Re-defining negative sport experiences: The process of positive youth development in school physical education and sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research highlights the potential of youth sport contexts to facilitate positive youth development (PYD) (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005). Increasingly, research has focused on the process of PYD in competitive and recreational sport contexts; however fewer investigations have focused PYD in school contexts. The objective of this study was to explore youths’ experiences developing life skills through school-based physical education (PE) and sport programs. Data was collected through semi-structured focus group interviews using a case study design. Twenty-six grade 7 and 8 students (50% female) involved in mandatory PE classes and a variety of competitive school teams participated in the study. A unique finding emerged regarding the process of PYD in the school context. Specifically, negative experiences were found to facilitate the development of positive life skills. While youth may have initially perceived experiences to be negative their reaction was to re-define the experiences as positive learning or growth experiences. For example, boys on competitive school teams reported in-team fighting as a negative experience. However, they discussed that this experience facilitated the development of teamwork skills that would prevent a similar negative experience from occurring in the future. Findings extend current research which has primarily dichotomized experiences into positive and negative domains (e.g., Fraser-Thomas & Côté, 2009); it is possible that the division may be concealing the potential development of resiliency. Findings will also be discussed within the context of positive growth following adversity (Tamminen et al., 2013) and schools as optimal contexts for learning through mistakes (OHPEC, 2010).
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".