].

Thirdly, student-centred approaches (SCAs), as represented by model-based PE like Sport Education [18], cooperative learning [19], or game-based approaches, have the potential to ‘provide meaningful, purposeful, and authentic learning experiences presented and practised by students’ [20]. The implementation of SCAs in PE aims to a set of foundational student-centred pedagogies that include the active engagement of students in teaching and learning and working in small groups with experiences in games and authentic, challenging, and appropriately modified tasks and with social responsibility by students. These student-centred pedagogies inherently integrate organisational and functional structures particularly prone to equity and inclusion development, such as game-based tasks, persistent team affiliation, collaborative learning and problem-solving, student-led activities, healthy sports culture and competition activities, and role-playing and peer-tutoring activities [16].

Importantly, an eclectic approach to learning outcomes is implicit in student-centred pedagogies, encompassing physical-motor, cognitive, social, and affective domains. Such a holistic approach expands the range of educational targets made available to teachers. This is what endows it with a student-centric attribute. Simply put, creating equitable contexts becomes more accessible because the broader array of available learning targets (not restricted to physical-motor outcomes) also facilitates setting personalised learning goals and demands according to students’ unique personal interests, strengths, attributes, and learning potential [1].

Research on students’ participation in student-centred-based PE lessons explicitly concerned about equity and inclusion tends to show positive effects on their feelings of inclusion, belonging, and sense of competence and confidence [21]. Students feel they participate in equitable learning contexts sustained by an augmented sense of social care, empathy, and responsibility, with empathetic social interactions that express diversity acceptance in the gameplay participation patterns [22]. Here, students who typically lead the flow of the game (e.g., higher-skilled boys) provide a self-determined contribution to the inclusive gameplay participation of their less-engaged peers [23].

This is especially crucial, as gender significantly impacts participation rates and engagement in PE activities. Research indicates that boys tend to participate more actively in PE classes compared to girls. For example, Fairclough and Stratton [24] found that boys were generally more physically active during PE lessons than girls. This disparity is influenced by societal expectations and cultural norms that portray certain sports and physical activities as more appropriate for boys, leading to higher confidence and greater encouragement from peers and teachers for boys to engage in these activities [25]. Consequently, girls may feel less confident and less encouraged to participate fully, resulting in lower participation rates and reduced engagement in PE settings [26].

Gender-specific challenges and barriers further exacerbate the inequities in PE participation. Girls often face issues such as a lack of representation in sports traditionally dominated by boys, limited access to resources, and insufficient encouragement from teachers and peers [27]. These challenges can lead to feelings of exclusion and lower self-esteem among female students. Additionally, the role of gender in shaping peer interactions and social dynamics within PE classes is critical. Boys and girls often form separate social groups, with boys typically dominating competitive and physically demanding activities, while girls might be relegated to less central roles [26]. This segregation reinforces gender stereotypes and perpetuates unequal power dynamics. Previous studies, such as those by Smith and St Pierre [28], have highlighted significant gender differences in prestige and influence among peers in PE settings, with boys generally enjoying higher levels of prestige and influence. This dynamic further marginalises girls, limiting their opportunities for meaningful participation and leadership within PE classes.

Fourthly, however, some research also shows that equity and inclusion do not ‘automatically’ emerge from applying student-centred pedagogies in PE lessons [29]. This aspiration may be hindered by various socio-cultural and contextual factors and even by the very nature of the teaching applied. Namely, (i) dominant students and teachers may perpetuate deep-rooted masculine hegemony or biased, stereotypical, and discriminatory gender perspectives in PE classes (‘girls can’t play sports as well as boys’), (ii) dominant students (typically boys or higher-skilled students) may take over gameplay opportunities, pushing girls and their less proficient peers to more peripheral or segregated gameplay participation [1], (iii) teachers may apply one-size-fits-all, strongly normative, and comparative-involvement teacher-centred teaching approaches (e.g., girls feel that they have to perform accordingly to the standards set in reference to boy’s performance), and (iv) teachers may put a misplaced emphasis on competition based on biased and negative attributes of the performance sports culture, or (v) teachers may show a lack of ability to design game-based, developmentally appropriate learning tasks.

In short, it is not uncommon that teachers struggle to apply student-centred, equity- and inclusion-oriented PE activities because they are faced with considerable teaching demands when they try to do so [29]. Teachers need to master diverse knowledge domains (content and pedagogical knowledge) and apply multiple teaching strategies (from more direct and guided instruction to more discovery-based teaching) [30]. Teachers must also use differentiated instruction, optimise collaborative interactions and goal-setting within teams, apply the appropriate mediation and transfer of decision-making power to the teams, and design appropriate and modified game-based activities [31]. Therefore, we argue that teachers must proactively enact the educational potential embedded in student-centred pedagogies by deliberately planning and teaching an ‘augmented pedagogical approach’ to equity and inclusion development.

Thus, fifthly, in this study, we embraced the implementation of the evidence-based four-level pedagogical scaffolding framework (see Methods and Supplementary S3) designed by Farias and Mesquita [16] for the deliberate teaching of equity and inclusion in PE. Additionally, the aforementioned ‘problematic’ point leads us to advocate for the urgent need to focus pedagogical interventions and research on PETE, specifically when PSTs are placed in schools to teach PE. Indeed, PSTs tend to feel they may not receive proper support from their PETE programmes when they attempt to implement SCAs in schools [32]. Further, equity- and inclusion-oriented PETE interventions are very scarce [4] and require careful consideration. PSTs not only need to learn about basic instructional skills but also need to be familiar with student-centred curricula and be able to apply democratic teaching strategies (comprising positive social interactions and developmentally appropriate learning activities).

