Using features of meaningful experiences to guide primary physical education practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing meaningful experiences in physical education has long been identified as a key objective for teachers to strive toward. Supported by a critical friend, a beginning teacher used self-study methodology to analyse ways she drew from the features of meaningful experiences to guide her planning and instruction in primary physical education. Data from a striking/fielding games (e.g. softball, cricket) unit were collected and analysed. Results demonstrate how the teacher came to use the features of meaningful experiences (i.e. social interaction, fun, challenge, motor competence, personally relevant learning, and delight) in integrated ways to guide her planning and instruction in physical education. Through committing to prioritising meaningfulness and reconceptualising ways an experience may be meaningful, the teacher was able to foster these experiences for students primarily through using features of meaningful experiences to filter her decisions. This study offers preliminary support for pedagogies and approaches teachers may use to prioritise meaningful experiences in primary physical education.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it