Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Antrenörlerin kullandıkları öğretim yöntemleri ölçeği – sporcu sürümünün (AKÖY – SPORCU) geliştirilmesi

Year 2019, Volume: 5 Issue: 3, 119 - 128, 15.09.2019
https://doi.org/10.18826/useeabd.579590

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı sporcuların algısına göre “Antrenörlerin Kullandıkları Öğretim Yöntemleri Ölçeği – Sporcu Algısı (AKÖY – Sporcu)” sürümünün geliştirilmesidir.

Materyal ve Metot: Ölçek maddeleri Kulinna ve Cothran (2003) tarafından geliştirilen ve İnce ve Hünük (2010) tarafından beden eğitimi ve spor öğretmenliği ortamı için Türkçe’ye uyarlanan “Beden Eğitimi Öğretmenleri Öğretim Stilleri Değer Algıları Ölçeğindeki (Use of Teaching Styles and Perceptions of Styles Questionnaire) öğretim yöntemi senaryoları temel alınarak oluşturulmuştur. Ölçek, öğretim yöntemlerinin algılanan kullanım düzeyine ve bunlara atfedilen değere ilişkin 5’li Likert ölçeğinde cevaplanan senaryolaştırılmış 11 sorudan oluşmaktadır. Geliştirilen ölçeğin faktör yapısı bireysel ve takım sporlarından 275 sporcunun (yaş=16.69, SS=3.78) oluşturduğu bir örneklemde öncelikle açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) yoluyla incelenmiştir. Ölçeğin güvenirliğini sınamak amacıyla ölçek maddelerinin ve faktörlerin Cronbach alfa değerleri hesaplanmıştır. Daha sonra, AFA ile ortaya çıkan yapı, bireysel ve takım sporlarından 148 sporcunun (yaş=15.97, SS=2.88) oluşturduğu veri setinde Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) yapılarak incelenmiştir.

Bulgular: AFA bulguları, maddeleri ölçeğin %60.920’sini açıklayan üç faktörlü bir yapı ortaya koymuştur. Faktörler ölçek maddelerinin teorik yapısına uygun olarak "Antrenör Merkezli Yaklaşım", "Problem Çözme Yaklaşımı" ve "Sporcunun Tasarladığı/Başlattığı Yaklaşım" olarak adlandırılmıştır. Faktörlerin Cronbach alfa iç tutarlık katsayısı ölçeğin tümü için 0.81, faktörler için ise sırasıyla 0.72, 0.78 ve 0.76'dır. DFA bulguları 11 maddelik ölçeğin üç faktörlü özgün yapısı ile gözlemlenen veri arasında kabul edilebilir derecede uyumluluk olduğunu göstermektedir (χ2/sd=1.34; GFI=0.93; CFI=0.94; TLI=0.92; RMSEA=0.05).

Sonuç: “Antrenörlerin Kullandıkları Öğretim Stilleri Ölçeği – Sporcu Algısı”, antrenörlerin uygulamalarında kullandıkları öğretim yöntemlerini sporcuların bakış açısından incelenmesini sağlamada geçerli ve güvenilir bir araçtır. Ölçeğin, antrenörlerin öğretim yöntemleri repertuarları ile ilgili mesleki gelişim ihtiyaçlarının saptanmasında ve buna ilişkin stratejilerin geliştirilmesinde faydalı olması beklenmektedir.