Finally, team sports games serve as significant arenas for observing equity and inclusion within PE. These games often mirror societal dynamics, acting as ‘microcosms’ where individuals from diverse backgrounds converge to interact and collaborate [33]. Consequently, they offer insights into patterns of student involvement and the quality of their interactions during gameplay activities [34]. The interactive and systemic nature of these games leads to the formation of complex social networks among participants, where their engagement is influenced by the actions of their teammates [13]. For instance, the inclusivity of a less proficient female student’s participation can vary based on her peers’ willingness to engage with every teammate, regardless of sex or skill level. Thus, valuable insights into the equity, fairness, and inclusivity of students’ participation can be uncovered through game observation [35].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

A case study was employed to examine the effectiveness of a student-centred PETE programme [16] in promoting equitable and inclusive learning in PE. The case under investigation is an evidence-based [6,29] PETE programme situated within the prestigious Faculty of Sports in Northern Portugal, ranked among the top 100 in the 2023 Shanghai Global Ranking of Sports Science Schools, renowned for its emphasis on researching SCAs and commitment to train PSTs to address educational inequities, such as social and gender issues in PE [9,11,36,37].

Operating within a mixed-methods constructivist paradigm, the case study methodological instrumentarium provides a comprehensive approach valuable to tackle the inherent complexity of studying educational contexts (with an intersubjective nature) [38]. By leveraging multiple data collection methods, such as focus group interviews and observations, this approach allowed for a thorough examination of the application of the intricacies embedded in the PST teaching practices, enabling a unique understanding of the real-world application of the PETE-instilled student-centred pedagogies.

In-depth fieldwork, including comprehensive field notes and observations, enabled the researcher to closely monitor the evolving iterative teaching practices of the PST [6]. This immersive approach provided the researcher with privileged access to valuable insights into the naturally unfolding everyday events [38]. Additionally, focus group interviews captured students’ perspectives, providing insights into, and voicing their subjective experiences. Furthermore, the application of SNA, through the examination of students’ networks of interactions and patterns of engagement, objectively assessed the extent to which the PETE programme fostered equitable and inclusive gameplay participation.

2.1.1. The Case Study: Understanding Equity and Inclusion in Student-Centred Physical Education Teacher Education

The PETE programme under scrutiny stands out for its commitment to teaching a student-centred PE curriculum rooted in pedagogies aimed at promoting equity and inclusion. Through a comprehensive training regimen, PSTs are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to enact SCAs effectively. By investigating the teaching practices of PSTs, this study provides valuable insights into the operationalization of the PETE programme and the extent to which it translates into ‘classroom’ practices and students’ experiences of participating in PE, in other words, the ‘PETE in action’.

The uniqueness of this PETE lies in its multifaceted approach to training PSTs, spanning a two-year intervention encompassing theoretical instruction, preliminary practical experience, active engagement with student-centred pedagogies (first year), and the real-life application of the learnt pedagogies during the school placement (second year). Importantly, this case study does not aim at analysing the PETE processes for PST training, but rather, through an examination of the teaching practices of a PST, it aims to assess the efficacy of the PETE programme in fostering equitable and inclusive learning environments.

The PETE Programme

The PETE programme trains the PST to implement a student-centred approach to PE rooted in the fundamental tenets of student-centred pedagogies, which encompass instructional strategies tailored to diverse learning styles, recognizing that each student benefits from varied approaches, be it visual demonstrations, hands-on experiences, or verbal explanations; the flexible use of peer teaching and cooperative learning dynamics, and game-based learning, inclusive of both traditional and developmentally appropriate modified games tailored to accommodate diverse abilities, thereby ensuring equitable participation and success for all.

The PST training unfolds through three main processes: firstly, they engage in experiential learning of SCAs and sports content, embodying the curriculum through active participation in gameplay and gaining in-depth knowledge of teaching models (i.e., ‘living the curriculum’). Secondly, PSTs learn to shape the sports content through peer-teaching activities, working in teams to develop lesson plans and task progressions. Lastly, they engage in micro-teaching, where each team of PSTs teaches a model-based unit to a sixth-grade class, taking full responsibility for the unit design and subsequent learning activities (detailed information provided in Supplementary S1).

Moreover, the PETE programme instils a model-based approach, where persistent team affiliation, roleplaying, autonomous decision-making, and the routines of small group learning and collaborative problem-solving dynamics aim at fostering an inclusive learning environment that prompts appreciation for collective effort and encourages students with distinct features to work together. This approach nurtures essential skills such as shared decision-making, effective communication, and the emergence of supportive social interactions.

Central to this programme is a PETE-developed scaffolding structure [16] designed to help PSTs scaffold the emergence of equitable and inclusive participation in PE game-based activities and students’ social development to gradually empower them as active promoters of equitable and inclusive learning contexts (e.g., the embodied ability to ensure gender inclusion and provide equitable levels of gameplay engagement for less proficient peers) [16]. The scaffolding intervention, which spans multiple levels (4-level intervention: activity-based, context-based, social-based, and learner-mediated-based teaching strategies; see Supplementary S3) plays a pivotal role in guiding PSTs towards creating learning environments that prioritise equity and inclusion. A cornerstone of the investigation into the PETE programme’s effectiveness in ‘real-world’ teaching environments, the implementation of this scaffolding structure and the overall delivery of the SCAs are closely monitored by one university supervisor and one experienced teacher from the cooperating school.

The Context and Participants

The research context for this study centres on the school placement component within the PETE programme. During this year-long placement, spanning three school terms (450 h), PSTs are placed in diverse cooperative schools, where they assume the role of a full teacher and are responsible for planning, implementing, and evaluating PE lessons for a class of students over the school year. The cooperative school selected for this study was renowned for its collaborative ethos and culture of openness to innovative teaching practices, making it an ideal site for investigating the practical application of student-centred pedagogies in PE.

This school had a longstanding partnership with the PETE programme under scrutiny, grounded in the goal of bringing innovation to PE practices, thus offering the PSTs full flexibility and autonomy for developing their teaching practices in congruence with the PETE ideals. Moreover, the cooperative school prompted a reciprocal collaboration between PSTs and experienced teachers assisting in the creation of a supportive community for problem-solving, knowledge exchange, and practice actualization.

In selecting the PST for this study, a purposive sampling approach was employed based on specific criteria: volunteers who demonstrated a strong commitment to embracing student-centred pedagogies throughout their PETE journey, teaching secondary school classes where game-based activities were mandatory as per the national curriculum, and maintained over 90% attendance in all course units during the first year of the PETE programme. The chosen PST, identified as ‘Mr. Green’, was a 23-year-old male charged with teaching PE to a 10th-grade class comprised of 13 girls and 13 boys, with an average age of 15.2 years, who also participated in this study.

