Teachers matter: Examining the feasibility and acceptability of a multimedia transformational teaching intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical Education has been highlighted as an important setting for promoting children’s physical activity engagement beyond the school context (Trudeau & Shephard, 2008). Previous research has, however, found that elementary school teachers report difficulty in effectively implementing physical education, with feelings of low competence in the subject (Faulkner & Reeves, 2000) and competition with other subjects (Morgan & Hansen, 2008) as barriers. Drawing from the tenets of transformational leadership theory (Bass & Riggio, 2006), a 30-minute film (entitled ‘Teachers Matter: Engaging Youth through Transformational Teaching’) and resource materials were developed as part of a multimedia intervention. In order to test the feasibility and acceptability of the program, semi-structured interviews were conducted with elementary school teachers (N = 9), who had watched the film and utilized the accompanying resource materials. The results revealed that teachers responded positively, with many teachers reporting feeling “inspired” and “motivated” by the multimedia intervention. The teachers were able to identify and describe the theoretical components of transformational teaching after making use of the resources, and many teachers conveyed that they reflected on means to improve their teaching practice following exposure to the program. All 9 teachers reported moderate to high ability to implement the program in their own day-to-day teaching practices, satisfaction with the film, and relevance of the material. Overall, the feedback garnered from the teachers indicated that the program is feasible and a valuable resource. This multimedia intervention represents a simple and cost-effective means of intervention, and has the potential to support elementary teachers’ interactions with students. In turn, such interactions have the possibility to positively impact students’ cognitions toward, and engagement in, physical activity.Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities and Research Council (SSHRC) and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research for their support of this project.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".