Exploring physical literacy in children aged 8 to 12 years old: a cross-cultural comparison between China and Greece
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The concept of physical literacy (PL) has been advocated as a crucial determinant for increasing the quality and quantity of movement and physical activity (PA). Children’s PL has been rarely compared across countries, although it has shown low levels in many countries. This study aimed to explore and compare children’s PL from China and Greece. Methods A total of 327 Chinese (47.1% boys) and 295 Greek children (48.1% boys) aged 8 to 12 years participated in this study. Children’s PL was objectively assessed by the Chinese and Greek version of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy, 2nd edition, which consists of four domains: Daily Behavior, Physical Competence, Motivation and Confidence, and Knowledge. and Understanding. Univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) on total PL and domain scores were conducted in both countries, respectively. Results MANOVA revealed significant differences in total PL and distribution scores between two countries (Pillais’ trace = 0.260, F = 53.855, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.260), with Greek children scoring better than Chinese. Nevertheless, most children failed to present an adequate PL level as they were mostly in the “progressing” stage. The chi-square denoted that the distribution of Chinese and Greek participants across the CAPL-2 interpretive categories was statistically different for total PL (χ 2 [3] = 18.726, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.174), with more Greek children being classified as “achieving” and “excelling”. Conclusions The variance between Chinese and Greek children may be attributed to cultural differences in the context of PA, such as PE policies and settings. The relatively low level of PL shown in both countries echoes the global trend of the declining PA among children, with an increasing amount of their time spent in a sedentary lifestyle. These findings highlight the need to consider children’s cultural factors and pedagogical strategies in terms of developing their PL. Future research is required to explore the impact of cultural background on PL development among children and appropriate strategies to migrate their influence.
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 | 0.000 | 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".