Not academic enough? Enjoyment of physical education and the arts and school engagement in early and middle adolescence: ¿Suficientemente académico? Disfrute de la Educación Física y las Artes e implicación del estudiante con la escuela en la adolescencia temprana y media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
School engagement during adolescence is an important personal asset for youth development. While multiple factors contribute to student\nengagement at school, research on the role of curricular factors is scarce. Based on a secondary analysis of data from Cycle 3 of the National\nLongitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, this study examined the associations of Canadian students’ enjoyment of arts education, language arts,\nmathematics, physical education, and science with their engagement at school during early and middle adolescence, accounting for relevant demographic,\nfamily, peer, school, and community factors. All things considered, high levels of enjoyment of physical education and arts education were among the\ntop factors making a contribution to school engagement in both periods of adolescence, and enjoyment of physical education was actually the strongest\ncontributor to school engagement in early adolescence. The findings suggest that curricular factors, and in particular the quality of students’ experiences\nin physical education and arts education, may be more important than previously recognized in terms of understanding and promoting school\nengagement in early and middle adolescence. Specifically, the findings provide initial evidence that a positive experience in physical education and arts\neducation can contribute to student engagement and valuing of school. In addition, the findings provide further support for the role of participation in\nextracurricular activities and after school programs in fostering a sense of connectedness to and endorsement of school values and outcomes during the\ndevelopmental periods considered.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".