“I Don’t Think I’ve Done Justice to the Inclusion of Queer Students in Phys. Ed.”: Creating Physical Education Learning Environments for 2SLGBTQ+ Preservice Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose : Traditionally, physical education (PE) has been a subject that reproduces heteronormativity and hegemonic masculinity. Particularly for Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, or Questioning (2SLGBTQ+) students, PE can be an unsafe and uncomfortable space. Unfortunately, research has also demonstrated that Physical Education Teacher Education programs can perpetuate the same negative and harmful discourse. Individuals who embark on a career in education will spend years in a postsecondary institution learning how to become teachers. Regardless of being in a generalist or a PE specialist degree program, the potential exists for preservice teachers (PSTs) to encounter this subject once again in their postsecondary education. The purpose of this research was to explore how three teacher educators created their PE learning environments for 2SLGBTQ+ PSTs. Method : As part of a larger explanatory sequential research project about 2SLGBTQ+ PSTs’ experiences in PE, teacher educators engaged in semistructured interviews for a qualitative study framed by queer theory. Results : Three themes were generated through Reflexive Thematic Analysis: (a) Problematic PE with Positive Potential illustrates how aspects of the subject can have negative impacts on students, but that teacher educators are working to showcase the subject’s merit; (b) Wicked (Gender) Games showcases that dominant binary norms and gender stereotypes are still prominent despite teacher educator push back; and (c) Last, Good for One, Good for All? details how teacher educators’ primary focus was general inclusion rather than an intentional focus to support 2SLGBTQ+ PSTs. Discussion/Conclusion : To truly become a more inclusive space, teacher educators need to critically reflect on and unpack heteronormative practices and discourses, gender stereotypes, and how they are intentionally supporting their 2SLGBTQ+ PSTs through PE learning environments and beyond.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".