Understanding the engagement of children with impairments in physical education: A review of research using self-determination theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is commonly used in research to understand children's motivation in physical education because the major components of one of its mini-theories – Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT) – are highly relevant in this context. SDT has been extensively applied in physical education research with children without impairments; however, this does not seem to be the case for children with impairments. Given BPNT's underlying assumption that all people feel an innate commitment to satisfy their needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy, it has potential to advance research in this area. The purpose of this review was to summarize the adapted physical education literature from 2007 to 2018 concerning at least one of the major components of BPNT to determine the nature and extent of research. Method: Scholarly literature was searched for in relevant databases and journals, with data of interest extracted from 15 eligible studies. Results: The majority of studies examined different facets of physical education that supported or thwarted children's need for autonomy, followed by competence and relatedness respectively. A mix of qualitative and quantitative methods was used to gather data from elementary and middle school aged children with a variety of impairments. Conclusion: The results indicate that teachers and paraprofessionals primarily thwart the basic psychological needs of children with impairments in physical education. Greater research is needed with respect to all of the components of BPNT, particularly relatedness though, as positive student-professional relationships can contribute to the fulfillment of all children's needs.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".