The decision to focus on a single PST’s teaching practices was to deliberately prioritise depth over breadth, allowing for a comprehensive examination of the PETE programme’s effectiveness through a detailed analysis of the implemented pedagogies. Throughout the school placement, Mr. Green conducted two game-based units, Basketball (18 lessons, total of 45 min each) during the first term (9 weeks) and Volleyball (18 lessons, total of 45 min each) during the second term (9 weeks). While in Basketball, students were organised into persistent, heterogeneous learning teams, in Volleyball, the principle of heterogeneity was retained and team affiliations were changed.

Beyond the focus on Volleyball- and Basketball-specific content, the PE lessons were designed to achieve broader curricular goals transversal to each unit. These goals included fostering active participation to ensure both individual and team success and encouraging students to critically analyse and interpret their physical activities, applying their understanding of techniques, organization, participation, and sports ethics. Furthermore, the lessons aimed to enhance students’ general fitness and coordination skills, such as endurance, strength, flexibility, reaction speed, and dexterity, promoting overall physical well-being and a lifelong commitment to health and fitness. A condensed description of Mr. Green’s pedagogical intervention is outlined in Supplementary S2.

2.2. Data Collection

An eclectic methodology guided iterative data collection and analysis [38]. Qualitative in-depth field research (i.e., process-oriented) unveiled the teaching-learning process, exploring the circumstances underpinning the promotion of equity and inclusion. Quantitative measures (outcome-oriented) mapped students’ gameplay participation across two game-based units.

2.2.1. Process-Oriented Data

Observations, Field Notes, Reflexive Diary, and Focus Groups

Daily observation of the PST’s lessons (n = 36) provided a comprehensive analysis of the ‘naturally occurring real-life events’ [39], granting deep access to and an intimate understanding of the pedagogical practices. Throughout each teaching unit, the researcher documented thoughts, doubts, and reflections in field notes (FN), addressing significant events related to the PST’s teaching practices and students’ responses (e.g., ‘which strategies did the PST use to promote equitable participation profiles?’). The PST, as part of his professional development (mandatory in PETE), maintained a weekly reflexive diary, recording reflections on everyday dilemmas, challenges, pedagogical intentions, and perceived effects on students’ learning.

The researcher’s and PST’s annotations served as triggers for debate topics during focus group interviews, later being (re)explored, deepened, and chronologically systematised for analysis purposes. One focus group (FG) interview was conducted with a sample of Mr. Green’s students (3 girls and 3 boys) at the end of each teaching unit (n = 2) to elicit reflections on their gameplay participation and the perceived effects of the implemented pedagogies (‘do you feel that enough opportunities were provided to participate, why?’). Students’ perspectives expressed in the FG were used for confirmatory/refuting purposes and guided the researcher’s approach for ensuing observations.

2.2.2. Outcome-Oriented Data

Video Records

Each lesson was captured using a digital camera strategically positioned to provide a comprehensive view of the gym. This approach facilitated a thorough (re)examination of significant events during post-lesson reviews. The SNA data extraction was conducted from both the initial (pre-test) and concluding (post-test) lessons of each game-based unit. The SNA focused on every student’s uninterrupted gameplay participation across the same number of games: two 5 min 3v3 games for Basketball and one 10 min 4v4 game for Volleyball. In both units, two teams had one substitute player; thus, equitable rotation systems were set to parity in students’ gameplay analysis.

Adhering to protocolary procedures outlined by Laporta [29], several key aspects were maintained. Firstly, the context of participation remained identical (total time played). Secondly, aligning with a Sport Education feature, pre-test and post-test games adhered to the formal competition schedule of the respective units. Lastly, to capture the students’ ‘raw’ networks of peer interaction, free from the influence of the PST strategies, the game forms played at the pre-test and post-test stages pertained to the game’s formal rules, with no individual adjustments despite modifications to game-based tasks along the units.

Social Networks Analysis

The examination of students’ gameplay through video analysis served as the foundation for constructing a comprehensive double-entry table (Supplementary S4). This table captured the codification of students involved and the frequency of interactions between them. The linkage criterion between students was established based on both successful and intentionally directed unsuccessful passes. Subsequently, this dataset was input into the Social Network Visualiser computer programme (v.3.1) to generate visual representations of students’ networks of peer interaction, and compute metrics pertaining to students’ gameplay participation profiles, including the clustering coefficient, density, and degree prestige:

• Clustering coefficient: The clustering coefficient measures the tendency of nodes in the network to form sub-groups, or clusters, and serves as a key indicator of learning teams’ positive cooperation, offering a direct assessment of the overall equity in students’ gameplay connections. Lower clustering values signify that students interact equitably with every peer, fostering meaningful engagement. Conversely, higher clustering values suggest diminished equity in peer interactions, a potential inclination towards forming interactional sub-groups, and a tendency to prioritise connections with ‘favourite peers’ rather than embracing equitable peer engagement [13].
• Density: The density metric measures the proportion of how many interactions are occurring among the members of a given network relative to the total number of potential relationships that could exist, posing as a crucial indicator of the inclusivity of students’ participation profiles. High density suggests that most individuals within the network are interconnected (numerous interactions among them), indicating that players are inclusively engaging with each other, sharing the ball, participating in collaborative actions, and ensuring that everyone can be involved in the game. Conversely, low density indicates less inclusive gameplay relationships, exemplified when a student consistently receives minimal involvement (e.g., never receiving the ball during the game), signalling that, whilst some players dominate the game interactions, others are segregated [13].
• Degree prestige: The degree prestige is a centrality measure that outlines the prominence of a node within the social network based on the number of connections it has, delineating the perceived value of each student within their learning team’s gameplay dynamics. In instances where a student is deemed more valuable, perhaps due to a higher skill level, they are more likely to receive the ball frequently, resulting in a higher number of gameplay connections. This centrality designates the student as a more pivotal element, more socially connected and engaged in the network of peer interaction. Consequently, a significantly higher degree prestige is attributed to this student compared to their teammates. Conversely, similar prestige levels among students indicate that all individuals are perceived as equally valuable within the network of peer interaction, signifying equitable involvement in the learning team’s gameplay. Monitoring changes in degree prestige over time can help identify shifts in participation patterns and whether all individuals are equitably engaged and valued during gameplay [13]. Refer to the illustrative examples provided in Figure 1 for a more nuanced understanding.

