Teacher perceived barriers to implementing regular daily physical activity in Simcoe County elementary schools / by Cindy Middlemass Strampel.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: \nTeachers in Ontario are expected to implement 20 minutes of daily physical activity \n(DPA) into their daily programming, due to the Ministry of Health Promotion guidelines adapted \nin 2006. This study examined whether or not teachers perceived barriers to implementing the \ndaily 20 minutes of DPA, and if so what those barriers were. This study also examined potential \nsolutions to these barriers in order to enable teachers to successfully implement the DPA into \ntheir programs. \nMethods: \nA survey was distributed to a convenience sample of 137 certified elementary school \nteachers from a public school board in Simcoe County. Participants were asked to rank several \npreviously identified barriers to DPA and possible solutions using a five-point Likert-scale. \nParticipants were also asked two open-ended questions in order to gain further information on \nany other perceived barriers not mentioned in the survey, and also on any other solutions not \nmentioned in the survey. The quantitative data was analysed and the open-ended questions were \ntranscribed, examined, and themes were generated. \nResults: \nTeachers reported four main barriers to DPA implementation: lack of time due to other \ncurriculum pressures, lack of resources, lack of space, and lack of staff and student ?buy in? to \nDPA. Participants also indicated many possible solutions to DPA barriers, including: activities \nthat utilize minimal equipment, music resources, exercise videos, whole school DPA approach. \nand student leaders for DPA. \nConclusion: \nMany of the solutions indicated by participants are inexpensive, easy to implement, and \nwill be successful in reducing the effect of many of the important barriers to DPA examined in \nthis study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".