Characterizing Middle School Students� Physical Literacy: A Sequential Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this dissertation study was (a) to characterize middle school students’ levels of physical literacy (PL) and PL domains by gender, grade, socioeconomic status (SES), weight status, race, and ethnicity; and (b) to capture PL trajectory change as a result of receiving a theory-informed pedagogical workshop. Participants (N = 350) in sixth and seventh grades were recruited from a public middle school located in a southeastern U.S. state. These students completed the second version of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL-2). A subsample (n = 49) received a pedagogical workshop (four sessions over eight weeks), participated in two focus-group interviews (pre and post workshop), and completed the CAPL-2 upon intervention. Demographic data were collected using questionnaire, while weight and height were collected using stadiometer and weight scale to calculate body mass index (BMI) percentile. I found (a) gender-based differences in PL (favor boys; d = 0.29), cognitive (favor girls; d = 0.35), physical (favor boys; d = 0.59), and affective domains (favor boys; d = 0.32); (b) grade-based differences in cognitive (favor seventh grade; d = 0.32) and physical (favor sixth grade; d = 0.33) domains; (c) SES-based differences in PL (d = 0.52), cognitive (d = 0.33), and behavioral (d = 0.63) domains, all favoring high SES group; (d) BMI-based differences in PL (d = 0.68), physical (d = 0.90), and affective (d = 0.40) domains, all favoring normal BMI group; and (e) race-based differences in cognitive (d = 0.44) and behavioral (d = 0.78) domains all favoring White. The subsample, after workshop intervention, showed improvement in PL, and cognitive and affective domains (d: 0.29 – 0.42) as assessed by CAPL-2. Interview data delineated a positive trend of PL change by virtue of physical activity type and intensity, perceived motives, and barriers of physical activity participation. The findings of this study bear significant implications for future PL interventions. PL is a dynamic state that can be improved across populations through purposeful PE curriculum and instruction.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".