Inclusive Physical Education: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Ontario Secondary School Health and Physical Education Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Education policies require inclusive practices across student learning environments internationally. In Canada, provinces and territories oversee their own curriculum development. This study presents a critical discourse analysis of how inclusive education is addressed within Ontario’s 2015 Health and Physical Education Curriculum, Grades 9–12. Method: Fairclough and Chouliaraki’s approach to critical discourse analysis, which encompasses structural, linguistic, and interdiscursive analysis, was used to show how language is interwoven within ideologies of physical education to represent inclusivity. Results: Three discourses were identified: (a) the discourse of equity and inclusion, (b) the discourse of opportunity, and (c) the discourse of positive outcomes. The curriculum reflects inclusivity through overt language and intention, holding the possibility for choice and opportunities beyond traditional notions of physical education. Discussion: Concerns included whether ideals presented in the curriculum reflect the realities of “discourse in action.” Transformative discourses within physical education should emerge from the student voice.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".