No PE degree? Foundational knowledge to support generalist teachers of physical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While generalist teachers of physical education typically receive preparation in the curriculum and pedagogy of physical education in their teacher education programs, they do not typically receive instruction on the disciplinary foundations of physical education as specialist teachers do; that is, the biological, physiological, and developmental factors of human movement. Such foundational knowledge is critical for teachers of physical education to understand the physical characteristics of the children and adolescents in their gymnasium/classroom and to implement the curriculum and pedagogy of physical education into practice in an effective and appropriate way. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to provide generalist teachers who teach physical education with a synthesis of the disciplinary foundations of physical education, specifically key information regarding children’s and adolescents’ (ages 7-18): (a) physical growth and development; (b) movement skills; and (c) physical fitness. The information presented in this synthesis is based on a systematic examination of reference materials on the physical and movement development of school-age children (chosen in consultation with 10 academic researchers); information accessible online via the websites of relevant public organizations (e.g., Physical and Health Education Canada); as well as the authors’ teaching experiences and expertise as specialist physical educators, scholars of physical education, and instructors of physical education teacher education. This paper is intended to offer a relevant, simplified, and easy-to-understand reference guide to help deepen generalist teachers’ understanding of the learners in their gymnasium/classroom and ultimately enhance their teaching of physical education so as to advance their students’ development of physical literacy and healthy active lifestyles.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.010 |
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".