The Meaningful Physical Education Approach: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review explores the current research (2017–2023) on meaningful physical education and learning about meaningful physical education both descriptively and thematically. The guiding research question was, What is the current state of the literature related to meaningful physical education/learning about meaningful physical education? This scoping review utilized PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Expansion to guide methodological choices and consisted of a keyword search performed on four databases. After screening articles, the final sample included nine articles that highlight the work of international scholars. Participant experience spanned across educational settings and locations encompassing both schools and higher education. The thematic analysis led to the identification of three themes: (a) Teachers and faculty members are generally supportive of meaningful physical education, (b) student autonomy and voice within physical education enhance engagement, and (c) contemporary approaches to professional development and physical education teacher education support practitioners in understanding and integrating meaningful physical education.
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 | 0.066 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.051 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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".