Physical play - How do we inspire and motivate young children to be physically active through play? An international analysis of twelve countries’ national early years curriculum policies and practices for physical activity and physical play
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lifelong movement and physical activity (PA) patterns develop during early childhood. Therefore, educators (teachers and practitioners) in early childhood education and care (ECEC) should provide opportunities to support children’s play, PA, and movement development. The World Health Organization (2019) offers new recommendations for PA, for children under five years. The guidelines do not specify the ways ECEC staff cansupportPAthroughplay.Therefore, this paper investigates, how physical play (PP) is enacted globally. An internationalpolicy andpracticeanalysisoftwelve countries, (Australia[Victoria], Belgium [Flanders], Canada[Alberta], China, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UK [England] and USA) was completed by analyzing the ECEC curricula and their implementation in different cultural contexts. A content analysis was undertaken by AIESEP Early Years SIG experts revealing that PP was not clearly defined. When defined, it was described as PA, and important for children’s holistic development. The majority of curricula did not state the length/time for PP. Three main strategies for implementing PP were found: a) pedagogical framework; b) active learning methods; and c) motor development. This international analysis highlights the global need for better ECEC staff support in acknowledging and implementing PP to aid children’s overall development, PA and wellbeing.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it