We need to talk: a reciprocal approach to literacy and physical education

Abstract

Background: This study explores how the reciprocal teaching style can support literacy development in secondary Physical Education (PE), particularly for pupils with English as an Additional Language (EAL). Set within the context of initial teacher training (ITT) in England, the research addresses the challenges PE Associate Teachers (ATs) face in meeting the literacy development requirements outlined in the Initial Teacher Training and Early Career Framework (ITTECF). Method: The study generated qualitative data from 47 PE ATs from three consecutive cohorts in a postgraduate ITT programme in north-west England. All ATs were introduced to the Reciprocal Style through university training and supported in applying it during school placements. Data were gathered through post-implementation questionnaires and follow-up semi-structured interviews with 15 ATs at the end of their training. The questionnaires captured immediate perceptions, while the interviews provided deeper insights into the ATs’ experiences and reflections. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data, identifying recurring themes and patterns that reflected the ATs’ perceptions of the reciprocal teaching style’s impact on pupil literacy and communication skills. Results: The findings revealed that ATs adopted the Reciprocal Style as a strategy for inclusion, particularly when teaching EAL pupils. Key outcomes included: (1) The Reciprocal Style integrated oracy, reading, and comprehension into PE lessons, and enabled pupils to practice keywords in context. (2) Bilingual reciprocal cards, combining pictures and text in pupils’ first and second languages, minimised language barriers and maintained cognitive challenge for EAL pupils. (3) Structured peer feedback provided authentic opportunities for active language practice and development. (4) EAL pupils experienced a meaningful, low-pressure environment for language learning, where they could access support without being singled out. Despite its benefits, the style was underused due to preparation demands and pupil readiness. ATs often reserved it for high-need groups, highlighting a tension between pedagogical potential and practical constraints. Conclusion: The reciprocal teaching style was perceived by PE ATs as a valuable method for integrating literacy into a practical subject. It was particularly effective for EAL pupils due to its combination of visual cues, structured interaction, and adaptable resources. Although the style requires preparation, it aligns well with ITTECF requirements and the aims of inclusive pedagogy. The Reciprocal Style may be one way of overcoming language barriers and helping PE ATs meet the learning needs of an ever-changing and increasingly diverse pupil population.