How PE teacher’s role as physical activity promotor is perceived by the students? Comparison in Quebec and Wallonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Promoting a physically active lifestyle and preparing life-long physically educated citizens are the main objectives of any PE teacher worldwide. Nevertheless, in some countries, this objective is required by the curriculum while, in other, it remains an implicit priority. Such difference is noticed between Quebec and Wallonia. Since 2001, the Quebec Ministry of Education decided to entrust PE and health education to PE teachers. In the same time, in Wallonia, PE remained mainly focused on traditional topics such as motor/sports skills, fitness and social development. This could explain why Wallonian students consider that their school experience does not contribute to the development of their physically lifestyle. The aim of this study is to compare the students’ perceptions of the pedagogical approaches of the PE teachers in both countries. An online questionnaire was developed in order to determine how much the PE teacher contributes to motivate the students to be physically active, to provide confidence to the students to adopt a physically active lifestyle, to improve students’ knowledge about physical activity, and to make them autonomous active citizens. Data were collected in Quebec (193 students of 6 teachers) and in Wallonia (280 students of 11 teachers). An inductive system of categories was developed for the answers to the open questions (inter-analyst reliability > 86%). The current data analysis shows that students’ answers from both countries can be classified in the same categories. Additional treatments are needed to determine if they differ. On the other hand, pedagogical approaches described by the students are really diverse. Even when the educational requirements are not explicitly focused on the promotion of a healthy lifestyle, students mention that their PE teachers behave in a way to support their active behaviour. However, specific interventions do not seem to be well identified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".