The Alignment between The Official Physical Education Curriculum and The Taught Curriculum

Abstract

Although the written physical education curriculum is the same throughout the country, the implementation phase in schools differs from each other. Hence the purpose of this study is to examine the implementation process of the 5th-grades physical education and sports curriculum (updated in 2018) in different school contexts. Case study pattern was used. The participants of the study are two physical education teachers in Eskisehir. The data collection process consisting of observations, interviews, and field notes was completed in the fall semester of the 2018-2019 academic year. As a result of the analysis, the implementation process of the curriculum sub-theme which is related to the main theme of "taught curriculum", were reached. In conclusion, it can be said that the implementation process in schools is mostly teacher-centered, including the teaching of sports techniques and evaluating the psychomotor domain. The game-based and student-centered structure of the updated program could not be implemented by the teachers in the study. Also, it can be stated that the sufficiency of physical education course materials and the suitability of the areas used in physical education lessons are important factors in the implementation process of the curriculum.

Keywords

• case study
• curriculum alignment
• physical education
• taught curriculum
• teacher implementation.

Resmi Beden Eğitimi Öğretim Programı ile Öğretilen Program Arasındaki Uyum

Öz

Ülke genelinde geçerli tek bir resmi beden eğitimi öğretim programı olsa da bu programın okullardaki uygulama süreçleri birbirinden farklılık göstermektedir. Bu nedenle bu çalışmanın amacı, 2018 yılında güncellenen 5. sınıf beden eğitimi ve spor dersi öğretim programının farklı okul bağlamlarında uygulanma sürecini incelemektir. Durum çalışması deseninin kullanıldığı çalışmanın katılımcıları Eskişehir'de görev yapan gönüllü iki beden eğitimi öğretmeni olarak seçilmiştir. Gözlem, görüşme ve saha notlarından oluşan veri toplama süreci 2018-2019 eğitim-öğretim yılı güz döneminde tamamlanmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda "öğretilen program" ana temasına bağlı olan "öğretim programının uygulanma süreci" adlı bir alt temaya ulaşılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, okullardaki uygulama sürecinin çoğunlukla öğretmen merkezli olduğu, spor tekniklerinin öğretimi ve psikomotor alanın değerlendirilmesini içerdiği söylenebilir. Güncellenen programın oyun temelli ve öğrenci merkezli yapısının, araştırmadaki beden eğitimi öğretmenleri tarafından öğretim süreçlerine yeterince yansıtılamadığı fark edilmiştir. Ayrıca beden eğitimi ders materyallerinin yeterliliği ve beden eğitimi derslerinde kullanılan ders alanların uygunluğunun programın uygulanma sürecinde önemli etkenler olduğu ifade edilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• beden eğitimi
• durum çalışması
• öğretilen program
• öğretim programı uyumu
• öğretmen uygulaması

Kaynakça

1. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
2. Bulger, S. M., Housner, L. D., & Lee, A. M. (2008). Curriculum alignment: A view from physical education teacher education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 79(7), 44-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2008.10598215
3. Cengiz, C., & Ince, M. L. (2014). Impact of social-ecologic intervention on physical activity knowledge and behaviors of rural students. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 11, 1565–1572. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2013-0080
4. Chatoupis, C. (2016). Planning Physical Education Lessons as Teaching “Episodes”. Strategies, 29(2), 20-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08924562.2015.1133355
5. Chen, W. (2006). Teachers’ knowledge about and views of the national standards for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25, 120-142. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.25.1.120
6. Chng, L. S., & Lund, J. (2018). Assessment for learning in physical education: The what, why, and how. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 89(8), 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2018.1503119
7. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Commentary: Thematic analysis. Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
8. Coulter, M., Scanlon, D., MacPhail, A., O’Brien, W., Belton, S., & Woods, C. (2020). The (mis) alignment between young people’s collective physical activity experience and physical education curriculum development in Ireland. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 11(3), 204-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2020.1808493

