The role of adults in promoting physical literacy development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults must support children to develop the confidence, competence and motivation to be physically literate for life. The International Physical Literacy Association suggests that planning and implementing opportunities to foster physical literacy and encourage lifelong participation in physical activity may occur in a variety of contexts such as the home, schools, and community. Adults play a key role in the development of physical literacy not only in planning and offering opportunities to develop physical literacy but also through modeling behavior and valuing physical activity. This symposium will explore the role of adults in fostering physical literacy development, with an emphasis on the constructs of confidence and motivation, throughout the developmental period. Presentation #1 describes the development and implementation of a physical literacy education program for adult caregivers highlighting early childhood educators of infants, toddlers, and preschool children. Presentation #2 will delve into the role of physical education teachers in providing the necessary tools and opportunities to help school aged children be exposed to physical literacy opportunities. Presentation #3 will explore the importance of sport coaches' understanding child and youth physical literacy development from a psychological perspective, and possibilities for supporting this development. Finally, Presentation #4 will examine how the physiological and psychological makeup of a child needs to be considered by adults when targeting physical literacy development and continued physical activity participation by children and youth. Through these presentations it will become very clear that parents, early childhood caregivers, teachers, coaches, and other adults play a critical role in developing children's dispositions to be physically active for life and in shaping their physical literacy journey.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".