MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613866883

Physical Literacy is...? What Teachers Really Know

2017· article· en· W2613866883 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexandra L. Stoddart, M. Louise Humbert

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue phénEPS / PHEnex Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyConfusionPhysical educationComprehensionCurriculumLiteracy educationHumanitiesPedagogyPsychologyPhilosophyLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical education has been identified as an opportune way to develop physical literacy, and Whitehead (2010) notes the crucial role teachers play in developing and fostering physical literacy. Due to the critical role that teachers play in the development of physical literacy it is important that they understand this concept. The purpose of this study was to explore what current teachers of physical education understand about physical literacy. Teachers (N=106) in a Canadian province completed a questionnaire regarding their understanding of physical literacy and its implementation in physical education. Findings indicate a wide range of comprehension and confusion about how physical literacy is incorporated into instruction in the physical education curriculum. Ultimately, further work is required to alleviate confusion surrounding physical literacy so teachers can effectively help children develop physical literacy to be active over the lifespan. Keywords: physical literacy, physical education, teachers, specialists, generalists L’education physique est reconnue comme une discipline appropriee pour developer la litteratie physique et Whitehead (2010) affirme que les enseignants ont un role crucial dans le developpement de cette litteratie. Etant donne ce role crucial des enseignants, il est important qu’ils / ells comprennent ce concept. Le but de cette etude est d’explorer la comprehension de ce concept demontree par des enseignants d’education physique. Des enseignants (n=106) d’une province canadienne ont complete un questionnaire portant sur leur comprehension de la litteratie physique et sur sa concretisation en education physique. Les resultats revelent des comprehensions tres diverses et de la confusion sur les facons d’incorporer la litteratie physique dans l’enseignement de l’education physique. Ultimement, un travail important sera exige pour dissiper la confusion a propos du concept pour que les enseignants puissent aider les enfants a developper leur litteratie physique et ainsi etre actifs tout au long de leur vie. Mots cles: litteratie physique; education physique; enseignants specialistes; enseignants generalistes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue phénEPS / PHEnex JournalSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207