References

  • Abraham, A., Collins, D., & Martindale, R. (2006). The coaching schematic: Validation through expert coach consensus. Journal of sports sciences, 24(06), 549-564.
  • Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future. Eglewood, Co: Libraries Unlimited.
  • Bentler, PM, Bonett, DG (1980): Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
  • Browne, M. W., &Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.Bollen& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Byra, M. (2000). A review of spectrum research: The contributions of two eras. Quest, 52(3), 229-245.
  • Cassidy, T., Jones, R.L. and Potrac, P. (2009). Understanding Sports Coaching: The Social, Cultural and Pedagogical Foundations of Coaching Practice, 2nd edn., Routledge, London, 2009.
  • Cengiz, C., & Serbes, Ş. (2014). Turkish pre-service physical education teachers’ self-reported use and perceptions of teaching styles. Pamukkale Journal of Sport Sciences, 5(2), 21-34.
  • Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach education and continuing professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55(3), 215-230.
  • Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. International journal of sports science & coaching, 4(3), 307-323.
  • Cothran, D., Kulinna, P. H., & Ward, E. (2000). Students' experiences with and perceptions of teaching styles. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 34(1), 93-103.
  • Demirhan, G., Bulca, Y., Altay, F., Şahin, R., Güvenç, A., Aslan, A., ... & Açıkada, C. (2008). Comparison of the views of partners regarding the physical education curriculum and it’s delivery. Hacettepe Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 19(3), 157-180.
  • Ertmer, P.A., & Newby, T.J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance improvement quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
  • Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE Publications.
  • Gilbert, W., & Côté, J. (2013). Defining Coaching Effectiveness: A focus on coaches’ knowledge. Routledge handbook of sports coaching, 147-159.
  • Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage.
  • Hu, L, Bentler, PM (1999): Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
  • İnce, M. L., Hünük, D. (2010). Eğitim reformu sürecinde deneyimli beden eğitimi öğretmenlerinin kullandıkları öğretim stilleri ve stillere ilişkin algıları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(157), 128-139.
  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31(9), 28 – 33.
  • Jöreskog, K, Sörbom, D (1993): “LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
  • Kulinna, P. H., & Cothran, D. J. (2003). Physical education teachers’ self-reported use and perceptions of various teaching styles. Learning and Instruction, 13(6), 597-609.
  • Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  • Mardia, KV (1985): Mardia’s test of multinormality. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (Vol. 5, pp. 217–221). New York: Wiley.
  • Maruyama, GM (1998): Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1985). Toward a unified theory of teaching. Educational Leadership, 42(8), 31-34.
  • Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education (3th ed.). Columbus: Merrill Pub. Co.
  • Nunnally, JC (1978): Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Penney, D. (2006). Coaching as teaching: New acknowledgements in practice. In The sports coach as educator (pp. 43-54). Routledge.
  • Saraç, L., & Muştu, E. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının beden eğitimi öğretim stillerini kullanım düzeyleri ile stillere ilişkin değer algılarının incelenmesi. Pamukkale Journal of Sport Sciences, 4(2), 112-124.
  • Smith, R. E. (2006). ‘Positive reinforcement, performance feedback, and performance enhancement’, in J. M. Williams (ed.) Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance, New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  • Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Macmillan.
  • Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Tabachnick, BG, Fidell, LS (2013): Using Multivariate Statistics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Winne, P. H. (1985). Cognitive processing in the classroom. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 2, pp. 795 – 808). Oxford: Pergamon.

Development of coaches’ use of teaching methods scale – athlete version (CUTEMS – ATHLETE)

Year 2019, Volume: 5 Issue: 3, 119 - 128, 15.09.2019
https://doi.org/10.18826/useeabd.579590

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to develop “Coaches’ Use of Teaching Methods Scale – Athlete Perception (CUTEMS-Athlete)” version. 

Methods: The items of the scale were generated based on “Use of Teaching Styles and Perceptions of Styles Questionnaire” developed by Kulinna and Cothran (2003) and adapted to Turkish by Ince and Hunuk (2010). The scale is composed of 11 scripted questions, on which perceived level of use and their attributed value are rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The factor structure of the scale was examined using the data comprised of 275 athletes (Mage=16.69, SD =3.78) from individual sport and team sport contexts via conducting an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). The Cronbach’s alpha values of its items and factors were calculated to test the reliability of the scale. Then, the construct that EFA revealed was examined via conducting a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with a dataset comprised of 148 athletes (Mage=15.97, SD=2.88) from individual sports and team sports.

Results: The findings of EFA revealed a 3-factor construct that explained 60.920% of the variance. In line with the theoretical foundations they fit in, the factors were named as “Coach-centered Approach,” “Problem-solving Approach,” and “Athlete-designed/initiated Approach.” The Cronbach’s alpha value for the scale was .81 and for the factors were 0.72, 0.78, and 0.76, respectively. The findings of CFA showed that there is an acceptable fit between the 3-factor construct of the 11-item scale and the observed data (χ2/df=1.34; GFI=0.93; CFI=0.94; TLI=0.92; RMSEA=0.05).

