Using meaningful experiences as a vision for physical education teaching and teacher education practice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Teachers’ visions are vivid and concrete images of ideal classroom practices. A vision for teaching is important to both practices in the classroom as well as teacher development across time. A useful tool to explore and analyse the role of vision in teacher practices is provided by [Hammerness, K. 2003. “Learning to Hope, or Hoping to Learn? The Role of Vision in the Early Professional Lives of Teachers.” Journal of Teacher Education 54 (1): 43–56], whose framework of vision consists of three dimensions: focus, range and distance.Purpose: The writing of [Kretchmar, R. S. 2000. “Moving and Being Moved: Implications for Practice.” Quest 52 (3): 260–272; 2008. “The Increasing Utility of Elementary School Physical Education: A Mixed Blessing and Unique Challenge.” The Elementary School Journal 108 (3): 161–170] provides the basis for a vision focused on meaningful experiences in physical education. The purpose of this paper is to describe the ways a vision based on meaningful experiences enabled two teachers and three teacher educators to name, describe, and enact their physical education teaching and teacher education practices.Methodology: Raw data from six separate self-studies of practice involving the five participants provided the starting point for this research. Data sources, including written reflections and critical friend responses as well as audio recordings of conversations with critical friends, were mined to identify examples where vision was represented. Further data were generated in a focus group where participants shared and analysed their experiences and discussed how meaningful physical education served as both an individual and collective vision for practice. A final written reflection allowed participants to articulate their current vision for meaningful physical education. A thematic analysis of all data sources supported the organisation of data into three distinct phases of development of practices with emphasis on the role of vision in each phase.Findings: Over time, there was an evolution in our understanding of both what meaningful physical education consisted of and how we might facilitate meaningful experiences for children. In particular, our visions became clearer and better aligned with our practices. We illustrate how we developed our practice in ways that allowed us to take ownership of this vision, and, in the process, changed who we were as teachers and teacher educators. Finally, we share how the process of exploring and analysing our individual visions allowed us to articulate a shared vision of meaningful physical education and explain how to go about implementing our collective vision in practice.Conclusion: We highlight the value of paying attention to the role of vision in promoting and supporting educators, individually and collectively, in developing and sustaining innovation in teaching and teacher education practice.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,041 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,015 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,016 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».