Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was two-fold, to explore the relationships between teacher's confidence to teach Physical Education (PE) and: 1) teacher's own physical activity levels; and, 2) teacher's formal PE training.Elementary school teachers (n = 58) completed an online survey between January and April 2010.An independent sample t-test and an analysis of variance was undertaken to achieve the study purpose.Results indicated that teachers who engaged in sufficient daily activity to meet the Canadian Physical Activity guideline were more confident in their ability to teach PE (p < .05).When considering teachers' formal PE training, results (albeit non-significant) confirmed that an increased confidence in teaching PE is associated with educational training in PE.In an effort to increase teachers' confidence instructing PE class, these findings support the importance of encouraging physical activity participation among generalist elementary school teachers and the need to offer ongoing PE training.Cette étude avait deux objectifs, soit examiner les relations entre la confiance des enseignants en leur aptitude à enseigner l'éducation physique, d'une part, et 1) le niveau d'activité physique individuel de l'enseignant; 2)la formation académique en éducation physique, d'autre part.Des enseignants de l'élémentaire (n = 58) ont répondu à un sondage en ligne entre janvier et avril 2010.Des tests T sur des échantillons indépendants et des analyses de variance ont servi dans le traitement des données du sondage.Les résultats montrent que les enseignants suffisamment actifs quotidiennement pour satisfaire aux lignes directrices canadiennes sur l'activité physique avaient plus confiance en leur aptitude à enseigner l'éducation physique (p < ,05).Les résultats révèlent aussi que la formation académique est corrélée positivement, mais de façon non significative, à la confiance à enseigner l'éducation physique.Dans le but d'accroître le niveau de confiance des enseignants d'éducation physique, cette étude souligne l'importance d'encourager les généralistes de l'élémentaire à s'adonner davantage à l'activité physique et confirme la nécessité d'offrir une formation continue en éducation physique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.004 |
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".