BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

BEDEN EĞİTİMİ VE SPOR ALANINDA TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYETİN YENİDEN ÜRETİMİ.

Yıl 2005, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 4, 200 - 228, 01.08.2005

Canan Koca Gıyasettin Demirhan

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

-

Kaynakça

  • Adler, A. & Adler, P. (1998). Peer Power: Preadolescent Culture and Identity. London: Rutgers University Press.
  • Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and Curriculum. New York: Routledge, Chapman ve Hall.
  • Apple, M.W. & King, N.P. (1997). What do schools teach? In R. H. Weller (Eds) Humanist Education. (pp 29-63) Berkley CA: Mz Cutchan.
  • Arnot, M. (2002). Reproducing Gender? Es- says in Educational Theory and Feminist Politics. London: Routledge Falmer.
  • Azzarito, L. & Solmon, M.A. (2005). A recon- ceptualization of physical education: The intersection of race, gender, and social class. Sport, Education, and Society, 10, 25-47.
  • Bryson, L. (1987). Sport and the maintenan- ce of masculine hegemony. Womens Stud Int Forum, 10, 349-360.
  • Connell, R.W. (1995). Masculinities. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
  • Connell, R.W. (2000). The Men and the Boys. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Davies, B. (1989). The discoursive produc- tion of male/female dualism in school settings. Oxford Rev Educ, 15(3), 229-241.
  • Ennis, C.D. (1999). Creating a culturally rele- vant curriulum for physically disen- gaged girls. Sport Educ Soc, 4, 31- 49.
  • Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Iden- tity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Gilbert, R. & Gilbert, P. (1998). Masculinity Goes to School. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
  • Goodman, J. (1992). Elementary Schooling for Critical Democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Gorely, T., Holroyd, R. & Kirk, D. (2003). Mus- cularity, the habitus and the social construction of gender: towards a gender-relevant physical education. Br J Sociol Educ, 24(4), 429-447.
  • Güvenç, M. (2001). Ankara: Spatial differen- tiation with respect to employment status and province of origin. In L. A. Yavuz (Eds) Ankara In History II (pp 17-34) Ankara: METU Faculty of Arc- hitecture.
  • Hasbrook, C.A. & Harris, O. (1999). Wrestling with gender: Physicality and mas- culinities among inner-city first and second graders. Men and Mas- culinities, 1(3), 302-318.
  • Hearn, J. & Morgan, D. (1990). Men, Mas- culinity and Social Theory. London: Unwin Hyman.
  • Jones, A. (1993). Becoming a girl: poststruc- turalist suggestions for educational research. Gend Educ 5, 157-166.
  • Leahy, D. & Harrison, L. (2004). Health and physical education and the produc- tion of the ‘at risk self’. In J. Evans, B. Davies & J. Wright (Eds) Body Know- ledge and Control: Studies in the Sociology of Physical Education and Health. (pp 130-139) London: Rout- ledge.
  • Leck, G.M. (1987). Review article: Feminist pedagogy, liberation theory, and the traditional schooling paradigm. Educ Theory, 37(3), 343-354.
  • Lee, A. (1992). Poststructuralism and educa- tional research: Some categories and issues. Issues Educ Res, 2(1), 1-12. h t t p : / / e d u c a t i o n . c u r - tin.edu.au/iier/iier2/lee.html.
  • Light, R. (2001). Open it up a bit?: Com- peting discourses, physical practice, and the struggle over rugby game style in an Australian High School. J Sport Social Issues, 25(3), 266-282.
  • Martino, W. (1999). Cool boys, party animals, squids and poofters. Br J Sociol Educ, 20(2), 239-264.
  • Messner, M. (1992). Power at Play: Sports and The Problem of Masculinity. Bos- ton: Beacon Press.
  • Morrow, R.G. & Gill, D.L. (2003). Perceptions of homophobia and heterosexism in physical education. Res Q Exerc Sport,74(2), 205-214.
  • Penney, D. & Evans, J. (1997). Naming the game: discourse and domination in physical education and sport in Eng- land and Wales. Eur Phys Educ Rev, 3(1), 21-32.
  • Petersen, A. (1998). Unmasking the Mas- culine: ‘Men’ and ‘Identity’ In A Scep- tical Age. London: Sage Publish.
  • Riddell, S. (1989). Pupils, resistance and gender codes. Gend Educ, 1, 183- 196.
  • Satina, B. & Hultgreen, F. (2001). The absent body of girls made visible: em- bodiment and the focus in education. Stud Philos Educ, 20, 6.
  • Vertinsky, P. (1992). Reclaiming space, revi- sioning the body: The quest for gen- der-sensitive physical education. Quest, 44, 373-396.
  • Webb, L.A., McCaughtry, N. & Macdonald, D. (2004). Surveillance as a technique of power in physical education. Sport Educ Soc, 9(2), 207 – 222.
  • Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • Wright, J. (1998). Gender, The State and Education: Images of The Body. Geelong, VİC: Deakin Centre for Education and Change Faculty of Education, Deakin University.
  • Wright, J. (1999). Changing gendered prac- tices in physical education: Working with teachers. Eur Rev Phys Educ, 5(3), 181-197.
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2003). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Tıpkı Basım, Seçkin.

