Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of goal-setting on students??? achievement goals, their understanding, and their reactions toward goal-setting. Goal-setting is a popular technique used in exercise, sport, and in the business world, but often not utilized enough in physical education settings. The current study used qualitative and quantitative research methodology to construct a clearer image of goal-setting in a charter high school physical education program. \nThis study involved thirty-two (N=32) participants in 9th, 10th, and 11th grade from a charter high school, who were enrolled in an after school physical education program. The effects of goal-setting were determined through the use of questionnaires and focus group interviews. Fitness testing was also used to analyze goal adherence and student performance. \nThe main research question addressed the effects of goal-setting on students??? achievement goals, their understanding and reactions toward goal-setting. The sub-questions addressed students??? past goal-setting experiences, whether students felt comfortable setting goals, and how students viewed the FITNESSGRAM. Participants completed three different questionnaires regarding achievement goals, leisure time physical activity and familiarity with goal-setting. Fitness testing involved three areas including PACER, Push Ups and Curl Ups. Six students, 4 male and 2 female, participated in focus group interviews. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded. A thematic analysis was applied to determine five themes: Goal-setting is Useful, PE-the Home of Goal-setting, Goal-setting for Something of Value, Goal-setting isn???t Easy, and Dislike for the FITNESSGRAM. The results demonstrated that students believed goal-setting was useful and had heard about it in physical education. Participants tended to set goals for things they valued; they agreed that goal-setting wasn???t easy and the majority of participants did not like the FITNESSGRAM. Future research is needed to examine goal-setting in different high school physical education programs to gain a better picture of students??? understanding of goal-setting.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".