Elementary Generalists’ Perceptions of Integrating Physical Literacy Into Their Classrooms and Collaborating with Physical Education Specialists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical education class and other physical activities at school are key places for children to develop physically literacy. Discrepancies concerning who should teach physical education at the elementary level exist across Canada. Some provinces have elementary classroom teachers (i.e., generalists) teaching physical education, while others employ physical education specialists at the elementary level. Furthermore, generalists have reported being overwhelmed with pressures to prepare their students for standardized tests. Physical education specialists have reported feelings of isolation (Foran, 2006; Becky, 1995), but little research has investigated how elementary generalist teachers perceive recent curricular mandates to incorporate physical literacy concepts into their classes. Therefore, the two-fold purpose of this study was to, 1) Explore elementary generalists’ perceptions related to integrating physical literacy concepts into their classrooms; and 2) Explore elementary generalists’ perceptions related to collaboration with physical education specialists. Interviews with five elementary generalists were coded and data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Perceived barriers to implementing physical literacy in the classroom and collaborating with physical education specialists emerged. Responses also indicated a sense of hopefulness regarding the value of integrating physical literacy into elementary classrooms and greater collaboration with physical education specialists. Les cours d’education physique et les autres activites physiques offertes a l’ecole sont des endroits privilegies pour l’acquisition du savoir-faire physique chez les enfants. D’une region a l’autre du Canada, les opinions varient a savoir qui devrait enseigner l’education physique a l’elementaire. Dans certaines provinces, les cours d’education physique sont confies aux enseignants titulaires alors que dans d’autres , cette tâche revient, des l’elementaire,a des specialistes en education physique. Par ailleurs, les titulaires disent que l’obligation de preparer leurs eleves en fonction des tests standardises leur impose une enorme pression. Pour leur part, les specialistes en education physiques affirment se sentir isoles (Foran, 2006; Becky, 1995). Peu d’etudes ont ete menees pour voir ce que pensent les titulaires de l’elementaire du nouveau mandat des programmes-cadres visant a integrer les concepts du savoir-physique physique a l’enseignement.. Cette etude avait donc deux objectifs, soit : 1) Examiner les perceptions des titulaires de l’elementaire de l’integration du concept du savoir-faire physique dans leur enseignement de l’education physique; et 2) Examiner les perceptions des titulaires de l’elementaire de la collaboration avec les specialistes en education physique. Les entrevues menees avec cinq enseignants titulaires de l’elementaire ont ete codees et les donnees soumises a une analyse de contenu inductive. Cette analyse a fait ressortir une serie d’obstacles susceptibles de nuire a l’integration du savoir-faire physique et a la collaboration avec les specialistes en education physique. On a egalement decele un certain espoir en ce qui a trait a la valeur qu’il pourrait y avoir a integrer le savoir-faire physique et a favoriser une plus grande collaboration avec les specialistes en education physique.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".