MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2030035443 · doi:10.1080/17408989.2014.895802

The ‘function-to-flow’ model: an interdisciplinary approach to assessing movement within and beyond the context of climbing

2014· article· en· W2030035443 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Rebecca Lloyd

Notice bibliographique

RevuePhysical Education and Sport Pedagogy · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueSport Psychology and Performance
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCurriculumContext (archaeology)Class (philosophy)Data collectionClimbingPsychologyMathematics educationPhysical educationMedical educationPedagogyMedicineSociologyComputer scienceGeography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Physical Education (PE) programmes are expanding to include alternative activities yet what is missing is a conceptual model that facilitates how the learning process may be understood and assessed beyond the dominant sport–technique paradigm.Purpose: The purpose of this article was to feature the emergence of a Function-to-Flow (F2F) interdisciplinary curriculum support tool which facilitates the assessment of an alternative activity beyond baseline levels of participation.Participants and setting: Participants of this study include a sample of N = 153 students from grades one, five, seven, eight, and nine located within seven different schools in Ottawa (Canada), who booked the JungleSport™ climbing programme of their own accord. Within each school, a particular class was selected under the guidance of the school principal and in consultation with the Health and PE teacher. The Head Instructor of the JungleSport™ programme also participated in the study. During the second year of this study, three classes from three different intermediate schools, including two grade 7 classes (n = 19 and n = 26) and a grade 8 class (n = 23), piloted curriculum support tools that are featured in this article.Data collection: The main source of information upon which this article is based is the small group interviews with student participants that were conducted at the conclusion of the three- to five-day JungleSport™ programme. Secondary sources of information include journal entries from prepared booklets, student, teacher, and head instructor interviews, as well as observed interdisciplinary activities.Data analysis: The main question that guided this three-year study was: What is it like to become physically educated in a way that invites an expanded movement consciousness, from the rudiments of movement function to the somatics of flow? To explore this question, several student-friendly sub-questions were developed. Responses to these questions were compiled into a summative chart, the interdisciplinary F2F curriculum support tool, which depicts how a student may climb at different levels of proficiency.Findings: Assessing movement in relation to the F2F model has the potential to facilitate an appreciation and understanding of the many ways a student may become physically educated. This article features how students were able to articulate understandings of muscular function, desired form, kinaesthetic feeling, as well as existential possibilities for experiencing flow. It is postulated that a similar curriculum support tool could be designed for other activities, however alternative, as well as mainstream sport. Simply analysing movement experiences in terms of muscular function, form, feeling, and flow as exemplified in this study has the potential to broaden narrowed conceptions of learning in the PE context. Thus the ‘physical education-as-sport- technique’ paradigm which largely attends to isolated form has the potential to become the ‘function–form–feeling–flow’ paradigm. Thus, in closely observing students climbing, as described in the first year of this project and co-reflecting on the percepts and concepts that emerge in relation to the F2F-inspired curriculum support tool as featured in this article, assessment and interdisciplinary understanding in PE has the potential to reach new heights.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,684
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,313

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,407
Écart entre enseignants0,377 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2014
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePhysical Education and Sport PedagogyMême sujetSport Psychology and PerformanceTravaux en français237 207