Teachers’ Beliefs about Implementing a Physical Literacy Program for Children & Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical literacy is assumed to be important for the development of youth physical activity. In essence, those who are physically literate should lead active lives. For this reason, it is being incorporated into Canadian physical activity reports and policies. One area that physical literacy is rapidly gaining traction is in the education sector. However, it is a new construct and limited empirical evidence is available to guide physical literacy implementation in schools. The purpose of this thesis was to conduct an independent investigation of the self-efficacy and outcome expectations of teachers participating in a provincial physical literacy promotion initiative compared to an uninvolved group of teachers. This initiative is an ongoing project started by Ever Active Schools that took place in approximately 103 schools in Alberta during the 2017/2018 academic year. Teachers at 31 of these schools were administered a survey that included questions about their self-efficacy and expected outcomes of incorporating physical literacy into their teaching. A group of 90 teachers from nine other schools were recruited to act as a comparison group. Subsequent comparative analyses found no significant differences between the intervention and uninvolved teachers. Additional analyses revealed that teachers’ outcome expectations and self-efficacy are moderately related and that teaching experience may have small effects on teachers’ expected positive outcomes for fostering physical literacy in youth. These results suggest that future investigation of effective methods for physical literacy promotion and evaluation strategies in school contexts are needed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".