{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.041603247082699135, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0289193302891933, 'mean_word_length': 5.067692307692307, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Classroom Teachers’ Intentions To Provide Physical Activity Opportunities To Students: An Analysis Using Self-Determination Theory

METHODS: 40 undergraduate Kinesiology students (mean±SD, age = 22± 3, junior =45%, senior = 55%) were randomly assigned to either experimental group 1 or group 2. Group 1 completed traditional laboratory activities, whereas group 2 completed the VLEP. Both groups then completed the same assessment to evaluate their understanding of aerobic (VO2max) and anaerobic (Wingate) power laboratory concepts. A one-way ANOVA was performed to determine if there were any significant differences between the two groups (α = .05). The students were also asked to rate their experiences using a qualitative questionnaire. One of the relevant components of that questionnaire asked students to indicate which laboratory type they preferred. A second relevant component asked students to indicate how educational they thought the VLEP program was. RESULTS: Mean aerobic power lab activity assessment scores (%) were 81.5 ± 5.4 and 81.6 ± 6.6 and mean anaerobic power lab assessment scores were 82.5 ± 8.1 and 83.0 ± 6.5 for groups 1 and 2, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in either aerobic power lab assessment scores or aerobic power lab assessment scores. In this investigation, 47.5% of the students indicated a preference for the traditional laboratory activity, and the other 52.51% of the class either preferred the VLEP (27.5%) or did not prefer one laboratory type over another (25.0%). Students agreed that the VLEP was at least moderately educational (25.0%), and most students thought that the VLEP was very educational (75.0%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support that VLEP instructs students as effectively as a traditional laboratory. We hope VLEP could remove enrollment bottleneck challenges and provide a lower cost, experiential, accessible alternative for Kinesiology major students in CSU.