Path Associations Between Preservice Physical Educators’ Beliefs About Epistemology and Their Value and Self-Efficacy for Sport Education and Teaching Games for Understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers’ beliefs about epistemology – that is, their personal broad mental representations about the nature of reality, knowledge, and how people know and learn – have been associated with the many educational outcomes both in the classroom and in physical education. Little is known about whether these beliefs predict physical educators’ value (i.e., interest, importance, like, and usefulness) and self-efficacy (i.e., confidence in performing) for using constructivist teaching models such as sport education and teaching games for understanding. As a result, this study examined path associations from beliefs about epistemology (epistemic worldviews and epistemological beliefs) to value and self-efficacy for sport education and TGfU in prospective physical educators. The sample consisted of 317 undergraduate students enrolled in a large (19,000 student) public university in south-central Canada. These participants completed a survey lasting approximately 10-12 minutes near the conclusion of one of their elective university classes in formal individual-dual games/sports (third year) or formal team games/sports (fourth year). Results revealed that students on average held more to a constructivist than a realist epistemic worldview, held relatively low unavailing epistemological beliefs for games (e.g., stable and simple knowledge that is learned quickly, and had high value and self-efficacy for sport education and teaching games for understanding. The path analyses revealed an excellent fit of the model to the data for these constructivist instructional models with each pathway significant for teaching games for understanding and three of the four for sport education. The results signal that prospective physical educators may be more susceptible to having less value and self-efficacy for using more constructivist instructional models if they believe games knowledge is relatively stable, objective, uncomplicated (simple), quickly learned facts derived more passively (rote learning) from mainly outer sources like expert teachers, coaches, and information resources. More efforts may be needed to uncover, explain, and account for underlying beliefs about epistemology prior to operationalizing constructivist instructional models such as sport education and teaching game for understanding.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".