MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4414979020 · doi:10.32396/usurj.v10i2.865

Influence of Physical Education Experiences on School-Aged Children’s Perceived Physical Literacy Development

2025· article· en· W4414979020 sur OpenAlexaffvenue
Adeoluwa Adebayo, Natalie Houser

Notice bibliographique

RevueUSURJ University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePhysical Education and Training Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Saskatchewan
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPhysical educationLiteracyPerceptionSet (abstract data type)Data collectionKinesiologyHealth literacyObservational study

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

College of Kinesiology Research Theme: Child and Youth Health and Development Introduction: Physical literacy is the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life. Physical education (PE) offers a unique and structured opportunity for children to develop physical literacy by providing varied movement experiences within supportive and inclusive learning environments. Pedagogical practices in these environments often range from more traditional (e.g., sport) to less traditional approaches such as circus arts, which may result in different student experiences. Current literature emphasizes the importance of examining how physical literacy is perceived and fostered within educational contexts, particularly through varied pedagogical approaches. Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between teacher and student perceptions of physical literacy within the circus arts and traditional PE environments, and how these experiences might differ. Methods: A cross-sectional design was utilized, with data collection from the physical literacy self-assessment (PLAYself), teacher assessment of student physical literacy (PLAYcoach), and observational assessments using a comprehensive physical literacy checklist. Descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, and Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to explore differences and relationships among the distinctive physical literacy measures. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: This study involved 228 students (114 males, 114 females) ranging from grades 4 to 7, and their PE teachers (1 male, 1 female) from the two schools. There was a significant positive correlation between student (PLAYself) and teacher (PLAYcoach) perspectives of physical literacy (r = 0.291; p < 0.001). There was also a significant positive correlation between both perspectives of physical literacy and the PE environment (PLAYself and PE environment: r = 0.754, p < 0.001; PLAYcoach and PE environment: r = 0.272, p < 0.001). When examining the difference in traditional PE compared to circus in PE, we found that traditional PE students reported higher self-perceived physical literacy scores (Environment: 22.5 ± 3.75 vs. 21.0 ± 3.27; p = 0.001; Self-description: 36.9 ± 5.88 vs. 34.3 ± 4.86; p < 0.001), whereas teacher and observational assessments indicated significantly higher scores outcomes in circus arts PE classes (Teacher assessed PL: 67.2 ± 20.54 vs. 53.9 ± 17.89; p < 0.001; Observational scores: 21.8 ± 0.95 vs. 15.6 ± 1.09; p < 0.001). Conclusion: The results of this study revealed important relationships between physical literacy perceptions and their respective PE environments. Observational and teacher-reported data suggest that circus arts in PE provides a more physical literacy-enriched environment compared to traditional PE, fostering greater creativity, inclusivity, and affective engagement, as well as a greater opportunity for teachers to understand the abilities of all students in non-sport contexts. However, these experiences did not translate into students' self-perceptions of physical literacy, indicating a need for further research to understand whether sustained implementation might bridge the gap between instructional design and student experience.

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 candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,613
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,041
Tête enseignante GPT0,419
Écart entre enseignants0,379 · 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.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
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

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUSURJ University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research JournalMême sujetPhysical Education and Training StudiesTravaux en français237 207