Two teachers’ positioning toward Meaningful PE: agency, sensemaking, and ownership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although physical education teachers can choose from a wide variety of pedagogical innovations to inform their practice, many typically do not engage in sustained adoption. Some suggest this may be because many innovations are mandated and do not align with teachers’ identities and their personal beliefs about teaching and learning. In this way, teachers actively position themselves in relation to innovations they encounter. The purpose of this research is to examine the positioning of two teachers toward Meaningful PE.Conceptual Framework: Ketelaar et al. (Citation2012) highlight three related concepts that influence teachers’ positioning toward educational innovations: agency, sensemaking, and ownership. These concepts help describe similarities and differences in teachers’ positioning in relation to Meaningful PE.Methodology: A qualitative case study methodology was used. The cases are two specialist physical education teachers who have used Meaningful PE for at least four years. Data included individual semi-structured and focus group interviews, and audio recordings of meetings. Data were analysed in two stages. First, data from each case was analysed independently (within-case analysis). The concepts of agency, sensemaking, and ownership guided the development of codes and themes, enabling us to describe each participant’s positioning toward Meaningful PE. Second, codes and themes from the first stage were compared (cross-case analysis) to identify patterns and differences.Results: Agency, sensemaking, and ownership influenced how both teachers used Meaningful PE in various ways. In particular, both teachers explained how Meaningful PE provided them with a language to articulate their personal philosophies of physical education that had remained previously out of reach. Meaningful PE aligned with their beliefs and ultimately provided actions to support their enactment of the type of physical education they wanted students to experience.Significance: This research provides evidence about the influence that agency, sensemaking, and ownership have on teachers’ sustained adoption of innovations, which in this particular case applies to Meaningful PE. The outcomes of this research carry implications for how developers of other innovations might aim toward sustained implementation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".