Examining Theoretical Factors That Influence Teachers’ Intentions to Implement Inclusive Physical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to apply the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior model (COM-B) to examine theoretical predictors of teachers’ intentions to implement inclusive physical education. Methods: Ontario primary and secondary teachers (n = 383) completed an online questionnaire which assessed potential factors associated with intentions toward implementation of inclusive physical education. Results: The final statistical model explained 72% of variance in intentions to implement inclusive physical education with the following theoretical domains identified as significant (p<.05) predictors: knowledge (β .09), professional role and identity (β .22), memory, attention, and decision making (β .14), social influence (β .37), and emotion (β −.20). Regarding the COM-B, the component Motivation explained the greatest amount of variance in intentions to implement inclusive physical education. Conclusions: The application of the TDF and COM-B model in this study work to extend current literature through advancing understanding regarding cognitive, affective, and social factors related to teachers’ intentions to implement inclusive physical education. Teacher training strategies should take into consideration multidimensional approaches to support teachers’ motivations to implement inclusive physical education. Future research and intervention should seek to target and foster factors such as social influences, social/professional role and identity, and knowledge. These factors, in turn, may improve teachers’ intentions to implement inclusive physical education.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".