Teachers’ sensemaking in implementation of Meaningful Physical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background While PE has arguably changed little since the 1960s, there is a rich history of the development of innovations in PE pedagogy. A key challenge lies in the sustained and broad use of these innovations. Researchers have sought to understand how teachers implement these innovations in their classrooms and the factors that lead to their sustained use. The concept of sensemaking offers an avenue for considering the processes by which teachers make sense of innovations in relation to a broad variety of personal and situational factors, which influence teachers’ conceptualizations and implementation of innovations. Much of the research to date on teachers’ sensemaking has centered on the use of innovations which have been mandated through policy and reforms. However, in this research, we take a different approach by beginning with a group of teachers who have voluntarily adopted the Meaningful PE innovation and integrated it into their regular teaching practice for a sustained period of time. The purpose of this research is to understand how these teachers have made sense of Meaningful PE in their local contexts.Methods Six teachers from five countries (Cambodia, Canada, China, Vietnam and USA) participated as collaborators in the study. Data collection methods included (a) individual semi-structured interviews with teachers, (b) teacher-generated artifacts (e.g. blogs and social media posts), and (c) analysis of teachers’ local curriculum documents. An inductive thematic analysis of the data was conducted.Findings Three themes illustrate how each teacher's sensemaking processes influenced their implementation of Meaningful PE, including making sense of Meaningful PE through (a) the attributes of the innovation, (b) teachers’ personal characteristics and beliefs, and (c) local curriculum. Teachers in this study made sense of Meaningful PE through the ways it clearly connected to their beliefs about PE teaching while also helping to resolve ambiguities and uncertainties in their practice. Implementation of Meaningful PE helped teachers bridge the gap between their espoused vision and enacted practice, while supporting more authentic interpretations and implementation of curricular goals and outcomes.Conclusions This research holds important implications for supporting PE teachers’ sustained professional learning about and implementation of innovative practices in PE. Specifically, the reciprocity between teachers’ interpretations of the innovation and their local curriculum points to (a) the importance of situating innovations within teachers’ local contexts and alongside local policy mandates when presenting them to teachers and (b) the potential for implementation of innovative approaches that deal with the how and why of teachers’ practice to help teachers understand and (re)interpret the what (i.e. mandated content and assessment) of their PE teaching in new ways.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".