BEDEN EĞİTİMİ VE SPOR ALANINDA TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYETİN YENİDEN ÜRETİMİ

Yıl 2005, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 4, 200 - 228, 01.08.2005

Canan Koca Gıyasettin Demirhan

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, farklı toplumsal sınıfları temsil ettiği kabul edilen üç İlköğretim
Okulunun beden eğitimi derslerinde toplumsal cinsiyet yeniden üretim sürecinin nasıl
gerçekleştiğinin incelenmesidir. Araştırma 2004-2005 eğitim-öğretim döneminde Ankara
ilinde yer alan üç okulda gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nitel araştırma yönteminden yararlanılan
araştırmada veri toplama teknikleri olarak, ders gözlemi, alan notu alma, odak grup
görüşmesi ve derinlemesine bireysel görüşme kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada toplam 57 derinlemesine
bireysel görüşme (30 kız, 27 erkek öğrenci), 3 beden eğitimi öğretmen görüşmesi
ve 6 odak grup görüşmesi yapılmıştır. Ayrıca görüşmeler devam ederken, toplam 47 ders
gözlemi yapılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde içerik analizi yöntemi (açık kodlama-temalandırma-kategorileştirme)
kullanılmıştır. Veri analizi sonucunda, 3 temel kategori elde edilmiştir: (1)
kadınlık ve erkeklik tanımları, (2) spor ve toplumsal cinsiyet uygunluğu (3) hegemonik erkeklik.
Elde edilen bulgular, öğrencilerin sahip oldukları toplumsal cinsiyet tanımlarının, toplumsal
cinsiyet ve spor ilişkisinde belirleyici olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca özellikle iki okulda
bazı erkek ve kız öğrenciler ile ilişkili olabilen hegemonik erkeklik formları da gözlenmiştir.
Sonuç olarak, bir toplumsal alan olarak beden eğitiminin toplumsal cinsiyetten bağımsız
düşünülmemesi gereken bir alan olduğu söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Beden Eğitimi Spor Toplumsal Cinsiyet

