Understanding the social and emotional domains of physical literacy in post‐secondary education: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While a variety of definitions persist, a common definition of physical literacy is that it encompasses the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities over the lifespan. While this perspective to physical literacy is broad, a great deal of curricular outcomes still focus on the physical competence, knowledge and understanding aspects of the framework leaving a gap in the holistic nature of the construct. This scoping review explores the construct of physical literacy within post‐secondary education, focusing on how social and emotional dimensions are integrated in teaching, delivery and assessment. This scoping review followed PRISMA‐ScR guidelines. Five online databases were used to identify papers published that used physical literacy in combination with post‐secondary as the educational setting with a focus on curriculum. The findings underscore a substantial gap in the literature. It was identified that the physical aspects of physical literacy were predominant with limited attention to the social and emotional domains. The gap implies that the comprehensive construct of physical literacy, which encompasses non‐physical facets, is often omitted in post‐secondary curricula. The review highlights an unexplored opportunity for post‐secondary institutions to intentionally construct more comprehensive physical literacy programmes. By incorporating social and emotional dimensions into these programmes, students gain a more holistic understanding of physical literacy. Subsequent research can delve into effective integration strategies and the potential benefits of such an approach.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".