The Meaning of Physical Literacy for Instructors of Children Experiencing Disability, from an Ecological Systems Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid and widespread uptake of physical literacy (PL), there is potential for instructors to devalue participation of children who experience disability. The aim of the investigation was to understand how instructors who facilitate physical activity for children experiencing disability make sense of PL, and more specifically, how these instructors bring meaning to PL. Using interpretive phenomenological analysis, six instructors engaged in individual, semi-structured interviews. The study rationale was underpinned by the conceptual framework of ecological systems theory, which provided a foundation for the research, guided the structure of the interview guide, and facilitated a reflexive interpretation of the findings. Four themes were generated: Recognizing unique embodiments, The importance of context, Beyond physical competence, and Navigating PL's dominant discourse. The instructors' meaning of PL, impacted by relational and environmental influences, reflected the importance of movement skill development, while also embracing diverse embodiment and pedagogical flexibility by giving value to exploratory play, partial participation, family involvement, and willingness to abandon rigid lessons plans.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".