Physical education teachers’ assessment practices in health education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This article focuses on the assessment of health education (HE) in physical education (PE). PE is one of the school disciplines that can contribute substantially to educational actions in HE (Kirk, D. 2018. “Physical Education-as-Health Promotion: Recent Developments and Futures Issues.” Education and Health 36 (3): 70–75). However, studies conducted on PE teachers’ practices indicate that assessment in HE is challenging, even though it is mandatory in Quebec schools (Bezeau, D., S. Turcotte, S. Beaudoin, and J. Grenier. 2020. “Health Education Assessment Practices Used by Physical Education and Health Teachers in a Collaborative Action Research.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 25 (4): 379–393). Few studies have focused on the assessment practices of PE teachers in HE, resulting in a limited amount of empirical data being currently available (Georgakis, S., and R. Wilson. 2012. “Australian Physical Education and School Sport: An Exploration Into Contemporary Assessment.” Asian Journal of Exercise & Sports Science 9 (1): 37–52). A well-planned assessment in which pupils are involved promotes their learning and makes them accountable for their own health (Leirhaug, P. E., and C. Annerstedt. 2016. “Assessing with new Eyes? Assessment for Learning in Norwegian Physical Education.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 21 (6): 616–631). It is necessary to investigate PE teachers’ assessment practices in HE to improve the current scientific knowledge on the subject and to better understand the main challenges they face.Objectives This article addresses three research objectives that aim to determine: 1) assessment practices as reported by PE teachers who assess in HE, 2) the reasons given by PE teachers who do not assess in HE for not doing so, and 3) the perceived contribution of PE teachers to the development of pupils’ autonomy in health and well-being.Method 223 elementary school (pupils: 5–11 years old) PE teachers from Quebec (Canada) answered a questionnaire including five closed-ended and two open-ended questions specific to assessment practices in HE. A quantitative analysis of the data from the five open-ended questions was carried out using descriptive statistics in addition to a Kruskall-Wallis rank analysis (Howell, D. C. 2008. Méthodes statistiques en sciences humaines. De Boeck) with a Mann–Whitney post-hoc test (α < .05; Siegel, S., and N. J. Castellan Jr. 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Mcgrawhill). These analyses were conducted using five independent variables: 1) gender, 2) teaching experience, 3) number of schools where they teach, 4) contract status, and 5) socioeconomic background of the school. Also, the Goodman-Kruskall's G coefficient was used to analyze statistical associations between items. A qualitative analysis of the data from the two open-ended questions was carried out following (L’Écuyer, R. 1990. Méthodologie de l’analyse développementale de contenu : méthode GPS et concept de soi. Presses de l’Université du Québec) steps of inductive content analysis.Findings A large majority of the participants claimed to assess in HE (84.9%). They also mentioned respecting the official programs (87.7%), building tools to assess in HE (87.4%), assessing pupils’ progress (84.4%) and having an impact on their pupils’ autonomy in matters of health (74.9%). Those participants who worked in multiple schools assessed more in the short term (U = 2426, p = .028). Finally, those who did not assess HE (15.1%) mentioned a lack of feasibility and a lack of resources.Conclusion This study contributes to the scientific literature by focusing on an area for which there are few empirical studies and which represents a challenge for practical settings. The results show that a large majority of PE teachers assess in HE, while some face challenges that lead them to not assess this competency at all, even though it is mandatory. Based on these findings, we believe it is important to work with PE teachers to lessen the impact of these challenges on their assessment practices to help pupils’ learning.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".