Lifelong physically active lifestyles and the Manitoba physical education curriculum: an inquiry into vision and reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general research problem of my study is the suggested discrepancy between what a physical education curriculum articulates and what physical education teachers actually implement and teach in their gymnasiums. Although the curriculum may be designed with a vision or goal in mind, teachers may not carry with them that same belief. In addition, these beliefs may or may not influence the types of physical activities they implement in their teaching. To address this research problem, my study surveyed and interviewed Manitoba physical education (PE) teachers about their views on the purpose of PE, the rationale for their beliefs, and the types of activities they are using to implement the PE curriculum. Forty-five PE teachers from across Manitoba participated in the survey strand of the study, and six teachers were interviewed. The study found that across all PE teachers, across streams, years of experiences and PE assignment portion, the belief was common that a primary purpose to PE is to develop physically active and healthy lifestyles. Furthermore, the PE teachers allocated almost three times as much instruction time to an instructional model that focuses on constant activity than to a model that focuses on the mastery of skills related to a sport discipline. While study participants generally knew and agreed with the vision of the Manitoba PE curriculum, some teachers used means to achieve that vision that were not supported by the research literature on how to achieve that vision.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".