The Fulfillment of Council on Accreditation of Parks, Recreation and Related Professions Standards Through a Youth-Adult Partnership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Council on Accreditation of Parks, Recreation, Tourism and Related Professions (COAPRT) outlines standards for recreation programs to ensure a quality educational experience. The current case study presents findings from a youth-adult partnership in support of various COAPRT standards to assist in the development of aspiring recreation professionals. Observation and reflection data from two consecutive partnerships between youth in a high school Physical Education course and collegiate students from a Historically Black College University’s Health, Physical Education, and Recreation program are presented based on the four dimensions of Wu, Kornbluh, Weiss, and Roddy’s (2016) youth-adult partnership (Y-AP) rubric. The results are presented based on the Y-AP rubric’s dimensions: authentic decision making, natural mentors, reciprocity, and community connectedness to illustrate how they support COAPRT standards 7.01(a) (b), 7.02, and 7.03 (COAPRT, 2014). Implications are provided to support the value a Y-AP implementation can provide recreation management programs as they seek and maintain COAPRT accreditation in the development of their students.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".