Beden Eğitimi Öğretmen Adaylarının Badminton Alan Bilgisinin Değerlendirilmesi: Bir Durum Çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, beden eğitimi öğretmen yetiştirme programında öğretilen bir badminton dersinin etkililiğinin incelenmesidir. Alan bilgisi; genel alan bilgisi (GAB) ve özelleşmiş alan bilgisi (ÖAB) olarak iki kategoriye ayrılmıştır. Ward (2009) GAB’ini bir görev ya da aktiviteyi sergilemek için gerekli bilgi olarak, ÖAB’ni ise bir görev ya da aktiviteyi öğretmek için gerekli bilgi olarak tanımlamaktadır. Önceki çalışmalar, öğretmen adaylarının düşük alan bilgisine sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışmada iki araştırma sorusu incelenmiştir: (a) (a) Sekiz öğretmen adayının GAB, performans (GAB-P), ÖAB öğretim tasarımı geliştirme ve ÖAB öğrenci hatası analiz ön test skorları nedir? ve (b) Badminton dersinden sonra; GAB, performans (GAB-P), ÖAB öğretim tasarımı geliştirme ve ÖAB öğrenci hatası analiz ön test – son test skorlarındaki değişim nedir? Katılımcılar, 2-4 sınıflarda öğrenim gören sekiz öğretmen adayıdır. Katılımcıların tümü GAB, performans (GAB-P), ÖAB öğretim tasarımı geliştirme ve ÖAB öğrenci hatası analiz değişkenlerinde ön test – son test olarak değerlendirilmişlerdir. Veriler, dört değişkende oluşan farkları gösterebilmek için betimsel olarak sunulmuştur. Bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının dört değişkende düşük skorlara sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, dersin tamamlanmasının ardından, ÖAB öğretim tasarımı geliştirme dışındaki tüm değişkenlerde son test skorlarında gelişim saptanmıştır. Bulgularımız beden eğitimi öğretmen yetiştirme programında alan bilgisi eğitiminin önemini vurgulamaktadır. Beden eğitimi öğretmen yetiştirme programlarındaki uygulamaları zenginleştirilmek ve kanıta dayalı uygulamaların etkililiğini test etmek için daha fazla çalışma ile güçlü bir alan yazın oluşturulmasına ihtiyaç vardır.

Keywords

• öğretmen yetiştirme
• genel alan bilgisi
• özelleşmiş alan bilgisi
• öğretim tasarımı geliştirme

Evaluating the Content Knowledge in Badminton of Preservice Physical Education Teachers: A Case Study

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of teaching a badminton content class in physical education teacher education (PETE). Content knowledge is divided into two large categories: common content knowledge (CCK), and specialized content knowledge (SCK). Ward (2009) defined CCK as the knowledge necessary to perform physical activity or a task, and SCK as the knowledge necessary to teach the physical activity or a task. Previous research has demonstrated low levels of preservice teachers’ (PSTs’) content knowledge. In this study we examined two research questions: (a) What are the pre-test scores of eight male PSTs for CCK, performance (CCK-P), SCK task progression knowledge, and SCK error analysis in badminton? and (b) What are the changes in pre-post scores for CCK, CCK-P, SCK task progression knowledge, and SCK error analysis after a badminton content class? Participants were eight male PSTs ranging from sophomore to senior year. All were assessed using pre-and-post tests of badminton CCK, CCK-P, instructional tasks, and error analysis. Data were reported descriptively to determine the difference between pre and post scores on the four variables. The results indicated that PSTs had low pretest scores on all four variables However, post-test scores following the completion of the badminton content class demonstrated improvement on all variables except for task progression. Our results highlight the importance of content knowledge training in PETE) programs. There is a critical need for additional research to ensure the effectiveness of evidence-based practice and build a body of literature that can enhance our practice in PETE.

