Cultivating physical literacy and prosocial behavior through basketball: a quasi-experimental study on the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical literacy and social responsibility are crucial educational outcomes that foster lifelong physical activity and prosocial behaviors. The Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) model, which is widely applied to cultivate a positive character through sports and movement-based activities, promotes physical competence, self-regulation, and prosocial behavior. However, research on its effectiveness in primary schools is limited. Therefore, this study aims to examine whether a TPSR-based physical education program increases physical literacy and social responsibility among primary school students. METHODS: A pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design was used. A total of 130 students (65 males, 65 females; mean age = 10.9 ± 0.729) participated and were allocated into an experimental (n = 65) or a control (n = 65) group. The experimental group participated in a TPSR-based physical education program, whereas the control group followed the school's usual physical education program. The intervention spanned 12 weeks (2 sessions per week). Pre- and post-intervention measures were conducted using the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL-2) and the Personal and Personal and Social Responsibility Scale for Physical Education (RSRSPE). RESULTS: A total of 130 students (mean age = 10.9 ± 0.73; 65 in each group) completed the intervention. Significant Group × Time interactions were observed in the domain of physical literacy, including Physical Literacy Total Score (F = 10.298, p = 0.002, ηp² = 0.074), Physical Competence (F = 7.186, p = 0.008, ηp² = 0.053), and Daily Behavior (F = 9.577, p = 0.002, ηp² = 0.070), indicating notable improvements in students' physical literacy. However, no statistically significant changes were found in the Knowledge and Understanding or Motivation and Confidence dimensions (p > 0.05). In terms of social responsibility, the intervention group exhibited significant improvements in Total Score for Social Responsibility (F = 8.706, p = 0.004, ηp² = 0.064), as well as in Caring (F = 6.918, p = 0.010, ηp² = 0.051), Leadership (F = 5.282, p = 0.023, ηp² = 0.040), Self-direction (F = 9.889, p = 0.002, ηp² = 0.072), and Value (F = 11.699, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.084). No significant changes were observed in Effort, Goal, Responsibility, or Respect (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the TPSR model as an effective teaching approach with significant impact and great potential for enhancing primary school students' physical literacy and social responsibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2400092289.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".