The Evaluation of Physical Literacy of Preservice Physical Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term “physical literacy” has been integrated into national physical education standards. This study was designed to better understand how preservice physical educators put physical literacy into practice and prepare to be role models within the school context. Sixty preservice physical educators (46 males, 14 females, aged 19 to 25) participated and performed multiple tests in accordance with the second edition of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy testing battery, as well a questionnaire about their perceived physical competence. Participants had significantly poorer performance than the standard for a 12-year-old child in cardiorespiratory endurance, motor performance, and overall physical activity level. In addition, waist circumference was significantly negatively related to physical competence and physical activity level. A significant positive relationship was found between perceived physical competence and physical activity level among participants. Waist circumference size and low cardiorespiratory endurance were the areas of greatest difficulty and concern for preservice teachers. Also, there was not a significant relationship between actual competence and perceived competence. Our findings suggest a need for a review of the current teacher education curriculum to draw attention to the benefits of physical fitness and motor skills competence for physical education teachers as possible role models.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".