In Example 1, all students exhibit strong connections to at least one peer, indicating a lack of segregation. However, there is a distinct preference for interaction, with Student A favouring Student B and Student C favouring Student D. This preference results in inequitable interactions, leading to a higher clustering coefficient. In Example 2, inequitable interactions are also evident, but it is noteworthy that Students A, B, and C establish significantly fewer interactions with Student D, indicating lower inclusion in the peer interaction network. Consequently, density levels will be lower. If Students A, B, and C are boys and D is a girl (example 2), the boys’ prestige levels will be higher, highlighting inequitable gameplay involvement.

2.3. Data Analysis

2.3.1. Process-Oriented Data

Thematic analysis was employed to delve into the qualitative data, unveiling underlying patterns. The researcher systematically coded the most pertinent events during initial coding. These codes underwent subsequent scrutiny, with the most relevant ones selected and organised into thematic maps [38]. Collaborative interpretative peer debriefing with two senior researchers, serving as critical friends, further refined the themes. They were also tasked with critiquing the study to identify any potential shortcomings in the conclusions drawn from the data. To enhance trustworthiness, data triangulation and participant confirmation were employed [38].

2.3.2. Outcome-Oriented Data

The SNA measures underwent interpretation using graph theory principles (Clemente et al., 2016). Descriptive analysis was meticulously conducted to scrutinise data quality, identifying, and rectifying any potential input errors. Levene tests confirmed homoscedasticity in the distribution. Normality violations were observed in the density (pre-test for Basketball: p < 0.05) and clustering variables (across both units and data collection moments: p < 0.05). Nonetheless, parametric tests were chosen due to their resilience to violations of the normality assumption.

To explore comparisons between units in pre-tests and post-tests, and within-unit pre-test to post-test differences, paired-sample t-tests were employed. Between-sex differences were explored through one-way ANOVAs. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. The effect sizes were estimated with Cohen’s d. A large effect size was defined as d > 0.8, moderate as between 0.8 and 0.5, and small defined as <0.5 [40]. All statistical procedures were executed using SPSS 29.0 software (IBM, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The coding process involved collaboration among two researchers and one experienced coach, who jointly coded students’ interactions in 20 game-based activities during the initial ten lessons of each teaching unit (pre-test and post-test datasets excluded). The inter-observer correlation coefficient (Cohen’s Kappa), exceeding 0.90, validated the consistency among coders, leading to their coding of the unit’s data. On average, intra-observer agreement surpassed 0.91 for all coders.

2.4. Ethical Considerations

The European Data Protection Regulation and the Helsinki Declaration ethical guidelines were followed (see Supplementary S5). All data were securely stored in an encrypted database and deleted upon completion of the analysis. Formal permissions to conduct the study were obtained from the ethical committee of both the university overseeing the PST’s school placement (CEFADE 12-2023) and the secondary school where the placement occurred.

3. Results

3.1. The ‘PETE in Action’: Unveiling the Delivery of Equitable and Inclusive PE

This section delineates the chronological progression of the PST teaching practices aimed at fostering equity and inclusion within each game-based unit, complemented by students’ perspectives. To provide clarity, a concise overview of the major pedagogical avenues adopted by the PSTs in each unit is presented before delving into the thematic exposition.

3.1.1. Basketball: Shaping Content-Delivery Structures to Reach Everyone

In the Basketball unit, the PST’s practices were marked by the employment of game-based adjustments and rule modifications to address less equitable gender and skill-level participation profiles. Moreover, he emphasised teamwork experiences, promoting persistent affiliation within learning teams to cultivate positive collaboration and inclusive team dynamics. The graded competition further enhanced equitable challenge and success rates, fostering a sense of collective achievement. By modelling inclusive attitudes, the PST attempted to encourage empathetic interactions and regulate inclusive gameplay behaviours among students.

Manipulating Game Dynamics for Equitable and Inclusive Participation

Initial observations highlighted less inclusive gameplay participation profiles, particularly influenced by students’ sex and skill level. Noteworthy concerns surfaced in this early stage: ‘Some students, especially girls, are struggling to participate, adopting a more ‘passive’ approach, actively avoiding gameplay intervention’ (FN, week 2). The PST proactively intervened in the third week of the unit, focusing on promoting inclusive participation profiles through strategic modifications of game-based tasks.

1.

Task Modifications to Enhance Inclusivity

Notable modifications included prohibiting students from passing to the same teammate twice, guaranteeing that every student was actively involved in the gameplay network, pairing lower-skilled students against peers with similar skill levels (‘player-to-player’ pressing) and introducing ‘no-pressing areas’ to provide a supportive space for lower-skilled students to ‘gain confidence and have more time to think and decide their game actions’ (FN, week 4). Another significant modification targeted girls’ inclusivity, positively reshaping their participation profiles.

Tessa: Mr. Green told the boys to always stay at ‘one-arm distance’ from the girls.

Researcher: Do you feel that helped you to be more included in gameplay?

Tessa: For sure, before that rule it was stressing to play because I knew that as soon as I got the ball, I would lose it.

(FG, week 9)

2.

Adjusting Scoring Systems for Equity and Inclusion

Furthering equitable gameplay connections, the PST implemented innovative adjustments to game-based activity scoring systems. The introduction of a scoring rule that awarded two points for less proficient students’ attempts to shoot, irrespective of scoring, led to increased inclusion of lower-skilled peers in the gameplay, fostering a strategic approach among students, and contributing to reshaping the dynamics of inclusion and equity within the gameplay experiences (FN, week 7):

Since I decided to value the shot attempts of lower-skilled students, students have been integrating this rule as a tactical approach; the higher-skilled engage in less individual actions, and always try to pass to lower-skilled students, because they know that the points are guaranteed.

