Loving and Loathing Physical Education: An Exploration of Students’ Beliefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes a recent study that investigated the physical education (PE) beliefs of a particular population of students (i.e., female and male students in Grades 4 through 10 from a single school stream). Through their completion of an adapted survey, students (N = 506) were able to share their PE beliefs in relation to five separate subscales: PE Interest, PE Status, PE Connotations, PE Teachers, and PE Curriculum. Results suggest that grade and gender differences exist with respect to these subscales. Consequently, it is herein suggested that the discovery of such differences within this case study merits considerations for educational change, as well as continued and deeper inquiries into understanding the nature of PE beliefs for female and male students in various grade levels. Cet article décrit une étude récente qui a porté sur les croyances qu'a une population particulière d'élèves (c.-à-d. filles et garçons, de la 4e à la 10e année, d'une école à voie unique) par rapport à l'éducation physique. Par le biais d'une enquête adaptée, les élèves (N = 506) ont partagé leurs croyances sur l'éducation physique en fonction de cinq sous-échelles séparées: intérêt, statut, sens affectifs, enseignants et curriculum. Les résultats donnent à penser qu'il existe, par rapport à ces sous-échelles, des différences liées à l'année scolaire et au genre. On propose donc que les différences révélées par cette étude de cas méritent d'être considérées dans le contexte de changements pédagogiques et d'être étudiées en profondeur et à long terme pour comprendre la nature des croyances d'élèves, filles et garçons et à divers années scolaires, relatives à l'éducation physique.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".