Benefits of a daily physical activity program supervised by a physical and health education teacher: utility of a mixed methods study using an ecological approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The implementation of a quality daily physical activity program in school is influenced by a multitude of factors. Considering the characteristics and possible interactions of factors when choosing the study methods is likely to influence the interpretation of the results. Mixed methods approach, by collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, can lend a more comprehensive understanding of a physical activity intervention and its effects.Purpose This paper aims to assess the benefits of a daily physical activity program and underline the theoretical and methodological interrelationships of this project based on an ecological approach and using a mixed methods design.Method A semi-structured interview was used to collect the perceptions of a physical and health education teacher and self-administered questionnaires were used to survey classroom teachers and parents, while the quantification of the benefits of the program on students was based on an attention test, accelerometer measurements and a motor skills evaluation.Results This mixed methods study provided an opportunity to measure the benefits of a daily physical activity program at the intrapersonal level (students’ attention, PA intensity, and motor skills) and compare these results with findings at the interpersonal level (parents’ perceptions), and institutional level (PHE teacher and classroom teachers’ perceptions). Examining the benefits associated with the daily physical activity program using qualitative and quantitative measurement tools at different levels of the ecological approach enabled the convergence and corroboration of findings but also the elaboration, enhancement, and clarification of findings.Conclusion A mixed methods design has helped to make an optimal use of the ecological approach despite the presence of methodological limits but has also helped to increase the effectiveness of classroom teachers and physical and health education teacher delivering the daily physical activity program, and ultimately to reap greater benefits.
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 | 0.055 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".