“Where was this when I was in Physical Education?” Physical literacy enriched pedagogy in a quality physical education context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In recent years, there has been a call to restructure physical education (PE) practices and outcomes. A physical literacy enriched pedagogy approach would support this change by more intentional design of lesson planning that includes concurrent development of competence & confidence and inclusion of students of all levels of ability, leading to holistic development of the student. Despite this potential, there is little research to date that outlines PE pedagogical practices with physical literacy as a foundation. The purpose was to explore pedagogical practices and perspectives from elementary PE teachers through a physical literacy enriched pedagogy lens in a high-quality PE context. Methods: One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of elementary PE teachers within one school division. Interviews with all participants focused on questions related to PE and physical literacy. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data collected from the audio-recorded interviews. Results: Four themes were generated based on the semi-structured interviews from six elementary PE teachers from one school division. The results identified key physical literacy enriched pedagogical practices based on four themes: supporting a holistic PE experience based upon physical literacy as an outcome; movement within and beyond PE; inclusive and individualized experiences; and physical literacy practices bringing the school community together. The findings were then connected to the physical literacy cycle and UNESCO components of quality PE. Conclusions: All participants spoke to how their pedagogy focused on the holistic development and inclusion of their students based upon activation of various feedback pathways of the physical literacy cycle. The themes that emerged and subsequent insight gained from teachers went beyond existing physical literacy cycles, in particular by discussing development of students from cognitive, affective, social and creative (problem solving) perspectives, supporting an expansion to the existing physical literacy cycle as presented.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".