In-Service Teachers’ and Educational Assistants’ Professional Development Experiences for Inclusive Physical Education
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
Purpose : The objective of this study was to understand and learn about in-service teachers’ and educational assistants’ professional development (PD) experiences for inclusive physical education (IPE), individually and collaboratively. Method : Using a multiple case study design and hermeneutic inquiry, the experiences of three teachers and three educational assistants were investigated. Data sources included semistructured interviews, focus groups, observations, and researcher reflective journals. Results : The practitioners’ experiences with PD for IPE revealed the following major themes: (a) it is just not there: IPE-PD is rare, (b) taking initiative: maximizing consultants as IPE-PD, and (c) together we are better: desire for collaborative IPE-PD. Discussion/Conclusions : PD for IPE needs to be developed and implemented for teachers and educational assistants working as an instructional team together . Engaging these practitioners in collaborative IPE-PD can support their learning and the teaching of IPE and acts as a starting point to form communities of practice in IPE.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it