9. Demirhan, G., Bulca, Y., Altay, F., Sahin, R., Guvenc, A., Aslan, A. & Acikada, 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.
10. Erdogdu, M., & Ocalan, M. (2009). The opinions of physical education teachers on evaluating the second level primary school physical education lesson program. Spormetre The Journal of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, 8(4), 151-162.
11. Ertan, H. & Cicek, S. (2003). Student achievement evaluation approaches in elementary physical education courses in Turkey. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(25), 76-83.
12. Fink, D. L. (2005). Integrated course design. Idea Paper 42. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center. https://ideacontent.blob.core.windows.net/content/sites/2/2020/01/Idea_Paper_42.pdf
13. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2018). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (10th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
14. Fraser-Thomas, J. L., & Beaudoin, C. (2002). Implementing a physical education curriculum: Two teachers' experiences. Canadian Journal of Education, 27(2), 249-268.
15. Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change (3rd Ed.), New York and London.
16. Glatthorn, A. A., Jailall, J. M., & Jailall, J. K. (2016). The principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught and tested (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
17. Glatthorn, A.A. (2000). The principals as curriculum leader: shaping what is taught and tested (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.
18. Gulum, V., & Bilir, P. (2011). Opinions of physical education teachers, physical education curricula programs related to the conditions of applicability. Spormetre The Journal of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, 9(2), 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1501/Sporm_0000000200
19. Hardman, K. (2008). Physical education in schools: a global perspective. Kinesiology: International journal of fundamental and applied kinesiology, 40(1.), 5-28.
20. Havadar, T., & Tasdan, M. (2015). The views of physical education teachers about the physical education curriculum in the 4th and 5th grades of primary schools. Inonu University, Journal of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, 2(1), 29-46.
21. Hay, P., R. Tinning, & C. Engstrom (2015). Assessment as pedagogy: A consideration of pedagogical work and the preparation of kinesiology professionals. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 20(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2013.788145
22. Hunuk, D., Ince, M. L., & Tannehill, D. (2013). Developing teachers’ health-related fitness knowledge through a community of practice: Impact on student learning. European Physical Education Review, 19, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X12450769
23. Ince, M. L. & Hunuk, D. (2010). Experienced physical education teachers’ use and perceptions of teaching styles during the educational reform period. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(157), 128-139.
24. Ince, M. L. (2019). Supporting learning of practitioners and early career scholars in physical education and sports pedagogy. Sport, Education and Society, 24(6), 584-596. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2019.1598966
25. Ince, M. L., & Demirhan, G. (2011). Integration of health and active living perspective in a skill oriented physical education curriculum: A report from Turkey. Healthy Active Life Style and Physical Education, 26-31.
26. Ince, M. L., Hunuk, D., Ozturk, M. A., Yanık, M., & Savucu, Y. (2018). PE teacher professional development project needs analysis report. The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey.
27. Jin, A. (2013). Physical education curriculum reform in China: a perspective from physical education teachers. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(1), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2011.623231
28. Kin-Isler, A., Asci, F. H., Altintas, A., & Guven-Karahan, B. (2009). Physical activity levels and patterns of 11-14-year-old Turkish adolescents. Adolescence, 44(176), 1005–1015.
29. Kolukisa, S., Donmez, B., & Donmez, K. H. (2015). A study on secondary school students’ expectations of physical and motoric development in the course of physical education [In Turkish]. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1, 1–9.
30. Leirhaug, P. E., & MacPhail, A. (2015). ‘It's the other assessment that is the key’: three Norwegian physical education teachers' engagement (or not) with assessment for learning. Sport, Education & Society, 20(5), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.975113
31. Macdonald, D. (2003). Curriculum change and the post-modern world: Is the school curriculum-reform movement an anachronism? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(2), 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270210157605