(PST’s Diary, week 5)

The preliminary Basketball observations also revealed that ‘student-led decision-making, guided discovery and peer-teaching are inexistent, the predominant direct instruction affords little space for collaborative problem-solving of task goals (…) game-based tasks are rare, and skill-drills frequent’ (FN, week 1). Midway through the unit, the PST renewed his pedagogical practices committed to promoting an augmented collaborative learning experience through teamwork and inclusive social dynamics.

Nurturing Inclusive Team Membership

The PST increasingly promoted students’ engagement in game-based tasks in each lesson and affiliated students in persistent learning teams, ‘providing opportunities to work towards the realization of shared goals, during 2v1, and 3v2 tasks’ (FN, week 3). The PST highlighted the relevance of these features in reshaping the dynamics of inclusion and teamwork within game-based activities:

Playing games, especially in persistent teams, has fostered more meaningful and inclusive relationships among my students. I think they are more receptive to the characteristics of their colleagues and try to include everyone in learning activities; this is something I wish to further purse in the 2nd term.

(PST’s Diary, week 8)

Students noted an increased sense of positive and inclusive team membership and gameplay interactions, commonly referred to as ‘team spirit’. In contrast to previous years, when students were randomly grouped in pairs, the persistent affiliation generated a sense of unity and shared responsibility, impacting students’ self-determined engagement in supportive and inclusive gameplay interactions:

Sandy: (…) contributed to build ‘team spirit’ because in previous years was like: ‘Make groups of two’; now, we are always together. If I help someone during gameplay, I’m not just helping a teammate, I’m also helping my ‘buddy’.

(FG, week 9)

• Differentiating Practice Sites

In the later stages, irrespective of the team’s heterogeneity concerning skill level, it became evident some teams exhibited higher proficiency levels (FN, week 7). To address this, the PST implemented graded competition activities, organizing teams to compete against others of comparable skill levels. This approach served a dual purpose: firstly, to provide students with appropriately challenging experiences aligned with their team’s overall skill level and, secondly, to ensure equitable opportunities for success across all teams. By increasing the success levels, the PST hoped to facilitate more opportunities for students to engage in collective celebrations, strengthening their social bonds with their teammates:

For the culminating events, I will pair similar teams during game-based tasks, to provide equitable opportunities to experience success. I believe that experiencing collective success adds to a more festive atmosphere and guarantees that teammates will continue to gravitate more towards each other, which may translate to more empathetic attitudes, and inclusive gameplay.

(PST’s Diary, week 8)

2.

Modelling Inclusive Attitudes

To further sustain students’ positive team membership, the PST applied, in the last two weeks, informal (but regular) attitudinal modelling to encourage empathetic inclusive gameplay and peer interactions (e.g., ‘Come on guys, you must help your teammates’; FN, week 9), which seemed to have positively influenced students’ proactive regulation of inclusive interactions and peers’ enhance gameplay participation:

Albert: Mr. Green always encouraged to help the teammates with more gameplay ‘struggles’; to try to pass them the ball more often, and encourage them to dribble closer to the basket and not pass right away.

(FG, week 9)

3.1.2. Volleyball: Empowering a Transition from Teacher-Mediated to Student-Mediated Equity and Inclusion

In the Volleyball unit, the PST was primarily invested in scaffolding students’ ability to be autonomous caretakers of a more equitable and inclusive learning environment. To meet this goal, he focused on emphasizing meaningful collaborative gameplay interactions. His approach included the integration of peer-teaching, and the assignment of diverse roles to scaffold students’ acknowledgement and acceptance of their peers’ unique skills. However, implementation faced some challenges.

Mediating Positive Collaboration

Following the PST reflections regarding the impact of game-based activities and persistent affiliation in the Basketball unit, he acknowledged the effect of meaningful teamwork in fostering a climate of social inclusion among students. In the Volleyball unit, the PST expressed an increased focus and commitment to furthering this approach, prioritising positive collaboration. In this process, there was a disinvestment in the manipulation of learning activities (‘students choosing how to serve according to their abilities, underhand or overhand, has been the only inclusive modification registered until now’; FN, week 18).

• Peer-Teaching

The PST started to integrate peer-teaching interactions into learning tasks to engage students in face-to-face reciprocal teaching, as a strategy to scaffold their ability to autonomously establish collaborative gameplay interactions:

I used peer-teaching dynamics to promote the development of a more socially ‘warm’ (increase social bonds) environment, by promoting closer ‘face-to-face’ collaborative peer interactions. My intention is that students learn to trust, care, and value each other, hopefully carrying this positive collaboration to gameplay.

(PST’s Diary, week 13)

The prevailing dynamic observed involved the initial task instruction given by the PST, wherein a specific goal for peer-teaching, such as ‘I want you to pay attention to how your teammates execute the passing, to help them improve’, was assigned (PST’s Diary, week 10). Subsequently, students would pair with a teammate to take on the role of tutor during practice, rotating when instructed by the teacher. Notably students ‘systematically chose the same peer’ for this role (FN, week 14), a phenomenon unbeknownst to the teacher that limited students’ opportunities for diverse peer-teaching interactions.

Moreover, there was a notable absence of student preparation for assuming the responsibility of teaching their peers. While the PST briefly outlined the critical components of each activity for which students should provide feedback, there was a lack of individualised preparation to ensure that each student had a comprehensive understanding of the content (e.g., such as the nuances of volleyball passing) to be able to effectively assist their peers learning. As a result, not all students were adequately equipped to engage in peer-teaching, and many appeared unsure of what corrections to offer, leading to disengagement as they ‘simply wait(ed) for the roles to be reversed’ (FN, week 12).

Additionally, observations uncovered that the PST did not scaffold the development of students’ peer-tutoring skills, such as the ability to identify errors, provide empathetic and constructive feedback, modify the task to meet their peers’ learning needs, and encourage their learning. Hence, although students were presented with opportunities to collaborate during peer-teaching moments, positive interactions were not pedagogically assured.

Pedagogical Initiatives for Welcoming Diversity

To further promote inclusive participation, the PST assigned diverse roles to students (ethical supervisor, peer coach, referee, record keeper, and cheerleaders), aiming to acknowledge their unique skills and foster equitable opportunities for students to be acknowledged as ‘prestigious members’ in distinct domains (e.g., rules knowledge) (PST’s Diary, week 11).

