Exploring the meaning of sport camp instructors' experiences using photo elicitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults involved in sport contexts are main contributors in the promotion of skill development and positive development for children and youth (Baker et al., 2003; Gould et al., 2002). In particular, instructors in sport camp contexts have been found to be very influential in the experiences of children and youth participants (Strachan & Davies, 2014). To this end, the purpose of the current study was to explore the experiences of the instructors and gain some insight into program delivery and outcomes. Seventeen summer sport camp instructors were recruited and a visual method (i.e., photo elicitation) was used in the data collection. Following the data collection, interviews were conducted with each participant to learn about the meaning behind the pictures they took. Interviews were inductively analyzed to create themes and then deductively analyzed to place into categories based on the three key elements in positive developmental sport settings (Strachan et al., 2011). Themes related to appropriate structure, development, and supportive interactions resulted from the study. Instructors struggled slightly with lesson delivery and some logistics. In the theme of development, instructors commented about their role in promoting physical, personal, and social development for the children and youth but also discussed the importance of their own physical, personal, and social development within their role as an instructor. Further, the concept of job citizenship was indicated as an important piece to personal development. Finally, the growth of positive relationships and interactions as well as a realization of their role in promoting life skills and being a role model was discussed. Implications for positive youth development will be explored.Acknowledgments: Dean's Research Funding (Faculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, University of Manitoba)
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".