Perceptions of PETE students about boys’ and girls’ Participation in Elementary and High School Physical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars have advocated the need to explore the nature and role of teacher beliefs in teacher education (O’Sullivan, 1996, 2003; Wilson & Berne, 1999; Zeichner, 1999) as they can influence teacher behaviour (Pajares, 1992). Unfortunately, research has shown that many in-service physical education (PE) teachers display gender-biased behaviours, beliefs and practices when interacting with students in a PE setting (Davis, 2003), which in turn, may affect students’ participation in PE. However, few studies have investigated these issues from a physical education teacher education (PETE) student belief perspective. This qualitative case study explored how PETE students perceived the participation of girls and boys in PE at the elementary and high school level. Additionally, it attempted to identify any gender-biased beliefs that PETE students may hold about girls’ and boys’ participation in PE. The PETE students were six females and six males from the same university PETE program in Eastern Canada. Guided by the theory of occupational socialization (Lawson, 1983a, 1983b), data were collected through interviews, questionnaires and checklists. Thematic analyses were performed on verbatim transcriptions of interviews. Four themes were generated from the data: PE participation, PE activity preferences, experiences before PETE and experiences during PETE. The results revealed that female and male PETE students held both similar and different views towards girls’ and boys’ participation in elementary and high school PE. Additionally, some strong gender-role stereotypes emerged from their discussions. Training in qualitative methods, pilot work, and researcher reflexivity were employed to establish trustworthiness. Initial findings from this study may provide teacher educators with a deeper understanding of how some PETE students view the participation of girls and boys in PE.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".