Background: Since 1982 many student-centred physical education teaching approaches have been proposed as viable alternatives to the traditional teacher-centred methodology. However, research indicates that their uptake by physical education practitioners has been limited. This is concerning, particularly given the prominence of alternative approaches within many PETE courses worldwide. For PETE students, implementing an alternative teaching approach on their school professional experience has proven to be very challenging, particularly due to a lack of knowledge and understanding of the pedagogical principles of the alternative approach and its underpinning learning theory. To address this deficiency researchers have suggested that PETE programmes provide students with an authentic and supportive teaching experience that bridges the gap between university peer teaching experiences and the unpredictable school professional experience. One widely suggested approach is to provide preservice teachers with an opportunity to work together in small groups in collaboration with a pedagogical expert to explore the implementation of an alternative pedagogy with school children in an authentic physical education context. Purpose: The study sought to investigate how effectively this proposed authentic and supportive teaching experience facilitates PETE students' knowledge and understanding of the pedagogical principles of an alternative pedagogy as well as its underpinning learning theoretical constructs. Participants and Setting: The participants for this study were 40 fourth year undergraduate PETE students undertaking a compulsory physical education pedagogy unit at an Australian university. The unit involved PETE students exploring the implementation of the constraints-led approach (CLA) with cohorts of children from a local school and reflecting upon their experiences and observations in terms of its key pedagogical principles and associated motor learning concepts. To develop their understanding of the CLA, a collaborative professional development model was adopted that allowed groups of teachers to work together in collaboration with a pedagogical expert in a community of practice. Data collection and analysis: To provide an accurate account of PETE students' experiences, two qualitative sources, written reflections and semi-structured focus group interviews, were used to collect data. Data from both sources were combined and analysed collectively using thematic analysis to identify repeated patterns of meaning within the data. Results: The authentic and supportive teaching environment, based on a collaborative professional development model, allowed PETE students to develop a thorough knowledge and understanding of the CLA pedagogical principles of representative learning design, task simplification, and constraints manipulation, and the motor learning theory that informs them. This knowledge and understanding enabled PETE students to successfully design and implement learning experiences that authentically represented the CLA, and which were successful in developing school students' technical and tactical ability for transfer to the performance environment. Conclusion: This research study has provided robust evidence of the effectiveness of an authentic and collaborative professional development model on enhancing the quality of PETE students' teaching and subsequent student learning. This model could be used to inform the design and delivery of preservice and in-service professional development programmes aimed at improving teaching quality. The findings have enormous potential for enhancing student learning outcomes in schools.