MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7117680237 · doi:10.1080/17408989.2025.2609212

Prioritising meaningful physical education experiences: linking teachers’ participation in a contemporary professional development initiative with student experiences and outcomes

2025· article· en· W7117680237 sur OpenAlexafffund
Tim Fletcher, Déirdre Ní Chróinín, Spencer Briggs, Stephanie Beni, Doug Gleddie

Notice bibliographique

RevuePhysical Education and Sport Pedagogy · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePhysical Education and Pedagogy
Établissements canadiensWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of AlbertaBrock University
Organismes subventionnairesSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Mots-clésProfessional developmentPhysical educationQualitative researchContinuing professional developmentInterpretation (philosophy)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Contemporary forms of professional development (CPD) in physical education are collaborative and based in learning communities, situated in teachers’ specific contexts, and based on teachers’ and students’ needs (Parker and Patton 2016. “What Research Tells Us about Effective Continuing Professional Development for Physical Education Teachers.” In The Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogies, edited by Catherine D. Ennis, 447–460. Abingdon, UK: Routledge). Despite the purported value of these approaches for physical education, most research considers only teachers’ perspectives, with few showing evidence of student outcomes that result from teachers’ engagement with CPD initiatives. The purpose of this research is to examine how teachers’ participation in a longitudinal CPD initiative supported their enactment of Meaningful PE in ways that students could identify as contributing to the quality of their physical education experiences.Methods The research draws from two consecutive CPD projects (Phase 1: 2018-2022, Phase 2: 2022-2027) that were designed based on principles of effective CPD and focused on supporting teachers to learn about and enact Meaningful PE in schools. At the time of writing, Michaela and Abby were involved in the two CPD projects for six and five years respectively, and Ranya was involved in Phase 2 for two years. For the purposes of this specific research, data from teachers consisted of one semi-structured individual interview, classroom observations, and classroom artefacts, while focus group interviews were conducted with eight groups of students (n = 30) who were taught by Michaela, Abby, and Ranya. Data were analysed deductively, using principles from Meaningful PE to guide the generation of themes from participants’ responses.Results Following their engagement in the CPD, teachers described how they used ideas related to Meaningful PE in their teaching. Specifically, teachers referred to how they used features of meaningful experiences to develop a shared language with students, and how they enacted democratic and reflective pedagogies. Students gave specific descriptions of the ways their teacher taught that aligned with Meaningful PE and positively influenced their experiences in physical education. Students used a shared language of the features of meaningful experiences and shared examples of their teacher’s use of democratic and reflective pedagogies.Impact statement The consistency between teachers’ learning experiences from the CPD initiative, evidence of teachers’ practice and their enactment of Meaningful PE, and descriptions of students’ experiences enables an inference to be made regarding the role of a CPD initiative focused on Meaningful PE and its influence on students’ experiences in physical education. The outcomes of this research are significant because they provide much needed evidence that connects teachers’ learning in CPD with student outcomes.

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 candidatesaucune
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 enseignants0,160
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

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 savante0,0000,000
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 Opus0,100
Tête enseignante GPT0,532
Écart entre enseignants0,432 · 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'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

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePhysical Education and Sport PedagogyMême sujetPhysical Education and PedagogyTravaux en français237 207