Pre-service and practicing teacher's confidence, self-determined motivation, and experiences implementing Daily Physical Activity in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers (e.g., Stone et al. 2012) have highlighted low levels of implementation for Ontario’s Daily Physical Activity (DPA) policy. Teacher’s DPA experiences and the psychological variables associated with implementation remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to describe pre-service (PST) and practicing teacher’s (PT) implementation of DPA and their levels of DPA-related confidence and self-determined motivation. PSTs in a 1-year consecutive program and current PTs taking an Additional Qualification course through an Ontario Faculty of Education were recruited. Eligible PTs (N=26) completed an on-line survey about DPA and physical education, barriers, confidence, and self-determined motivation. PSTs completed similar on-line surveys (Time 1; N=17) and (Time 2; N=7) with additional questions about placement and program experiences. At Time 1, 53.3% of PSTs (n=15) reported leading at least one session of DPA during placements. PTs responsible for implementing DPA (n=18) reported an average of 3.5 days (SD=1.098). For both groups, percent confidence was highest to implement DPA 1 day per week (M=94.67, SD=13.02 for PST; M=79.87, SD=30.182 for PTs) but fell dramatically for implementation 5 days per week (M=58.07. SD= 34.615 for PSTs; M=41.07, SD=34.540 for PTs). For both groups, the main sources of motivation were identified and intrinsic regulation. DPA does not appear to be implemented at the criterion level or a priority placement experience halfway through a PST program. This coincides with low levels of confidence for DPA at criterion levels, yet more self-determined forms of motivation. Self-regulation skills may be required to enhance implementation.Acknowledgments: This study was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada One- Year Standard Research Grant 410-2011-2097
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".