Self-efficacy and outcome expectations of albertan educators for fostering physical literacy in a provincial physical literacy program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical literacy is assumed to be important for the development of youth physical activity. However, empirical evidence about this construct is limited. For instance, clear articulations about the beliefs of professionals working with physical literacy are needed. This study presents findings from an evaluation of a provincial physical literacy mentorship program, the Physical Literacy in Residence (PLR) project. Method: A cross-sectional case-control quasi-experimental design was employed. The PLR project was implemented in 103 schools across Alberta during the 2017/2018 school year. The sample for analysis included 93 educators from 28 PLR schools and 67 educators from 9 control schools. The short form of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale was modified for physical literacy. A set of 12 physical literacy outcome expectations in relation to likelihood, value, and temporal proximity were measured. Null modeling was conducted to examine effects of shared group variance for the purpose of guiding further analyses. Results: High intraclass correlation coefficients indicated clustered variance structures. Therefore, multiple regressions, controlling for clustered variance, were performed using Mplus 8 software. Outcome expectations were found to have strong relationships with self-efficacy among both the control educators, R2 = .23, p < .05 and intervention educators, R2 = .28, p < .001. But, the likelihood of the outcome expectations only added significantly to the model in the intervention group, p < .01. Conclusion: Outcome expectations and self-efficacy of teachers for fostering physical literacy are closely linked; however, the PLR intervention resulted in educators believing these outcomes are more likely to occur.Acknowledgments: This work was funded through the Mitacs Accelerate program in partnership with Ever Active Schools.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".