Kaynakça

  • Adler, A. & Adler, P. (1998). Peer Power: Preadolescent Culture and Identity. London: Rutgers University Press.
  • Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and Curriculum. New York: Routledge, Chapman ve Hall.
  • Apple, M.W. & King, N.P. (1997). What do schools teach? In R. H. Weller (Eds) Humanist Education. (pp 29-63) Berkley CA: Mz Cutchan.
  • Arnot, M. (2002). Reproducing Gender? Es- says in Educational Theory and Feminist Politics. London: Routledge Falmer.
  • Azzarito, L. & Solmon, M.A. (2005). A recon- ceptualization of physical education: The intersection of race, gender, and social class. Sport, Education, and Society, 10, 25-47.
  • Bryson, L. (1987). Sport and the maintenan- ce of masculine hegemony. Womens Stud Int Forum, 10, 349-360.
  • Connell, R.W. (1995). Masculinities. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
  • Connell, R.W. (2000). The Men and the Boys. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Davies, B. (1989). The discoursive produc- tion of male/female dualism in school settings. Oxford Rev Educ, 15(3), 229-241.
  • Ennis, C.D. (1999). Creating a culturally rele- vant curriulum for physically disen- gaged girls. Sport Educ Soc, 4, 31- 49.
  • Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Iden- tity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Gilbert, R. & Gilbert, P. (1998). Masculinity Goes to School. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
  • Goodman, J. (1992). Elementary Schooling for Critical Democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Gorely, T., Holroyd, R. & Kirk, D. (2003). Mus- cularity, the habitus and the social construction of gender: towards a gender-relevant physical education. Br J Sociol Educ, 24(4), 429-447.
  • Güvenç, M. (2001). Ankara: Spatial differen- tiation with respect to employment status and province of origin. In L. A. Yavuz (Eds) Ankara In History II (pp 17-34) Ankara: METU Faculty of Arc- hitecture.
  • Hasbrook, C.A. & Harris, O. (1999). Wrestling with gender: Physicality and mas- culinities among inner-city first and second graders. Men and Mas- culinities, 1(3), 302-318.
  • Hearn, J. & Morgan, D. (1990). Men, Mas- culinity and Social Theory. London: Unwin Hyman.
  • Jones, A. (1993). Becoming a girl: poststruc- turalist suggestions for educational research. Gend Educ 5, 157-166.
  • Leahy, D. & Harrison, L. (2004). Health and physical education and the produc- tion of the ‘at risk self’. In J. Evans, B. Davies & J. Wright (Eds) Body Know- ledge and Control: Studies in the Sociology of Physical Education and Health. (pp 130-139) London: Rout- ledge.
  • Leck, G.M. (1987). Review article: Feminist pedagogy, liberation theory, and the traditional schooling paradigm. Educ Theory, 37(3), 343-354.
  • Lee, A. (1992). Poststructuralism and educa- tional research: Some categories and issues. Issues Educ Res, 2(1), 1-12. h t t p : / / e d u c a t i o n . c u r - tin.edu.au/iier/iier2/lee.html.
  • Light, R. (2001). Open it up a bit?: Com- peting discourses, physical practice, and the struggle over rugby game style in an Australian High School. J Sport Social Issues, 25(3), 266-282.
  • Martino, W. (1999). Cool boys, party animals, squids and poofters. Br J Sociol Educ, 20(2), 239-264.
  • Messner, M. (1992). Power at Play: Sports and The Problem of Masculinity. Bos- ton: Beacon Press.
  • Morrow, R.G. & Gill, D.L. (2003). Perceptions of homophobia and heterosexism in physical education. Res Q Exerc Sport,74(2), 205-214.
  • Penney, D. & Evans, J. (1997). Naming the game: discourse and domination in physical education and sport in Eng- land and Wales. Eur Phys Educ Rev, 3(1), 21-32.
  • Petersen, A. (1998). Unmasking the Mas- culine: ‘Men’ and ‘Identity’ In A Scep- tical Age. London: Sage Publish.
  • Riddell, S. (1989). Pupils, resistance and gender codes. Gend Educ, 1, 183- 196.
  • Satina, B. & Hultgreen, F. (2001). The absent body of girls made visible: em- bodiment and the focus in education. Stud Philos Educ, 20, 6.
  • Vertinsky, P. (1992). Reclaiming space, revi- sioning the body: The quest for gen- der-sensitive physical education. Quest, 44, 373-396.
  • Webb, L.A., McCaughtry, N. & Macdonald, D. (2004). Surveillance as a technique of power in physical education. Sport Educ Soc, 9(2), 207 – 222.
  • Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • Wright, J. (1998). Gender, The State and Education: Images of The Body. Geelong, VİC: Deakin Centre for Education and Change Faculty of Education, Deakin University.
  • Wright, J. (1999). Changing gendered prac- tices in physical education: Working with teachers. Eur Rev Phys Educ, 5(3), 181-197.
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2003). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Tıpkı Basım, Seçkin.
Toplam 35 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Canan Koca Bu kişi benim

Gıyasettin Demirhan Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Ağustos 2005
Gönderilme Tarihi 31 Ocak 2015
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2005 Cilt: 16 Sayı: 4

Kaynak Göster

APA Koca, C., & Demirhan, G. (2005). BEDEN EĞİTİMİ VE SPOR ALANINDA TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYETİN YENİDEN ÜRETİMİ. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 16(4), 200-228.

9551


SPOR BİLİMLERİ DERGİSİ


Yayın hakkı © Hacettepe Üniversitesi Spor Bilimleri Fakültesi