Two Cheers for Physical Literacy!

By Gillian Bartle, IPLA Research Lead

Imagine you enter a space and are afforded opportunities to engage with the environment anew each time. There is no thinking about what your body can do first, and then what is there to ‘play’ with. The relational is ongoing and is between person and environment – an evolving capacity to enjoy moving that is lifelong. The following is a recounting of how Bailey et al. (2026) arrive, via Whitehead’s philosophies, to the point that monist holistic learning is already situated and is the relational. Thus, physical literacy (PL) as process and not a product or outcome, is reinforced.

Whitehead’s (2001, 2007, 2010) physical literacy relies on understanding that humans are not separate minds and bodies, that every person’s movement experiences are unique. It also recognises that social and emotional connections are made through meaningful movement experiences, whatever these might be – exercise classes, games of badminton, walking the dog. Collectively, the physical competence, growing confidence, and understanding the value of moving, help to maintain someone’s motivation to be active throughout life.

Bailey et al. (2026, p. 2) think similarly but ask two questions: “To what extent does the Whiteheadian tradition sustain its commitment to non-dualism in its accounts of learning and in its subsequent pedagogical and research applications, and what additional conceptual resources might radical embodied cognitive science offer for its further development?”

The authors open by questioning the ‘definition’ of PL, yet I would argue that this is not necessary because ‘concepts’ only become PL whilst being enacted, and this will look unique every time. That said, the authors do acknowledge that Whiteheadian (2010) PL is a dynamic idea with philosophies that remain “ambitious … but not settled” (Bailey et al., 2026, p. 5).

In the article Whitehead’s strong non-dualist or monist declarations are acknowledged as not always actualised in empirical contexts and research publications that relate to a theory of learning. The connectivity and relationality upon which Whitehead has based PL is built upon by Bailey et al., who consider ‘radical embodied cognition’. Do read the article for a clear explanation of how Whitehead’s phenomenology along with ‘radical enactivism’ are presented to understand genuine holistic learning.

What is the difference between Whitehead and the explicit contribution of cognitive-scientific theory of learning?  From the outset, an “ecological model in which learning is inseparable from doing and place” (Bailey et al., 2026, p. 6) situates learners as embedded and embodied from the outset – before any content is considered. Pupils arrive and relate with others and the environment already embedded and embodied with that environment. Thus knowledge, understanding, motivation and confidence are already wrapped up with movement competence in, with and through that environment – the court, the rock face, the hill, the basket, the music and peers.

Key takeaways for education (but these ideas can be applied to other movement contexts and sectors of society) include:

• physical education is “guided engagement” (p. 8)
• build on Whitehead’s work on affordances – opportunities offered by environments within which people move according to their assessment of their capabilities and previous experiences
• pay more attention to the “felt capability developed through meaningful support and successful engagement in [movement] context[s]” (p. 9) – the affective, already inner, embodied experiences
• present opportunities according to age/stage across the lifecourse – exploration, variety, appropriate levels of challenging tasks, encourage adaptability built on the explorations. In adulthood, and older adulthood, preserve relevance and encourage ongoing adaptability and fun
• as inherent in PL, present inclusive movement opportunities
• be creative with assessment in schools and in research studies. ‘Measurement’ as theoretically attuned rather than ‘easy to observe’ would relate to the ecological-enactive orientation presented in this article.

Article Reference

Bailey, R., Adamakis, M. and Scheuer, C., 2026. Two Cheers for Physical Literacy: Reconsidering the Whiteheadian Account Through Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Education Sciences, 16, 1261. DOI: 10.3390/educsci16081261

Additional References

Whitehead, M., 2001. The Concept of Physical Literacy. European Journal of Physical Education, 6(2), pp. 127-138. DOI: 10.1080/1740898010060205

Whitehead, M., 2007. Physical Literacy: Philosophical Considerations in Relation to Developing a Sense of Self, Universality and Propositional Knowledge. Sports Ethics and Philosophy, 1(3), pp. 281-298. DOI: 10.1080/17511320701676916

Whitehead, M., E., (ed.) 2010. Physical Literacy Throughout the Life Course. London: Routledge.

 

Comments welcome, contact gillian.bartle@physical-literacy.org