Pilot testing a professional development model for preservice teachers in the area of health and weight: feasibility, utility, and efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies indicate that both preservice and in-service teachers find it difficult to connect to their role as health promoters within a school context. There is also evidence that those teachers most often responsible for delivering health education (i.e., physical education teachers) are at an increased risk for body dissatisfaction, dieting, and disordered eating. A pre–post pilot study assessed the feasibility and utility of an interactive professional development workshop on preservice teachers' attitudes concerning body image, size acceptance, eating, and physical activity, as well as the impact of the workshop on perceived self-efficacy to address weight-related issues. The professional development had a positive effect on antifat attitudes, body image, implicit weight bias, and efficacy to address weight issues. While the workshop was useful in terms of significant changes in preservice teachers' attitudes and efficacy, lessons around feasibility will inform the development of this pilot study to full-scale workshop with preservice teachers.
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 | 0.013 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".