Designing Experiential Learning Curricula to Develop Future Sport Leaders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As sport management graduates enter into a rapidly shifting industry with fluctuating environmental conditions, the need for greater leadership capacity arises (Amis, Slack, & Hinings, 2004). Sport management educators can facilitate leadership development by designing and administering undergraduate curricula that focuses on students’ vertical development . According to Cook-Greuter (2004), vertical development is defined as “how we change our interpretations of experience and how we transform our views of reality” (p. 276). The purpose of this paper is to outline a curricular framework that may impact students’ vertical development and thus increase future leadership capacity. To fulfill this purpose, the conceptual connection between vertical development, the Leadership Development Framework (LDF), and Experiential Learning (EL) is first explained. The curricular framework is then outlined in the context of a pilot study facilitated within a sport management (leadership) course in January 2008. Suggestions for future empirical projects to measure the impact of EL curricula on students’ vertical development are also offered.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 it