Conceptualizing meaningful physical education: A secondary school study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A primary goal of physical education (PE) is to instill in young people a lifelong commitment to physical activity. However, not all current forms of PE are achieving this goal (Dyson, 2006; Kirk, 2010). Students claim that PE often lacks personal meaning and is detached from their lived realities due to a misplaced emphasis on obesity reduction, fitness outcomes, and a limited range of sport techniques (Kirk, 2010; Lodewyk & Pybus, 2013). As a result, many students may have miseducative experiences in PE (Gleddie, D. & Schaefer, L., 2014). The goal of this research project is not to prescribe a specific initiative for teaching PE. Rather, a broader understanding of students within each school context is required to conceptualize meaningful physical education experiences. The purpose of this research was to 1) identify the concepts of Meaningful PE that students found to be most important and 2) distinguish which concepts have the most potential to provide students with Meaningful PE (Meaningful PE) (Beni, Fletcher, & Ní Chróinín, 2017; Fletcher, Ní Chróinín, Gleddie, & Beni, 2021) experiences. Data was collected using the GroupWisdomⓇ Concept Mapping (GCM) (2021) platform and group semi-structured interviews with the objective to have PE students and teachers consider and conceptualize Meaningful PE. Three PE teachers and their students in an urban secondary sports academy school (SASS) in Alberta were the participants. GCM (Kane & Trochim, 2007) revealed the major tenet of Meaningful PE is relationships. These were articulated through four key concepts including kindness, quality education, fun, and physical activity. Findings also illustrated the value of GCM as an appropriate tool to assist students and teachers to identify context specific concepts of Meaningful PE.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".