Models-Based Practice: Learning From and Questioning the Existing Canadian Physical Education Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The culture of physical education (PE) has been identified as needing transformation because traditional PE practice privileges competitive sports, rigid requirements and uniformity. These practices marginalize and alienate ‘lower skilled’ participants, and result in a negative influence on students’ self-concepts, providing a sense of alienation within physical education. A recent pan-Canadian analysis of PE policies confirmed that curricular philosophies included critical considerations, however, learning outcomes continued to reflect primarily traditional PE models. Models-Based Practice (MBP) focuses on student-centred learning across multiple learning domains (i.e., affective, cognitive, psychomotor), an approach that strongly influences the likelihood that students will engage in active lifestyles. In a literature review on Canadian PE, 60 sources were identified, where 59 focused on singular pedagogical models while only one addressed MBP: “Teaching Games for Understanding” (TGfU) (54), “Cooperative Learning” (2), “Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility” (2), “Sport Education”(1), and MBP (1). This literature review reveals that although a range of pedagogical models could form the basis of MBP as an innovative approach to the teaching and learning of PE, TGfU dominates the Canadian pedagogical model literature. Results suggest that empirical research needs to be undertaken for MBP to achieve its theorized potential in order to achieve meaningful physical education curricular change.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".