• Multidimensional Role-Playing and Celebration

Notably, the ‘ethical supervisor’s role emerged to enhance lower-skilled students’ engagement (beyond gameplay skills), and as an equity-oriented student-led regulation mechanism to ensure inclusive interactions in game-based tasks, and promote students’ embodiment of values of fairness, empathy, and equity’ (FN, week 14). The PST complemented this strategy with an ‘awarding ceremony’ to celebrate equity- and inclusion-related outcomes:

(…) the ‘ethical supervisor’ ascertains his peers’ ability to respect and cooperate, even with opposing teams. The more ethical team scores 5 extra points and will receive an award at the culminating event.

(PST’s Diary, week 15)

However, the mediation of role-play was limited (e.g., scaffolding the ethical supervisor gameplay interventions), and a formal assessment was only conducted for the role of referees. Despite the PST’s intentions, students felt that the ‘ethical supervisor’ provided limited assistance in fostering inclusive gameplay interactions:

(…) (The ethical supervisor) only cares for attitudes such as respecting peers, may report it to the teacher, but doesn’t help much with gameplay.

(Steven, FG, week 18)

3.2. Capturing Equity and Inclusion in Students’ Gameplay Participation

The visual representation of students’ gameplay social networks is presented in Figure 2. The nodes’ (boys and girls identified as squares and circles, respectively) proximity to the centre signifies students’ prestige levels, while the edges’ thickness indicates the volume of total connections; the arrows’ directions provide insights into the directionality of students’ links. In the Basketball unit, there was a clear reconfiguration of the gameplay networks from the pre-test to the post-test, underscoring a more centralised arrangement of nodes and the uniform distribution of connections, indicating more equitable peer interactions and participation profiles. The Volleyball unit presents a slightly less positive evolution of students’ gameplay networks, as the post-test some nodes are distributed with a lower proximity to the centre.

3.2.1. Clustering Coefficient

The clustering coefficient scores are presented in

Table 1. Clustering coefficient ¹ descriptive scores.

Learning Team	Basketball		Volleyball
	Pre-Test	Post-Test	Pre-Test	Post-Test
1	0	0	0	0.750
2	0	0	0	0
3	0.500	0	0	0
4	0	0	0.200	0
5	0	0	0	0
6	0.125	0	0.125	0
7	0	0	n/a	n/a
8	0	0	n/a	n/a
Mean (sd.)	0.078 (0.176)	0 (0)	0.054 (0.087)	0.125 (0.306)

Notes: ¹ = Values vary from 0 (no clustering; optimal) to 1 (high clustering); n/a = the class was divided into 6 learning teams in the Volleyball unit; sd. = standard deviation.

. Unit comparisons are presented in the double-entry

Table 2. Unit comparison: clustering coefficient.

			Volleyball
			Pre-Test			Post-Test
			t	p	d	t	p	d
Basketball	Pre-test		0.522	0.624	0.254	−0.126	0.905	0.440
	Post-test		−1.552	0.189	0.095	−1	0.363	0.332

Notes: The intersection cells between rows (Basketball) and columns (Volleyball) present the differences in each data collection moment.

., where the intersection cells between rows (Basketball) and columns (Volleyball) present the differences between units in each data collection moment.

Table 3. Pre-test to post-test differences in the clustering coefficient, density, and degree prestige measures.

Unit	Measure		Gain Scores	sd.	t	p	d
Basketball	Clustering coefficient		−0.078	0.176	1.256	0.250	0.186
	Density		+0.021	0.188	−0.311	0.765	0.199
	Degree prestige	Boys	−0.005	0.163	0.110	0.914	0.169
		Girls	+0.007	0.155	−0.152	0.882	0.161
Volleyball	Clustering coefficient		+0.071	0.343	−0.506	0.634	0.372
	Density		−0.067	0.222	0.734	0.496	0.241
	Degree prestige	Boys	+0.006	0.166	−0.135	0.895	0.171
		Girls	−0.007	0.158	0.148	0.885	0.164

Notes: sd. = Standard deviation; Gain scores = pre-test to post-test difference.

. resumes the pre-test to post-test differences (in each unit). The examination of the clustering coefficient aimed to discern the prevailing equity in students’ gameplay interactions throughout both game-based units. Values range from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that students tend to interact more with some peers at the expense of others, resulting in inequitable participation. No significant differences were found in the unit comparison, but the Basketball unit showed higher pre-test levels of clustering (Basketball: pre-test = 0.078; Volleyball: pre-test = 0.054). Notably, clustering scores in both units were kept below 0.500, suggesting students’ low tendency [13] to interact inequitably (e.g., creating interactional sub-groups). Pre-test to post-test results show an increase in clustering in the Volleyball unit and a decrease in the Basketball unit, although not significant.

3.2.2. Density

The density scores are presented in

Table 4. Density ² descriptive scores.

Learning Team	Basketball		Volleyball
	Pre-Test	Post-Test	Pre-Test	Post-Test
1	0.667	0.667	0.917	1
2	0.833	1	1	0.667
3	1	0.833	1	0.917
4	1	0.833	0.750	0.850
5	1	0.833	0.833	1
6	0.500	0.833	0.917	0.583
7	1	1	n/a	n/a
8	0.667	0.833	n/a	n/a
Mean (sd.)	0.833 (0.199)	0.854 (0.107)	0.903 (0.098)	0.836 (0.175)

Notes: ² = Values vary from 0 (no density) to 1 (highest density; optimal); n/a = the class was divided into 6 learning teams in the Volleyball unit; sd. = standard deviation.

. The exploration of density values sought to gauge the inclusivity embodied in students’ interactions during the game-based units. Values range from 0 to 1, where higher values suggest inclusive participation. Both units registered density values close to 1, evidencing strong and inclusive gameplay interactions between students in each unit [13]. Pre-test to post-test results (Table 3.) depict a progressive increase in density in the Basketball unit, whereas Volleyball exhibited a contrasting trend. Nonetheless, although unit comparisons presented in

Table 5. Unit comparison: density.