Conclusion: “Coaches’ Use of Teaching Methods Scale – Athlete Perception” is a valid and reliable tool in enabling the examination of coaches’ use of teaching methods in their practices from the athletes’ perspective. It is expected that the scale will be helpful in determining coaches’ professional needs on their teaching method repertoire, and developing strategies to meet these needs. 

References

  • Abraham, A., Collins, D., & Martindale, R. (2006). The coaching schematic: Validation through expert coach consensus. Journal of sports sciences, 24(06), 549-564.
  • Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future. Eglewood, Co: Libraries Unlimited.
  • Bentler, PM, Bonett, DG (1980): Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
  • Browne, M. W., &Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.Bollen& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Byra, M. (2000). A review of spectrum research: The contributions of two eras. Quest, 52(3), 229-245.
  • Cassidy, T., Jones, R.L. and Potrac, P. (2009). Understanding Sports Coaching: The Social, Cultural and Pedagogical Foundations of Coaching Practice, 2nd edn., Routledge, London, 2009.
  • Cengiz, C., & Serbes, Ş. (2014). Turkish pre-service physical education teachers’ self-reported use and perceptions of teaching styles. Pamukkale Journal of Sport Sciences, 5(2), 21-34.
  • Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach education and continuing professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55(3), 215-230.
  • Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. International journal of sports science & coaching, 4(3), 307-323.
  • Cothran, D., Kulinna, P. H., & Ward, E. (2000). Students' experiences with and perceptions of teaching styles. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 34(1), 93-103.
  • Demirhan, G., Bulca, Y., Altay, F., Şahin, R., Güvenç, A., Aslan, A., ... & Açıkada, C. (2008). Comparison of the views of partners regarding the physical education curriculum and it’s delivery. Hacettepe Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 19(3), 157-180.
  • Ertmer, P.A., & Newby, T.J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance improvement quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
  • Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE Publications.
  • Gilbert, W., & Côté, J. (2013). Defining Coaching Effectiveness: A focus on coaches’ knowledge. Routledge handbook of sports coaching, 147-159.
  • Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage.
  • Hu, L, Bentler, PM (1999): Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
  • İnce, M. L., Hünük, D. (2010). Eğitim reformu sürecinde deneyimli beden eğitimi öğretmenlerinin kullandıkları öğretim stilleri ve stillere ilişkin algıları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(157), 128-139.
  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31(9), 28 – 33.
  • Jöreskog, K, Sörbom, D (1993): “LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
  • Kulinna, P. H., & Cothran, D. J. (2003). Physical education teachers’ self-reported use and perceptions of various teaching styles. Learning and Instruction, 13(6), 597-609.
  • Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  • Mardia, KV (1985): Mardia’s test of multinormality. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (Vol. 5, pp. 217–221). New York: Wiley.
  • Maruyama, GM (1998): Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1985). Toward a unified theory of teaching. Educational Leadership, 42(8), 31-34.
  • Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education (3th ed.). Columbus: Merrill Pub. Co.
  • Nunnally, JC (1978): Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Penney, D. (2006). Coaching as teaching: New acknowledgements in practice. In The sports coach as educator (pp. 43-54). Routledge.
  • Saraç, L., & Muştu, E. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının beden eğitimi öğretim stillerini kullanım düzeyleri ile stillere ilişkin değer algılarının incelenmesi. Pamukkale Journal of Sport Sciences, 4(2), 112-124.
  • Smith, R. E. (2006). ‘Positive reinforcement, performance feedback, and performance enhancement’, in J. M. Williams (ed.) Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance, New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  • Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Macmillan.
  • Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Tabachnick, BG, Fidell, LS (2013): Using Multivariate Statistics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Winne, P. H. (1985). Cognitive processing in the classroom. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 2, pp. 795 – 808). Oxford: Pergamon.
There are 34 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Sports Medicine
Journal Section SCIENCE of SPORTS EDUCATION
Authors

Koray Kılıç 0000-0002-9592-7268

Mustafa Levent İnce 0000-0001-9860-4336

Publication Date September 15, 2019
Submission Date June 18, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 5 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Kılıç, K., & İnce, M. L. (2019). Antrenörlerin kullandıkları öğretim yöntemleri ölçeği – sporcu sürümünün (AKÖY – SPORCU) geliştirilmesi. International Journal of Sport Exercise and Training Sciences - IJSETS, 5(3), 119-128. https://doi.org/10.18826/useeabd.579590