MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117680237 · doi:10.1080/17408989.2025.2609212

Prioritising meaningful physical education experiences: linking teachers’ participation in a contemporary professional development initiative with student experiences and outcomes

2025· article· en· W7117680237 on OpenAlexafffund
Tim Fletcher, Déirdre Ní Chróinín, Spencer Briggs, Stephanie Beni, Doug Gleddie

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Education and Sport Pedagogy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPhysical Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of AlbertaBrock University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProfessional developmentPhysical educationQualitative researchContinuing professional developmentInterpretation (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Contemporary forms of professional development (CPD) in physical education are collaborative and based in learning communities, situated in teachers’ specific contexts, and based on teachers’ and students’ needs (Parker and Patton 2016. “What Research Tells Us about Effective Continuing Professional Development for Physical Education Teachers.” In The Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogies, edited by Catherine D. Ennis, 447–460. Abingdon, UK: Routledge). Despite the purported value of these approaches for physical education, most research considers only teachers’ perspectives, with few showing evidence of student outcomes that result from teachers’ engagement with CPD initiatives. The purpose of this research is to examine how teachers’ participation in a longitudinal CPD initiative supported their enactment of Meaningful PE in ways that students could identify as contributing to the quality of their physical education experiences.Methods The research draws from two consecutive CPD projects (Phase 1: 2018-2022, Phase 2: 2022-2027) that were designed based on principles of effective CPD and focused on supporting teachers to learn about and enact Meaningful PE in schools. At the time of writing, Michaela and Abby were involved in the two CPD projects for six and five years respectively, and Ranya was involved in Phase 2 for two years. For the purposes of this specific research, data from teachers consisted of one semi-structured individual interview, classroom observations, and classroom artefacts, while focus group interviews were conducted with eight groups of students (n = 30) who were taught by Michaela, Abby, and Ranya. Data were analysed deductively, using principles from Meaningful PE to guide the generation of themes from participants’ responses.Results Following their engagement in the CPD, teachers described how they used ideas related to Meaningful PE in their teaching. Specifically, teachers referred to how they used features of meaningful experiences to develop a shared language with students, and how they enacted democratic and reflective pedagogies. Students gave specific descriptions of the ways their teacher taught that aligned with Meaningful PE and positively influenced their experiences in physical education. Students used a shared language of the features of meaningful experiences and shared examples of their teacher’s use of democratic and reflective pedagogies.Impact statement The consistency between teachers’ learning experiences from the CPD initiative, evidence of teachers’ practice and their enactment of Meaningful PE, and descriptions of students’ experiences enables an inference to be made regarding the role of a CPD initiative focused on Meaningful PE and its influence on students’ experiences in physical education. The outcomes of this research are significant because they provide much needed evidence that connects teachers’ learning in CPD with student outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.432 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Education and Sport PedagogySame topicPhysical Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207