			Volleyball
			Pre-Test			Post-Test
			t	p	d	t	p	d
Basketball	Pre-test		−0.667	0.534	0.277	−0.037	0.972	0.203
	Post-test		−1.391	0.223	0.133	−0.029	0.978	0.274

Notes: The intersection cells between rows (Basketball) and columns (Volleyball) present the differences in each data collection moment.

. revealed non-significant differences, the highest density was recorded in the pre-test of the Volleyball unit, and the density was generally higher during Volleyball (Basketball: pre-test = 0.833; post-test = 0.854; Volleyball: pre-test = 0.903; post-test = 0.836).

3.2.3. Degree Prestige

The degree prestige aimed to explore gender centrality and prominence during gameplay participation in both game-based units. Values range between 0 and 1. If gameplay centrality and prominence are equitably distributed (no hegemonic gameplay dynamics), the prestige levels are lower and differences between students will not be significant. The overall prestige values (

Table 6. Degree prestige ³ descriptive scores.

	Basketball		Volleyball
	Girls	Boys	Girls	Boys
Pre-test	0.271 (0.193)	0.351 (0.100)	0.208 (0.100)	0.270 (0.825)
Post-test	0.292 (0.167)	0.346 (0.128)	0.201 (0.108)	0.276 (0.137)

Notes: ³ = Values vary from 0 to 1 (highest prestige); n/a = the class was divided into 6 learning teams in the Volleyball unit; sd. = standard deviation.

.) were low (below 0.500) in both units, indicating an absence of students with dominance in gameplay connections) [6]. Boys depicted consistently higher prestige, but no significant differences between sexes were found, both in Basketball (pre-test: F = 1.787; η² = 0.069; p = 0.194; post-test: F = 0.844; η² = 0.035; p = 0.368) and Volleyball (pre-test: F = 2.243; η² = 0.089; p = 0.148; post-test: F = 2.811; η² = 0.108; p = 0.107).

Comparisons between units (

Table 7. Unit comparison: degree prestige scores.

			Volleyball
			Pre-Test						Post-Test
			Girls			Boys			Girls			Boys
			t	p	d	t	p	d	t	p	d	t	p	d
Basketball	Pre-test	Girls	0.901	0.387	0.250	0.023	0.982	0.203	1.025	0.328	0.244	−0.081	0.937	0.231
		Boys	2.635	0.023	0.193	3.193	0.008	0.095	3.410	0.006	0.156	1.708	0.113	0.165
	Post-test	Girls	2.152	0.057	0.179	0.728	0.482	0.146	2.068	0.066	0.173	0.090	0.930	0.259
		Boys	2.552	0.027	0.197	1.941	0.076	0.147	3.692	0.004	0.143	1.372	0.195	0.191

) showed that boys’ pre-test scores in Basketball were significantly different from both girls’ and boys’ pre-test scores in Volleyball. Pre-test to post-test analysis (Table 3) showed a slight increase in girls’ prestige in Basketball, while boys’ prestige decreased. In Volleyball, the trend was reversed. Notably, the highest prestige difference between sexes was registered in the Basketball unit (mean difference = 0.80). Nonetheless, the prestige remained consistently lower in Volleyball, indicating an overall more equitable distribution of centrality among players.

4. Discussion

This investigation delved into the teaching practices of a PST enrolled in a student-centred PETE programme, designed to support more inclusive and equitable PE (i.e., the ‘PETE in action’), and captured the evolving patterns of equity and inclusion present in students’ participation across two game-based units using SNA techniques.

The SNA allowed us to go beyond the individual gameplay rates of involvement (e.g., the ‘game performance assessment instrument’) [41], expanding our knowledge and answering questions left by previous research. As it is, students interacted equitably with each other during gameplay events (consistently low clustering coefficient values across both units), evidencing inclusive gameplay participation profiles without marked evidence of segregation (both units’ density levels proximity to 1). There was also equity in the value (centrality and prominence) attributed to each sex in the networks of peer interactions (the absence of significant differences between boys’ and girls’ prestige levels).

Two pivotal facets of the PST’s practice emerged, each contributing distinct trends in students’ participation. The initial facet emanated from the PST’s emphasis on equitable content delivery in Basketball. Here, manipulations in learning activities and scaffolding of inclusive team membership fostered an incremental shift towards equitable and inclusive participation. Strategic game-based task adjustments, notably eliminating interception rules, emerged as impactful strategies promoting inclusion for girls and lower-skilled students. This transformation was reflected in both student accounts and more equitable degree prestige levels, signifying the increased influence of girls in their teams.

Simultaneously, the recalibration of rules and scoring systems, particularly valorising lower-skilled students’ interventions, spurred a broader landscape of equitable gameplay interactions. This intentional recognition, exemplified by shots awarded with two points, empowered students to actively foster inclusion, subsequently elevating equity in gameplay networks of peer interaction (e.g., density). Noteworthy is the unique departure from conventional SNA findings [15], as this study revealed optimal and increasing density levels. The extended time frame of this study (18 weeks) may explain the results. Students’ networks of peer interactions are complex and dynamic systems that require time to shift, urging the employment of longitudinal designs for future research.

In alignment with prior research affirming the positive impact of prolonged team affiliation on social awareness [22], this study added that the encouragement of persistent team engagement and modelling of inclusive attitudes significantly contributed to students’ positive team membership and group identity, encapsulated in the concept of ‘team spirit’. This was manifested in observable positive cooperation and inclusion in gameplay profiles, evidenced by reduced segregation (lower clustering coefficient).

The second facet of the PST’s practices, witnessed in the Volleyball unit, marked incremental efforts to foster an equitable and inclusive learning context. Peer-teaching, complementary roles, and the celebration of equity and inclusion outcomes elevated students’ autonomy and ownership of the learning experience, establishing a framework for positive peer interactions. However, the evolution of gameplay profiles revealed fewer positive contours throughout the unit, characterised by an increased clustering coefficient. Factors such as diminished task manipulation, the inadequate mediation of role performance, and the limited promotion of novel peer-teaching interactions during designated moments possibly contributed to the development of less equitable and inclusive gameplay profiles. This shift is notably mirrored in an amplified gender gap in prestige levels and decreased density. Another possible explanation may be the less frequent student intervention during gameplay in this unit; for instance, Volleyball’s technical complexity often led to the ball going out of play more frequently, resulting in fewer passes/connections compared to Basketball within the same duration of gameplay. This would directly impact every SNA metric irrespective of the ongoing strategies to include every student in the gameplay.

