The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Physical Education Teachers’ Content Knowledge of Movement Capability
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to explore physical education (PE) teachers’ content knowledge of the emerging concept movement capability. Interviews with eight PE teachers were conducted, partly using a stimulated recall technique which involved watching and commenting on video recorded PE lessons. A phenomenographic analysis was used to outline the different ways of conceptualizing movement capability. Five different ways of conceptualizing movement capability were identified, which indicates the complexity of the concept movement capability. However, the result also provides a structure for developing a systematic and structured way of conceiving movement capability. In this study we have highlighted a multifaceted, nuanced and differentiated picture of movement capability to see moving as educationally valuable. We conclude by emphasizing that movement capability should not be restricted to only its constitutive parts as teachers’ plan PE teaching, but should be approached as a whole.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Physical learning environments mostly relied on live-action videos that authentically recorded participants' behaviors and interactions (Chan and Yung, 2015;Nyberg and Larsson, 2017), whereas digital learning environments utilized device screen recordings that captured participants' operations on computer-supported learning platforms (Rassaei, 2013;Lee, 2020).”
From A systematic review of Stimulated Recall (SR) in educational research from 2012 to 2022 (2024) · cites this paper as Nyberg and Larsson, 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A systematic review of Stimulated Recall (SR) in educational research from 2012 to 2022
Zhai, X., Chu, X., Wang, M., Tsai, C.-C., Liang, J.-C., & Spector, J. M. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-02987-6 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Nyberg, G., & Larsson, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
- Publisher
- Human Kinetics
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61-69
- ISSN
- 0273-5024
- 1543-2769
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.