A motivational perspective of stress and coping in physical education for children at risk for developmental coordination disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) affects 1 to 2 children in every elementary classroom and results in significant difficulties learning and performing motor skills. Many children with DCD seem to experience stress in physical education due to emphasis on their motor skills and their motor difficulties being visible to others. According to Skinner and Wellborn (1994), children may perceive physical education as stressful because it challenges or threatens their basic psychological needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy. No researchers to date, however, have examined these experiences from the perspectives of children through a stress and coping lens. The purpose of this study was to explore how children who demonstrated characteristics associated with a diagnosis of DCD, and were referred to as at risk for DCD, experienced and coped with stress in physical education. Method: Six children in Grades 4 to 6 were interviewed two times to learn about their experiences, with Skinner and Wellborn's theory informing the interpretation of the findings. Results: Three themes were identified: (1) They hurt me – psychological and physical harm sustained from peers, (2) It's hard for me – difficulties encountered in activities, and (3) I have to – pressure to meet the teacher's demands. Children coped in more adaptive ways in response to the first two stressors compared to the third stressor. Conclusion: These findings indicate that children at risk for DCD are confronted with stressors in physical education that impinge on all three of their basic psychological needs, but largely cope well when social support is provided.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".