MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7025047851

Strategies to Improve Physical Activity Involvement for Children with Exceptionalities: Exploring Teachers' and Parents' Perceptions and Experiences

2022· dissertation· en· W7025047851 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan) · 2022
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueFamily and Disability Support Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPhysical activityPerceptionCognitionNumeracyAutismMeaning (existential)Focus groupPerspective (graphical)
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In this thesis, the focus is on the specific strategies parents and educators are using to encourage children with exceptionalities, particularly children with a learning disability, intellectual disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and autism spectrum disorder, to be involved in physical activity. As defined by Caspersen et al. (1985), physical activity is any bodily movement by skeletal muscles that expends energy. Recent statistics have reported the recommended amounts of physical activity for children compared to what they are actually engaging in. The Canadian 24-hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth (2016) recommends that children aged 5-17 accumulate 60 minutes of physical activity per day, meaning moderate-to-vigorous physical activity involving aerobic activities, coupled with light physical activity involving a range of structured and unstructured physical activities. In comparison, a recent health report shows that only one-third of children are able to meet this recommendation (Colley et al., 2017). Further research shows that children with exceptionalities are participating in physical activity even less than children without exceptionalities, and as a result, are overweight, less physically fit, less motor proficient, fatigued, and in pain (Carlon et al., 2013; Davis et al., 2010; Frey & Chow, 2006; Frey, Stanish & Temple, 2008; Rimmer, 2005). Children with exceptionalities participating infrequently in physical activity is a major problem, as physical activity can have a key impact on the overall health and well-being of a child, designated by five health and well-being indicators: cognitive development, which includes facets such as the acquisition of reading, writing, and numeracy skills; physical health and well-being, which focuses on the absence of disease through markers such as good eating habits and having opportunities for recreational activities; social relationships, defined by the relationships that the child engages in with parents, teachers, coaches, and teachers that are close, trusted, caring, and accepting; mental and emotional health and well-being, where a child possesses characteristics such as optimism, positive self-worth, and a stability; and economic and material health and well-being, where a child has access to nutritious food, adequate housing and clothing (Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2013).\nAlthough numerous studies demonstrate the importance of physical activity for all children, including those with exceptionalities, in relation to these five health and well-being indicators (Bell et al, 2019; Chang et al., 2012; Davis & Jowett, 2014; Dunton et al., 2014; Gapin & Etnier, 2010; Kang et al., 2011; Kiluk et al., 2008; MacMahon & Gross, 1987; McMahon et al. 2019; Nakutin et al., 2019; Pan, 2010; Pastula et al., 2012; Ratey, 2008; Wilk et al., 2018; Wouters et al., 2019; Yilmaz et al., 2004), there is limited current research exploring how educators and parents are engaging children with exceptionalities in physical activity (Davis et al., 2010; Norris & Columna, 2016; Ratey, 2008; Rauworth et al., 2003; Seidler et al., 1993; Walker et al., 2019). Discovering specific strategies that parents and educators are implementing on a consistent basis is a must in order to engage children with exceptionalities in physical activity and, as a result, improve their overall health and well-being.

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,150
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,266
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · 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
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan)Même sujetFamily and Disability Support ResearchTravaux en français237 207