An Exploration of One Girl’s Experiences in Elective Physical Education: Why Does She Continue?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participation in high school Physical Education (PE) contributes to the overall health of adolescents. However, many girls discontinue enrollment in PE as soon as the mandatory credits are met. Tailored PE courses designed to meet the needs and interests of girls may motivate them to continue participating in PE. This case study explored one girl’s story of her past experiences in PE, as well as her current experiences in a tailored elective PE course. We explored how this girl’s experiences with the course content, learning environment, and assessment affected her perceptions of PE. Findings emphasized the importance of variety within PE course content, a welcoming environment, fair and private assessment, and feelings of confidence, social safety, and competence for girls in PE. La participation aux cours d’éducation physique à l’école secondaire contribue à la santé générale des adolescents. Toutefois, plusieurs adolescentes arrêtent de s’inscrire aux cours d’éducation physique dès qu’elles ont obtenu le nombre obligatoire de crédits. Des cours adaptés pour répondre aux besoins et aux intérêts des filles pourraient les motiver à continuer à s’inscrire aux cours d’éducation physique. Cette étude de cas porte sur le récit d’une adolescente qui raconte, d’une part, ses expériences dans le passé avec des cours d’éducation physique et, d’autre part, ses expériences actuelles dans un cours d’éducation physique adapté et facultatif. Nous nous penchons sur ses expériences relatives au contenu du cours, au milieu d’apprentissage et à l’évaluation pour voir dans quelle mesure ces facteurs ont influencé sa perception de l’éducation physique. Les résultats soulignent l’importance, pour les adolescentes suivant des cours d’éducation physique, de la variété dans le contenu des cours, d’un milieu accueillant, d’une évaluation juste et privée, et de sentiments de confiance, sécurité et compétence.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".