Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Masters of Teaching research project is a response to the concerning state of the Daily Physical Activity (DPA) policy in Ontario elementary schools. This qualitative study is guided by the following question: what are the personal, professional, and educational factors and experiences that contribute to elementary teachers’ commitment and competence in meeting the DPA policy requirements in their classrooms? A review of the literature explains why the DPA initiative was developed, raises questions about the current success of DPA implementation in the classroom and points to the need for further research that explores the factors that facilitate policy delivery. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with two Ontario educators and analyzed. Overarching themes that emerged included participants’ reliance on segregated DPA time, and their use of online and personal resources to plan their DPA activities. Findings also revealed that participants emphasized the positive psycho-emotional benefits of DPA over its physical benefits for both themselves and their students. Further, personal factors, such as commitment to a fitness lifestyle, were more significant to their competence in meeting the DPA requirement than professional or educational factors. The results of this study suggest that although educational and professional development in the area of Health and Physical Education is an asset, it is not imperative to successful DPA implementation, and that although the Ministry’s implementation suggestions are well grounded in educational research, they may not be as practical or applicable in practice. Furthermore, this study informed my own personal practice as a beginning teacher by inspiring me to continue my fitness journey and allowing it to be reflected in my teaching.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".