The Role of Knowledge and Perceived Level of Self-Efficacy on Junior Division Teachers’ Implementation of Physical Literacy in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ontario, Health and Physical Education, Grades 1-8 (HPE) curriculum policy document identifies physical literacy as a key component of the overall vision and goal of the subject. Teachers play a primary role with the implementation of the HPE curriculum policy document and as a result can significantly influence a student’s overall physical literacy journey. The release of the HPE curriculum policy document in 2010 provided a definition of physical literacy for elementary teachers in Ontario, which has remained consistent since that time. However, there is limited data on how school boards, schools, and teachers have implemented physical literacy within the context of the Ontario HPE curriculum. This research explored the role that junior division (Grades 4-6) teachers’ knowledge of physical literacy and perceived levels of self-efficacy for teaching HPE has on their implementation of physical literacy within their classroom. Using a mixed methods design, this study examined how junior division teachers’ (n = 35) perceived levels of self-efficacy and knowledge of physical literacy influenced their ability to implement physical literacy within the classroom program. Participants completed an online survey and eight individuals participated in individual interviews for this study. Two main findings related to implementation of physical literacy were that: (a) teachers indicated a need for resources/supports and accessed them from several sources; and, (b) teachers reported several barriers for both implementation of HPE along with others that were more specifically related to COVID-19 protocols. These results have implications for how teachers in schools can be supported with the implementation of physical literacy in order to provide quality learning opportunities that contribute to a student’s physical literacy journey.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".