Comparison of curiosity levels of physical education teachers to the teachers of other branches

Abstract

It is thought that a teacher with a sense of curiosity is more effective in arousing sense of curiosity of his/her students. In this regard; the study aimed to determine curiosity levels of branch teachers, to explore whether or not their curiosity levels differed in terms of the variables of gender, age, professional seniority (length of service) and marital status and to compare curiosity levels of physical education teachers to the teachers of other branches. The study was conducted with 388 branch teachers who taught in Kayseri during the academic year of 2011-2012. As the data collection tool; Curiosity Index (CI-3) [which was developed by Ainley (1987) (cited by Fulcher, 2004) and Turkish version of which was made by Demirel and Coşkun (2009)] was used. For the data analyses; descriptive statistics methods such as frequency (n), percentages (%), arithmetical means and standard deviation were used in order to analyze descriptive personal information. In order to detect the differences; such non-parametric tests as Mann Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test were employed because the data did not follow a normal distribution and homogeneity conditions were not obtained in the variables of gender, age, marital status, professional seniority (length of service). In light of the findings; it was found out that curiosity levels of those branch teachers who were aged between 23 and 30, female and single were higher and that curiosity levels of physical education teachers were lower than other branch teachers in Kayseri. 

Keywords

• Curiosity; physical education teacher; branch teacher; breadth; depth.

-

Abstract

Merak duygusuna sahip bir öğretmenin öğrencisinin merak duygusunu harekete geçirmede daha etkili olacağı düşünülmektedir. Bu bağlamda Milli Eğitim Ortaöğretimde görev yapan branş öğretmenlerinin meraklılık düzeylerinin belirlenerek cinsiyet, yaş, mesleki kıdem ve medeni durum değişkenlerine göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını ortaya koymak ve beden eğitimi öğretmenlerinin meraklılık düzeylerini diğer branş öğretmenlerinin meraklılık düzeyleri ile karşılaştırmak amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma, 2011–2012 eğitim-öğretim yılında Kayseri’de görev yapan 388 branş öğretmeni üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak, Ainley (1987) tarafından geliştirilen (Akt. Fulcher, 2004) ve Türkçe ’ye uyarlama çalışmaları Demirel ve Coşkun (2009) tarafından yapılan “Meraklılık Ölçeği (CI-3)” kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde kişisel bilgiler için betimsel istatistik yöntemleri frekans (n), yüzde (%), aritmetik ortalama ve standart sapma kullanılmıştır. Farklığı tespit etmek amacıyla; cinsiyet, yaş, medeni durum, mesleki kıdem değişkenlerinde normal dağılım ve homojenlik koşulları yerine gelmediği için Non-Parametrik testlerden Mann-Whitney U testi ve Kruskall Wallis testi uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlar 0,05 ve 0,01 anlamlılık düzeyinde değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre; Kayseri ilindeki; kadın, 23-30 yaş ve bekar branş öğretmenlerinin meraklılık düzeyleri yüksek ve beden eğitimi öğretmenlerinin meraklılık düzeyi diğer branş öğretmenlerine göre daha düşük bulunmuştur

