Systematic review of educator behaviours associated with physical activity of early years children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Educators in early years settings influence children's physical activity (PA) levels through their pedagogical choices and behaviours. To date, minimal research has been conducted on the relationship between educator action and children's PA levels. The purpose of this systematic review was to understand which educator behaviours and actions in early years settings have been shown to engage children in PA. METHODS: Five online databases (Academic Search Complete, ERIC, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL Complete and PubMed) were searched for articles that showed an association between educator behaviour and the PA level of children between the ages of zero and eight. RESULTS: Eleven studies met all inclusion criteria, yet showed great variability in design and data collection methods. The risk of bias was assessed using previously published criteria adapted to this study and inline with the CONSORT statement. A binomial test on the data revealed a statistically significant deviation from chance expectation (p < .001) in relation to educator action influencing child PA. Ten of the studies focussed on educator PA, four studies highlighted the use of prompting and encouragement, three studies analysed broad statements of adult interaction, two studies called for planning activity sessions and discussions and two studies encouraged role modelling. The low number of studies included in the review and the high risk of bias indicates that caution with these results is needed. CONCLUSIONS: While this review highlights the importance of educator PA (and other behaviours that had a positive association) on child PA level, it underscores the need for high-quality research to examine the relationship between educator actions and child PA. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022338819).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".