University Students' Wellness-What Difference Can a Course Make?
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this article is to describe the influence of a health education course on first year university students. Initially designed to serve the pedagogical needs of physical education, recreation and kinesiology students, the course attracts a diversity of students across disciplines. We assessed the influence of the course as interpreted through one-minute papers gathered on the final day of class, and through personal interviews conducted with former students. The results suggest that the course influenced students' quality of life in three broad areas--physical, spiritual and psychological 'Being,' physical, social and community 'Belonging,' and most notably practical, growth and leisure 'Becoming.' Students were initially drawn the course to learn information about health and wellness, completed the course inspired by the potential for their own and others' wellness, and were bonded by the class structure, format and assignments. ********** Despite a well accepted view that university students are generally 'healthy' (Meier, Stock, & Kramer, 2006), studies have revealed the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors among North American students (Adlaf, Demers, & Gliksman, 2005; Bray & Born, 2004; Graham & Jones, 2002; Patterson & Kline, 2008). Researchers who have studied health promotion on campuses have recommended that health education be incorporated into the curriculum if the initiative is to have a significant impact (Tsouros, Dowding, Thompson, & Dooris, 1998 pg. 48). At one western Canadian university, Personal Health, Wellness, and Potential (PHW 100), is offered as a 'survey' starter course. Originally designed to groom future professionals to prescribe and facilitate health and wellness for clients, the syllabus has been evolving from its original purpose to integrate health promotion and personal wellness theory, practice, and research in an updated curriculum. The evolution of the course has occurred because of its appeal to a broader base of students, and the instructor's beliefs that helping students understand how self-care and self-responsibility can assist them in their lifestyle choices is critical as they move from taking care of themselves to taking care of others and the world around them (Simpson & Freeman, 2004). PHW 100 is a 13 week, classroom-based course (39 class hours) that utilizes a number of instructional strategies and student evaluation processes. More than simply transmitting information about healthy living (e.g., physical activity, nutrition, substance use, environmental practices) through lectures, the course engages students as a group in addressing their own or others' broadly defined health issues through an experiential lifestyle change and community 'legacy' project. As well, numerous guest speakers are brought into to share their experiences with specific health issues (e.g., eating disorders, physical disabilities) or personal challenges that serve to 'bring to life' topics included in the textbook. Enabling students to take control of their health and shape it in a positive direction can enhance both their academic and personal lives (Patterson & Kline, 2008). Experiences of institutions who have studied the delivery of a health curriculum suggest that it is a promising practice. Although there is limited and dated scientific evidence to advocate the enhancement of students' health and wellness through an introductory course, what is available supports an argument for universal access across campus. A handful of pre-post studies have been conducted to determine the immediate effects of such a course. The findings generally suggest that a health and physical education course improves the attitudes, knowledge and behaviors of students completing the course compared to students not enrolled (Edwards, 1982; Valois, 1987). As Keeling (2002) has argued, colleges and university campuses provide an ideal setting for health education. …
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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