32. McNeill, K. L., Marco-Bujosa, L. M., Gonzalez-Howard, M. & Loper, S. (2018). Teachers’ enactments of curriculum: Fidelity to Procedure versus Fidelity to Goal for scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 40(12), 1455-1475. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1482508
33. Mirzeoglu, D. A. (2017). Akran Öğretim Modeli. D. A. Mirzeoğlu (Ed.), In Model Temelli Beden Eğitimi (ss. 109-137) Ankara: Spor Yayınevi ve Kitabevi.
34. MoNE (2007). Primary school (grade 1-8) physical education curriculum [In Turkish]. Ankara: Ministry of Education.
35. MoNE (2013). Secondary school (grade 5-8) physical education curriculum [In Turkish]. Ankara: Ministry of Education.
36. MoNE (2018). Secondary school (grade 5-8) physical education curriculum [In Turkish]. Ankara: Ministry of Education.
37. Moura, A., Graca, A., Macphail, A., & Batista, P. (2020). Aligning the principles of assessment for learning to learning in physical education: A review of literature. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 26(4), 388-401. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1834528
38. Nevenglosky, E. A., Cale, C. & Aguilar, S. P. (2019). Barriers to effective curriculum implementation. Research in Higher Education Journal, 36, 1-31.
39. Oh, J., & Graber, K. C. (2017). National curriculum for physical education in the United States. Quest, 69(2), 220-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1218776
40. Ozcan, G., & Mirzeoglu, A. D. (2014). Beden eğitimi öğretim programına ilişkin öğrenci, veli ve beden eğitimi öğretmenlerinin görüşleri. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 98-121.
41. Ozturk, B. (2001). Derse giriş davranışlarının öğretmenler tarafından kullanılma durumu. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 7(1), 107-124.
42. Ozturk, I. H. (2012). Teacher's role and autonomy in instructional planning: the case of secondary school history teachers with regard to the preparation and implementation of annual instructional plans. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 271-299.
43. Powell, E., Woodfield, L. A., Nevill, A. M., Powell, A. J. & Myers, T. D. (2018). ‘We have to wait in a queue for our turn quite a bit’ Examining children’s physical activity during primary physical education lessons. European Physical Education Review, 25(4), 929-948. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X18785343
44. Recker, J. (2013). Scientific research in information systems: A beginner's guide. New York: Springer.
45. Rink, J. & Stewart, S. (2003). Insights and reflections on a state assessment program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22(5), 573–88. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.22.5.573
46. Rink, J. E. (2013). Measuring teacher effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84(4), 407-418. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.844018
47. Roehrig, G.H., Kruse, R.A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883-907. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20180
48. Rogan, J. M., & Grayson, D. J. (2003). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1171-1204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145819
49. Tang, L. F., & Ma, Y. P. (2002). A survey of the implementation of the new curriculum: Problems and obstacles [in Chinese]. Theory and Practice of Education, 22(7), 52–55.
50. United Nations. (2004). Sport for peace and development: International Year of sport and physical education. Report of the Secretary-General, 16 August 2004 (A/59/268/Add.1). https://www.sportanddev.org/sites/default/files/downloads/15__intl_year_of_sport_and_p_e_2005_final_report.pdf
51. Varol, Y. K., & Imamoglu, F. (2014). Comparatively analyzing the physical education curriculum in elementary education according to teacher opinions in Turkey and England. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 14(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2014.01016
52. Ward, P., & Doutis, P. (1999). Toward a consolidation of the knowledge base for reform in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 382-402.
53. Ward, P., Doutis, P., & Evans, S. (1999). Lessons, conclusions, and implications of the Saber-Tooth Project. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 18(4), 455–463.
54. Wright, S., McNeill, M., Fry, J., Tan, S., Tan, C., & Schempp, P. (2006). Implications of student teachers’ implementation of a curricular innovation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 25(3), 310–328. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.25.3.310
55. Yin, R. (2013). Case study research; design and methods. 5th Edition. (Vol. 28). Portland: Ringgold Inc.