Despite the less favourable SNA results, the pedagogical strategies in place (e.g., equity supervisor) expanded and diversified students’ participation opportunities (equity), fostering more central participation (inclusion), while also emphasizing the importance of values such as fair play and maintaining positive interactions. Contrary to what some literature suggests, e.g., [7], these strategies may not necessarily translate into students’ gameplay participation dynamics. The nature of the game itself may play a significant role in determining the participation opportunities afforded to each student and should be accounted for pedagogically (i.e., game-specific strategies). Therefore, future research should not focus exclusively on gameplay indicators, as they may neglect important aspects of equity and inclusion research. Integrating process-oriented analysis with gameplay metrics allowed us to pinpoint the intricate nature of practical representations of equity and inclusion in PE, reinforcing the value of mixed-method approaches.

This study also challenges the mainstream literature notion that PSTs often avoid delegating decision-making to students [29]. Instead, it highlights a potential oversight wherein, despite decision-making responsibility being transferred, PSTs might lack the necessary skills to actively mediate peer interactions. Pedagogical structures, such as the ‘ethical supervisor’ and ‘peer-tutor’, were in place, but the mediation of inclusive dynamics lagged. For instance, persistent peer-teaching interactions may have unintentionally cemented a preference for working with specific peers, contributing to an increased clustering coefficient (less equitable interactions).

Both facets of the PST intervention especially align with the first and third levels of the student-centred programme’s four-level scaffolding structure (activity- and social-based scaffolding). However, the PST’s practices, although suggesting PETE’s positive impact in his ability and predisposition to deliver more equitable and inclusive PE, also suggest that it may be ambitious to expect PSTs to skilfully support equitable and inclusive learning environments through scaffolding processes, as they might still lack the pedagogical skills to do so, evident in the challenges faced by the PST (e.g., mediating social interactions).

Research suggests that educators’ gender can influence teaching styles and student perceptions, potentially affecting classroom dynamics and learning outcomes [28]. In considering the potential impact of the PST’s gender and sports activity background on our study, it is hypothesised that these factors may have influenced pedagogical approaches and student outcomes. While the PST’s gender was anonymised to maintain confidentiality and focus on educational practices rather than personal attributes, his experience in the fitness area, characterised by a prescriptive and performance-focused approach, may have shaped his instructional strategies within the PE setting.

Furthermore, the PST’s background in team sports, particularly football, may have played a significant role in shaping the diverse engagement strategies implemented across different teaching units. Each sport presented unique demands and dynamics that necessitated tailored instructional approaches to optimise student participation and learning. For instance, strategies such as modifying game rules or team formations in basketball could have been influenced by the PST’s experience with the dynamics of teamwork and strategic thinking in football. Conversely, in volleyball, where technical complexities may influence student interactions differently, adaptations may have focused on facilitating cooperative learning and mitigating potential barriers to engagement. This rationale underscores the idea that the PST’s previous experiences may have been a lever that contributed to cultivating inclusive learning environments throughout both units. These considerations highlight the nuanced interplay between the PST’s gender, sports background, instructional decisions, and potential student outcomes within the PE context.

Nonetheless, this study empirically adds warnings to the existing literature, emphasizing that the PST’s intentions to foster positive collaboration through student-centred pedagogical structures do not automatically translate into increased equity and inclusiveness in students’ gameplay profiles. Hence, a reflection is prompted on the multifaceted nature of promoting inclusive learning environments. Successful strategies, as observed in Basketball, emphasise the importance and feasibility of intentional game-based adjustments and rule modifications to influence equity and inclusion. On the other hand, the challenges encountered in Volleyball underscore both the complexity and need for more effective mediation of peer interactions and comprehensive assessments of complementary roles to ensure their impact on inclusive participation.

5. Conclusions and Final Considerations

This study poses novel insights into the dynamics of fostering inclusive and equitable participation in PE, offered by a comprehensive mixed-methods approach. While indicating the PETE programme’s potential to mediate equity and inclusion in game-based activities, the PST documented successes and challenges that provide a foundation for future research and the continuous refinement of pedagogical approaches aimed at fostering equity and inclusion in PE.

Regarding the PST’s concrete approach to fostering inclusive and equitable participation in PE, this study reveals critical insights and practical implications. The emphasis on equitable content delivery in the Basketball unit proved highly effective. Strategic manipulations in learning activities and game-based task adjustments, such as eliminating interception rules, significantly promoted inclusion for girls and lower-skilled students. This led to more equitable degree prestige levels, highlighting the increased influence of girls within their teams. Additionally, modifications in rules and scoring systems were made that valued lower-skilled students’ interventions. These intentional game-based adjustments empowered students to actively foster inclusion, thereby enhancing equity in gameplay networks of peer interaction. However, the study also identified challenges in the Volleyball unit, where fewer positive outcomes were observed. Factors such as diminished task manipulation and the inadequate mediation of role performance contributed to less equitable and inclusive gameplay profiles, evidenced by an increased clustering coefficient and an amplified gender gap in prestige levels. These findings underscore the necessity for more effective mediation of peer interactions and highlight the need for PSTs to develop the skills to actively promote inclusive dynamics during gameplay.

Mentoring and ongoing support from PETE programs were not analysed; to address these challenges, future research could delve into these mechanisms to better understand PSTs’ pedagogical development. Exploring the PETE-developed mechanisms (e.g., ongoing work sessions with the university supervisor) and teacher training strategies to provide pedagogical inputs based on the real problems experienced by PSTs that help them to conceptually embody SCAs and pedagogically target the promotion of equity and inclusion outcomes [41] can enhance our understanding of PSTs’ learning trajectories. In addition, follow-up studies that explore in more depth the learning trajectories of aspiring teachers during the PETE programme’s curricular year and their subsequent teaching practice in school placement are particularly relevant [29] to providing a comprehensive understanding of how aspiring teachers can better foster inclusive and equitable learning environments.