The Use of the Peer Teaching Model in Physical Education and Sports Instruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is a review that aimed to examine the effects of the peer teaching model implemented in physical education classes on students’ motor skill development, acquisition of fundamental skills, maintenance of physical fitness, self-confidence, and cooperation. Various scientific studies conducted with students of different ages and skill levels were examined. These studies have found that education using peer teaching positively affects students’ psychomotor development and leads to higher levels of participation and success compared to traditional teaching methods. In interventions implemented across different sports branches, it was observed that the accuracy of students’ performances increased and the number of repetitions grew. Furthermore, it was determined that using the peer teaching model enhances students’ self-confidence, promotes social interaction, and contributes to the development of healthy lifestyle habits. On the basis of the present study’s findings, it is recommended that the peer teaching model be systematically integrated into physical education curricula. Providing short-term guidance training to educators may also enhance the effectiveness of the model. Peer teaching should be regarded as a holistic approach that supports both physical and socio-emotional development, and it is an effective instructional strategy in the field of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".