Physical literacy: a sixth proposition in the Australian/Victorian Curriculum: Health and Physical Education?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the context of physical education internationally (e.g. Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand) and the curriculum area of Health and Physical Education in Australia (and Victoria) there has been renewed interest philosophically, conceptually and practically in physical literacy. Recently, Sport Australia released the Australian Physical Literacy Framework to activate a ‘common language and consistent understanding about what physical literacy is and how it can be developed' [Sport Australia. (2020). Physical literacy. https://www.sportaus.gov.au/physical_literacy]. One context identified by Sport Australia to promote physical literacy is via schools and educators. Given that there is no explicit reference to physical literacy in the Victorian Curriculum: Health and Physical Education, our purpose is to critically examine the likelihood that physical literacy may impact curriculum, pedagogy and assessment within this jurisdiction. An intended outcome of this paper is to outline how such a concept could be enacted in the curriculum. We propose that there may be an opportunity of introducing this concept as a sixth proposition (joining educative outcomes, strengths-based approach, health literacy, critical inquiry and valuing movement).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".