‘There’s no Physical Activity in Physical Education’: The Challenges of Studying Senior PDHPE in NSW, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the theoretical frameworks of change and student voice this study examined whether the enactment of the seniorPersonal Development, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE) syllabus was received positively by students in lightof their previous experience with the junior PDHPE syllabus. In addition, the study sought to examine whether therewere any differences between the attitudes of females and males. Thirty seven senior students and two PDHPEteachers from a coeducational Christian school located in a middle class metropolitan Sydney area were recruited forthis study. A mixed method approach of questionnaire followed by interview was used. The data revealed that the mainfactors that influenced student attitudes were the disconnect in both the content focus and pedagogical practice betweenthe junior and senior syllabi. Females reported a more positive experience and were more motivated than their malepeers. The main concern for the students was the limited opportunities for physical activity and they reported that theyliked studying ‘health’ topics the least. Whether the students saw the change as manageable depended largely on theirview of their teacher. Given the findings, it is recommended that attempts should be made to close the gap between thejunior and senior PDHPE syllabi. It would also benefit student transition to senior PDHPE study if there were greaterdialogue between students and teachers to clarify their perceptions and expectations of each other.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".