‘Just let them have a say!’ Students’ perspective of student voice pedagogies in primary physical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While student voice pedagogies have been cited as a powerful educational tool in engaging children in the learning process, the perspectives of primary-aged children on using these pedagogies as part of everyday practice need to be considered. Within this research, student voice pedagogies were implemented as part of one teacher’s regular primary physical education (PE) practice and children’s perspectives of these pedagogies were explored. Qualitative data were collected from two consecutive cohorts of children (n = 39) over a 6-month and 9-month period respectively. Data sources included the children’s written entries in their PE scrapbooks, along with transcripts from focus group interviews (n = 4, with 16 total participants) and a teacher-led classroom discussion (n = 1). Findings show that providing children with space to share their input, along with the appropriate information to inform their voices is important to the children. Offering choices and opportunities for the children to direct their learning experiences greatly mattered to how they experienced PE. These findings illustrate the value of student voice pedagogies as everyday practice to the quality of children’s experiences in physical education. The merits of listening to student perspectives on student voice to ensure these pedagogies add value is highlighted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".