An exploratory cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of training for teachers upon children’s motor competency outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Primary school Physical Education (PE) teachers often do not possess the knowledge to sufficiently develop motor competency. This study presents an exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial that examined a teacher training programme, specifically motor competency PE delivery, in primary schools. Methods: Participants were children (n=136) aged 5-7 years, from eight primary schools (nine classes) located in Buckinghamshire, England. Measures were adapted from the Canadian ‘Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth’ methodology, including locomotion, throwing, kicking, and balancing. Pre-post measures were collected six months apart during the same academic year. A wait-list control group received no intervention. Results: Motor competency improved for both groups, yet analysis showed that the changes were not significantly different between groups. However, there was a tendency for greater effect and interval estimates [95% confidence intervals] in the intervention group across most variables. Conclusion: Teacher training may at best produce a small improvement in children’s motor competency. However, future research should test this with larger more powerful research designs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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; 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".