Teacher-coaches' perceived influence on the global development of student-athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, high school sports are often justified based on the competencies (e.g., physical skills, life skills, prosocial values) that are claimed to be derived from participation (Camire et al., 2009). Whether student-athletes develop in a positive or negative manner through sports is often determined largely by teachers-coaches who can substantially influence the quality of youth’s experience (Gould & Carson, 2008). Teacher-coaches are identified as teachers, by profession, who volunteer their time to coach sport teams in schools. The Canadian high school sport system is sustained by tens of thousands of teacher-coaches (School Sport Canada, 2012) but seldom has their influence on student-athlete development been empirically examined. The purpose of this study was to explore how teacher-coaches believe they can influence student-athletes’ global (i.e., physical, psychosocial, emotional) development. Twenty-five teacher-coaches (20 males, 5 females) participated in semi-structured interviews and were recruited from three regions: the National Capital Region, the Greater Toronto Area, and Northern Ontario. Participants were recruited from public, catholic, and private high schools in both rural and urban areas. Results demonstrate that teacher-coaches believe their dual role affords them abundant opportunities to develop meaningful relationships with student-athletes and get to know them on a more personal level. Furthermore, teacher-coaches believe that their involvement in athletics helps them gain credibility, trust, and respect among the student population, which puts them in a preferred position to facilitate student-athletes’ development in a positive and lasting manner. These and other results are discussed based on the youth development through sport literature.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a grant from the University of Ottawa`s Faculty of Health Sciences
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".