Comparing Canadian Generalist and Specialist Elementary School Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Barriers Related to Physical Education Instruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose : We aimed to explore and compare generalist and physical education (PE) specialist (males and females) elementary teachers’ self-efficacy to teach and the barriers perceived when teaching PE. Methods : Canadian elementary school teachers completed the validated online survey, Teacher Efficacy Scale in PE, with 11 additional questions examining the perceived strength of barriers related to teaching quality PE. Results : Specialist teachers’ self-efficacy ( n = 296) was significantly higher ( p < .05) than that of generalist teachers ( n = 818). Gender was found to predict teachers’ self-efficacy, with female generalists reporting the lowest scores on the Teacher Efficacy Scale in PE. There was a statistically significant difference between the perceived strength of nine out of the 11 listed barriers, with generalist teachers reporting barriers as more inhibitory than specialists. Discussion/Conclusion : This study highlights the gap between generalists’ and specialists’ self-efficacy to teach and the perceived barriers when teaching PE. Efforts specifically targeted to supporting female generalists teaching PE are necessary.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".