Background: Physical education has historically been a repressive place for queer persons. Since physical education spaces are predominantly heteronormative, research on sexual identity management has shown lesbian teachers often try to ‘pass’ as straight or distance themselves from their sexualities. There has been no research to date that examines the experiences of queer male physical educators. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to use Deleuzo-Guattarian theory to reflect on my affective experiences as a queer male physical educator. A secondary goal is to transcend binary theorising that has shaped previous research in the field. Design and Analysis: This paper uses autoethnographic examination to analyse experiences as a queer male physical educator. Data consists of narratives from my first year as a physical educator. These narratives are analysed using Deleuzo-Guattarian theory to map their affective implications. Conclusion: I conclude the paper by reflecting on and recommending several initiatives that can help shift our field toward a Queer Inclusive Physical Education.

In this paper, we reflect on models-based practices in physical education using a sociocritical lens. Drawing links between neoliberal moves in education, and critical approaches to the body and physicality, we take a view that models are useful tools that are worth integrating into physical education, but we are apprehensive to suggest they should redefine the purpose of physical education. In arguing this, we attempt to understand the particular effects of certain models on practice and students. We draw on the theoretical concepts of Deleuze, in particular his notion of ‘striated’ space to analyze SPARK-PE, HOPE, and Sport Education. We assert that some models can be useful tools for thinking about instruction, but models-based-practices are no substitute for a thoughtful and thorough physical education program.

Background: LGBTQ scholarship in physical education has a history tracing back to 1982. Recently, however, there has been a ‘rising tide’ in LGBTQ studies in physical education. Despite this recent surge there has not been a genuine attempt to critically understand, track, and map the scope of this literature. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify, categorize, and analyze published scholarship and peer-reviewed research on LGBTQ issues in physical education. Design and Analysis: An exhaustive search was conducted on nine databases which produced 230 abstracts that was reduced down to 76 manuscripts chosen for inclusion. Articles were coded independently for numerous aspects of the scholarship and research. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and then deductively conceptualized drawing on critical social theories. Conclusions: Whilst there is a current surge in LGBTQ focused research in physical education, such work is met with a complex web of interconnected and staunch problems that limit researchers. As such, the authors end with suggestions that can make the field more amicable for LGBTQ inspired research and researchers.

The purpose of this paper was to explore the role of queer men’s desire in physical education. The author used interview data from an ethnography with queer youth to explore the relationship between desire, affect, and physical education. Drawing on new materialist theory, the author asserts that queer desire is not ‘pre-existing’ and therefore outside of physical education, but rather the field plays an active role in the production and shaping of homoerotic desire. By contending that physical education plays an active role in producing desire, the author asserts that the field of physical education affects queer men’s potential. Alternatively, the author also claims that since queer desire is produced within physical education, the productive potential of queer desire can reciprocally affect the field and its practices.

Purpose: To explore teachers’ perceptions of incorporating digital technologies in physical education (PE) and how they influenced pedagogical practices. Method: Data were collected using qualitative methods (interviews, observations, and artifacts) and were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results: Teachers integrated wearable digital technologies in ways they thought would augment their PE programs, not replace them. It also was found that teachers’ ideologies of PE shaped the way they implemented wearable digital technologies. Finally, the material circumstances of schools affected the ways in which wearable digital technologies could be implemented in PE. Conclusion: Teachers were willing to integrate wearable digital technologies if they augmented (and did not replace) their preferred purpose of PE. Given this, ideologies of teachers influenced the role that technologies played in teaching and learning in PE.

In this critical reflection, we consider physical education policy research in the United States (U.S.) using a sociocritical lens. Our aim is to extend the discussion and critiques of physical education policy research by exploring how it is conducted in the U.S. Instead of asking ‘What is physical education policy research?’, we are more concerned with the complex, imbalanced, and unpredictable affects of physical education policy research in the U.S. Thus, we ask questions like, ‘How is physical education policy research working in different contexts?’, ‘What counts as policy research?’ and ‘Who is doing policy research?’ We examine how physical education policy research is being taken up across the U.S. and the orientation – or direction – those studies take. As such, we conclude by considering what directions, people, and elements are not included in the current orientation.