Making physical education meaningful for girls: Translating theory to practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the phases in a formative research process used to develop a resource manual to support teachers in their efforts to assist female students to find more meaning in physical education. Concepts drawn from the self-determination theory of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) provided the theoretical framework for the manual. This theory suggests that motivation to engage in a particular behaviour is influenced by an individual's need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The authors describe how these concepts were used to help physical education teachers identify and utilize a wide range of curriculum actions and instructional strategies to address the motivational needs of their female students. The authors include extracts of how teachers are currently using the manual to document their practice and change in practice. Cet article aborde les diverses etapes d'un processus de recherche formative ayant servi a mettre au point un guide pour appuyer les efforts des enseignantes et des enseignants qui desirent interesser davantage les filles a l'education physique et les motiver a participer pleinement. Le cadre theorique du manuel s'inspire des concepts cles de la theorie motivationnelle axee sur l'auto-determination (Deci et Ryan, 1985, 2000) selon laquelle la motivation a s'adonner a un comportement quelconque est influence par le besoin d'autonomie, de competence et de rapprochement qui anime la personne. Les auteures decrivent en quoi ces concepts ont aide les enseignantes et les enseignants d'education physique a identifier et utiliser toute une gamme de mesures et de strategies educatives pour repondre aux besoins motivationnels des etudiantes. L'article renferme aussi des extraits qui expliquent en quoi les enseignantes et les enseignants utilisent maintenant le guide pour documenter et modifier leurs pratiques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".