Assessing Instructional Confidence of Secondary Health Educators in Illinois: Implications for Curricular and Policy Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the relationship between the training/preparation of physical education teachers and their perceivedinstructional confidence levels across major topic areas established by the Illinois State Board of Education ascritical content areas. In total, 283 individuals participated and were included in the data analysis. The participantssurveyed were currently enrolled or recently graduated from physical education or kinesiology departments at (1.)the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, (2.) Illinois State University, and (3.) Eastern Illinois University.Data were collected via in-person and email surveys using the HECS 18 item survey instrument. Analysisdemonstrated a statistically significant difference exists between the perceived instructional confidence of currentstudents and recent graduates regarding major health topic areas. Further work with this population is required todetermine if the results seen in the state of Illinois are consistent. The next proposed sample area will be the state ofColorado and its three main Universities (University of Colorado, Colorado State University, Metropolitan StateUniversity of Denver) and their health and physical educators (HPE).
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".