Teachers’ Engagement With Professional Development to Support Implementation of Meaningful Physical Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose : The purposes of this research were to design a professional development (PD) initiative to introduce teachers to a pedagogical innovation—the Meaningful Physical Education (PE) approach—and to understand their experiences of the PD process. Method : Twelve PE teachers in Canada engaged in an ongoing PD initiative, designed around characteristics of effective PD, across two school years as they learned about and implemented Meaningful PE. Qualitative data were collected and analyzed. Findings : This research showed that teachers valued a community of practice and modeling when learning to implement Meaningful PE. While teachers were mostly favorable to the PD design, there were several tensions between ideal and realistic forms of PD. Discussion : This research offers support for several characteristics of effective PD to support teachers’ implementation of a novel pedagogical approach and highlights the need to balance tensions in providing forms of PD that are both effective and practical.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it