Aligning extracurricular school activities with physical literacy: pilot evaluation through self-study of practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Although several important documents of education and health promotion on the international level favor practices geared toward physical literacy (PL), not all countries have yet gained experience with this holistic concept. Therefore, numerous stakeholders and practitioners who intend to align their interventional activities with PL will soon face the situation that there are no recommendations for their specific culture and language for how to design such programs. Given that such recommendations are also lacking for Germany, the goal of the present study within the uncontrolled pilot cycles of the PLACE study was (a) to describe the process of a female pedagogue (27 years old, previously unexperienced with PL) initially familiarizing herself with the PL concept and its implementation opportunities for the school setting, and (b) to retrace the process of developing and refining a PL-driven intervention for extracurricular physical education (60-90 min) of children in grades three and four at primary schools in Bremen. Methods: = 17, age range: 8-9 years, 17.6% boys). Written documents underwent qualitative content analysis with inductively generated categories. Results: Despite explicit links between the theoretical PL domains and the intervention content, the character of how PL informed the intervention level was dominated by the stance and atmosphere implemented by the deliverer (e.g., participatory attitude, open mindset). Accordingly, the team revised the intervention primarily on the levels of organization (temporal schedule and sequences), instruction, and materials. After initial stages of didactically "surviving" within classes, the deliverer could increasingly integrate tasks of cognitive engagement and provide choice for students enabling individual autonomy for nurturing a person-centered approach. Discussion: This study encourages teachers and stakeholders of physical education to seek exchange with scholars or other practitioners while simultaneously demonstrating patience in comprehensively internalizing PL and efficiently translating the concept into routines in line with individual's quality standards.
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 | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".