Alternative environment activities on both sides of the Atlantic: A Canada-Ireland consideration and comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the overemphasis of traditional sports at the expense of other movement domains in physical education (PE) programmes, there is a need to consider what factors might enable or limit PE teachers’ incorporation of some of these other domains that can support student learning. The focus of this article is on one such marginalized domain – alternative environment activities (AEAs). AEAs can afford students a breadth of opportunities for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in different environments (i.e. land, snow and ice, water, air) and improve environmental awareness and stewardship. This article reports on a comparative investigation of Nova Scotian (Canadian) and Irish PE teachers’ incorporation of AEAs in their PE programmes. To understand what similarities or differences might exist with respect to these PE teachers’ incorporation of AEAs, along with existing enablers and barriers, a self-selected sample of current PE teachers (Nova Scotia = 53; Ireland = 64) completed a 22-item online questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were employed to conduct comparisons among the two data sets. PE teachers’ understandings of curricular requirements for AEAs were found to be an issue in both Nova Scotia and Ireland. Reported significant differences include: AEA-related professional development participation; most important factors for deciding not to include AEAs; and feelings of school administrative support towards AEA incorporation. Findings also suggest that various issues may be hindering incorporation of AEAs in PE programmes, and that some of these issues do differ based on where the PE programme is situated.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".