Keywords

• teacher education
• common content knowledge
• specialized content knowledge
• content development

References

1. Reference1 Ball, D. L. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter part of the equation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Teachers’ subject matter knowledge and classroom instruction (Vol. 2) (pp. 1–48). JAI Press.
2. Reference2 Ball, D.L., Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407. doi:10.1177/ 0022487108324554
3. Reference3 Castelli, D., & Williams, L. (2007). Health-related fitness and physical education teachers’ content knowledge. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26(1), 3–19. doi:10.1123/jtpe.26.1.3
4. Reference4 Darling-Hammond, L., & Oakes, J. (2019). Preparing teachers for deeper learning. Harvard Education Press.
5. Reference5 Grice, T. (2007). Badminton: Steps to Success (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics.
6. Reference6 Hastie, P. (2021). A primer on content knowledge in physical education research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 41(1), 165-170. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2020-0221
7. Reference7 Hoffman, S. (1987). Dreaming the impossible dream: The decline and fall of physical education. In J. D. Massengale (Ed.), Trends toward the future in physical education (pp. 121–135). Human Kinetics.
8. Reference8 Fisher, M. (2013). Current practices in the delivery of undergraduate exercise physiology content. The Physical Educator, 70, 32–51.

9. Reference9 Kim, I., Lee, Y. S. Ward, P., & Li, W. (2015). A critical examination of content knowledge courses in physical education teacher education programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 34, 59-75.
10. Reference10 Kim, I., Ward, P., Sinelnikov, O., Ko, B., Iserbyt, P., Li, W., & Curtner-Smith, M. (2018). The influence of content knowledge on pedagogical content knowledge: An evidence-based practice for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37, 133-143.
11. Reference11 Miller, M.G., & Housner, L. (1998). A survey of health-related physical fitness knowledge among preservice and inservice physical educators. Physical Educator, 55, 176-186.
12. Reference12 Rink, J. (1979). Development of a system for the observation of content development in physical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University.
13. Reference13 Santiago, J. A., & Morrow, J. R. (2021). A study of preservice physical education teachers’ content knowledge of health-related fitness. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40, 118-125.
14. Reference14 Santiago, J. A., Disch, J. G., & Morales, J. (2012). Elementary physical education teachers’ content knowledge of physical activity and health-related fitness. The Physical Educator, 69, 395–412.
15. Reference15 Siedentop, D. (2002). Content knowledge for physical education. Journal of teaching in physical education, 21(4), 368-77.
16. Reference16 Tsuda, E., Ward, P., Li, Y., Higginson, K., Cho, K., He, Y., & Su, J. (2019). Content knowledge acquisition in physical education: Evidence from knowing and performing by majors and nonmajors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 38, 221–232.
17. Reference17 Tsuda, E., Ward, P. & He, Y. (2021). Test Questions for Pre-service Teachers and Students in Physical Education Content. Biblio Publishing.
18. Reference18 Vickers, J. N. (1987). The role of subject matter in the preparation of teachers in physical education. Quest, 39(2), 179–184. doi:10.1080/00336297.1987.10483870.
19. Reference19 Ward, P. (2011). The future direction of physical education teacher education: It’s all in the details. Japanese Journal of Sport Education Studies, 30(2), 63-72.
20. Reference20 Ward, P. (2009). Content matters: Knowledge that alters teaching. In L. Housner, M. Metzler, P. Schempp, & T. Templin (Eds.), Historic traditions and future directions of research on teaching and teacher education in physical education (pp. 345–356). Fitness Information Technology.
21. Reference21 Ward, P., Ayvazo, S., Dervent, F., Iserbyt, P., & Kim, I. (2020). Instructional progression and the role of working models in physical education, Quest, 72 ,410-429.
22. Reference22 Ward, P., Tsuda, E., Dervent, F., & Devrilmez, E. (2018). Differences in the content knowledge of those taught to teach and those taught to play. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 37, 59-68.
23. Reference23 Ward, P., & Lehwald, H. (2018). Effective Physical Education Content and Instruction. Human Kinetics.
24. Reference24 Ward, P., Dervent, F., Lee, Y-S, Ko, B., Kim, I. & Tao, W. (2017). Using content maps to measure content development in physical education: Validation and application. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 36, 20-31.
25. Reference25 Williams, S.E., Greene, L., Satinsky, S., & Neuberger, J. (2016). Content analysis of conceptually based physical education in southeastern United States universities and colleges. The Physical Educator, 73, 671–688. doi:10. 18666/TPE-2016-V73-I4-6554
26. Reference26 Wikipedia (2022). Academic grading in the United States. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_the_United_States