Keywords

• Meraklılık, beden eğitimi öğretmeni, branş öğretmeni, derinlik, genişlik

References

1. Ainley MD. The factor structure of curiosity measures: breadth and depth of interest curiosity styles. Australian journal of psychology, 39(1), 53-59, 1987.
2. Arnone MP, Grabowski BL, Rynd CP. Curiosity as a personality variable influencing learning in a learner controlled lesson with and without advisement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 5-20, 1994.
3. European Commission. European report on quality indicators of lifelong learning. Fifteen quality indicators. European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture, Brussels, June, 2002.
4. Bahadır Z, Certel Z. A Research on Curiosity Levels of Physical Education Teachers (Kayseri Province Sample). II. Social Fields Congress in International Physical Education and Sports Ankara (Poster Presentation), 31 May- 2 June 2012.
5. Berlyne DE. Uncertainty and epistemic curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 53(1), 27-34, 1962.
6. Büyükkaragöz S, Çivi C. General Teaching Methods, (10th Edition), İstanbul: Beta Publishing, 1999.
7. Certel Z, Çatıkkaş F, Yalçınkaya M. Evaluation of Emotional Intelligence and Critical Thinking Tendency among the candidate physical education teachers. Selçuk University Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science, 13 (1): 74–81, 2011a.
8. Certel Z, Yalçınkaya M. Critical Thinking Tendency among the physical education and sport students. 7th National Physical Education and Sports Teaching Congress, 25-27 May 2011 (Oral Presentation), Van, 2011.

9. Çekiç S. Evaluation of Critical Thinking Power of Undergraduate students of Scalar Teaching in terms of some variables. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University, Education Sciences Institute, İzmir, 2007.
10. Demirel M, Coşkun YD. Evaluation of Curiosity Levels of University Students in terms of some variables. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Education Faculty Journal, 2009; 18: 111-134.
11. Deringöl Y, Yaman Y, Özsarı İ, Gülten DÇ. Evaluation of Curiosity Levels of Candidate Primary School Teachers. International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications 11-13 November, 2010 Antalya-Turkey, 2010. http://www.iconte.org/File Upload/ks59689/ file/109.pdf
12. Facione NC, Facione PA, Gainen J, Sanchez CA. The dispositions toward critical thinking. Journal of General Education, 1995; 44(1): 1-25.
13. Fisher, R. Teaching Children to Think UK, Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd.(Eds), 1995.
14. Fulcher KH. Towards measuring lifelong learning: The curiosity index. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, James Madison University, Department of Graduate Psychology, USA, 2004.
15. Kazancı O. Critical Thinking and Teaching of Critical Thinking in Education. Ankara: Kazancı Hukuk Publishing, 1989.
16. Kökdemir D. Decision-Making and problem solving in uncertainty. Ankara University Social Sciences Institute, 2003. doctoral dissertation,
17. Köymen Ü. Motivating Learning (A. Şimşek (Ed.), Democracy in the Classroom. Ankara: Eğitim Sen Yayınları, 111-146, 2002.
18. Kürüm D. Critical Thinking Power of Candidate Teachers. Unpublished master dissertation, Anadolu University Education Sciences Institute. Eskişehir, 2002.
19. McBride R, Xiang P, Wittenburg D, Shen J. An Analysis of Pre-service Teachers’ Dispositions toward Critical Thinking: A Cross- Cultural Perspective. Asia- Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30 (2): 131-140, 2002.
20. Reio TG. Effects of curiosity on socialization-related learning and job performance in adults. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA, 1990.
21. Özdemir SM. Evaluation of Critical Thinking Skills of University Students in terms of some variables. Turkish Education Sciences Journal, 2005: 3(3).
22. Saçlı F. Determination and comparison of critical thinking levels of the students who studied training programs and recreation programs of Physical Education and Sports Teaching. Hacettepe University. Health Sciences Institute. Master Dissertation. Ankara, 2008.
23. Saçlı F, Demirhan G. Determination and comparison of critical thinking levels of the students who studied at Physical Education and Sports Teaching. Hacettepe J. of Sport Sciences, 2008; 19 (2): 92-110.
24. Sönmez V. Creative School. Turkish Education Association Publications No: 17. “Teacher, student”, Ayşegül Ataman (Ed). Creativity and Education XVII. Education Meeting, Ankara, 1993.
25. Şişman M. Introduction into Teaching. (2nd edition). Ankara: Öncü Publishing, 2000. 26. TDK. Turkish Language Association Modern Dictionary. http://tdkterim.gov.tr/bts/ (19 Eylül 2012).
26. Tokyürek T. The effect of teacher attitudes on critical thinking skills of the students. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Sakarya University Social Sciences Institute, Sakarya, 2001.