Differences in Enjoyment and Need for Cognition Relative to Teaching Games for Understanding, Physical Education, and Intentions to Enroll
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary aim of this quasi-experimental study was to investigate differences in enjoyment and need for cognition between regular physical education and a Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) unit by level (higher or lower) of intention to enroll in physical education. A sample of 71 ninth-grade physical education students completed a survey assessing enjoyment and need for cognition before and after participating in a 2-week TGfU territorial games unit. Results included significantly lower enjoyment for TGfU than for physical education both overall and among students with higher intentions to enroll. Students more prone to future enrollment also had higher need for cognition during TGfU than physical education after the study controlled for need for cognition in physical education. It may be necessary to better explain and justify TGfU especially with students higher in intentions to enroll while striving to enhance cognitive engagement during TGfU in those with lower intentions to enroll.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".