Okul Yerleştirmeleri Sırasında Yüzmeyi Öğretmek İçin Ders Planlarında Öğrenci Öğretmenlerin Öğretimsel Uyumları

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, ilkokul, ortaokul ve lisede yüzme öğretimi veren öğretmen adaylarının (ÖA) ders ve ünite planlarındaki öğretimsel uyumunu araştırmaktır. Yöntemler: Batı Avrupa'daki bir Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Öğretmenliği (BESÖ) programından en az dört derslik bir üniteyi öğreten altı ÖA araştırmaya dâhil edildi. Ünite ve ders planları, öğretmenlik uygulaması sırasında ilkokul, ortaokul ve lise öğrencilerine öğretmek için yazıldı. Ünite hedefleri ile ders öğrenme çıktıları, değerlendirmeler ve görevler arasındaki kalite ve uyumun değerlendirmesi, eğitimli kodlayıcılar tarafından yapıldı. Kodlayıcının güvenilirliği %100'dü. Sonuçlar: ÖA'ları toplam 15 ünite hedefi yazdı, bunlardan dördü (%21) bir davranış, ölçüt ve durum içeriyordu. 15 ünite hedefinden 13'ü değerlendirildi (%77), ÖA'ları arasında %33 - %100 arasında değişti. Sadece dokuz ders öğrenme çıktısı (n = 92) değerlendirildi (%9), ÖA'ları arasında %0 - %25 arasında değişti. Ünite hedefleri ve değerlendirme arasındaki öğretim uyumu %10, ders öğrenme çıktıları ve değerlendirme arasında ise %6 idi. Öğrenme görevleri için %27 (n = 83) birim hedefleriyle ve %28 (n = 85) ders öğrenme çıktılarıyla uyumluydu. Öğretmen adaylarının alan bilgisi zayıf olarak değerlendirildi, sadece bir ÖA güçlü özelleşmiş alan bilgisi için 3.0 ölçütünü yerine getirdi. Tartışma/Sonuç: Bu çalışma ÖA'lar arasında sonuçlarda geniş bir değişkenlik olduğunu göstermiştir. ÖA'ları açık ünite hedefleri yazmada, değerlendirmeler geliştirmede ve ders ve birim planlarında öğretim uyumunu sağlamada zorluklar yaşadılar. ÖA'ların düşük alan bilgisi, ünite ve ders planlarının geliştirilmesini ve öğretim uyumunu etkilemiş olabileceği düşünülmektedir. BESÖ programları ÖA'nın bu becerileri geliştirmesine odaklanmalı ve planlama ve öğretimsel uyumunu uygulama konusunda ÖA'nı sorumlu tutmalıdır.

Keywords

• Değerlendirme
• Ünite Hedefleri
• Ders Öğrenme Çıktıları
• BESÖ
• Alan Bilgisi

Student Teachers’ Instructional Alignment in Lesson Plans for Teaching Swimming During School Placements

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate student teachers’ (STs) instructional alignment in lesson and unit plans for teaching swimming in elementary, middle and high school. Methods: Six STs from one Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) program in Western Europe who were teaching a unit of at least four lessons were included. The unit- and lesson plans were written for teaching elementary-, middle-, and high school students during school placements. An analysis of the quality and alignment between unit goals and lesson learning outcomes, assessments, and instructional tasks was conducted by trained coders. Coder reliability was 100%. Results: The STs wrote a total of 19 unit goals, of which four (21%) included a behavior, situation and criterion. Thirteen out of 19 unit goals were assessed (68%), varying between 33% - 100% between STs. Only nine of 92 (9%) lesson learning outcomes were assessed, varying between 0% - 25% between STs. Instructional alignment between unit goals and assessment was 10% and 6% between lesson learning outcomes and assessment. For planned instructional tasks 27% (n = 83) were aligned with the unit goals and 28% (n = 85) with the lesson learning outcomes. The STs specialized content knowledge was considered poor, only one ST achieved the 3.0 benchmark for strong specialized content knowledge. Discussion/Conclusion: This study demonstrated a wide variability in results between STs. The STs experienced problems with writing explicit unit goals, developing assessments, and ensuring instructional alignment in lesson and unit plans. Low content knowledge of the STs may have influenced the problems with instructional alignment. PETE programs should focus on teaching instructional alignment as part of content classes and need to hold STs accountable for implementing instructional alignment in planning and teaching.

Keywords

• Unit Goals
• PETE
• Assessment
• Content Knowledge
• Lesson Learning Outcomes

References

1. AIESEP Position Statement on Physical Education Assessment (2020). https://aiesep.org/scientific-meetings/position-statements/
2. Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular alignment: a Re-Examination. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_9
3. Borghouts, L. B., Slingerland, M., & Haerens, L. (2017). Assessment quality and practices in secondary PE in the Netherlands. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(5), 473–489.
4. Brenner, R. A., Saluja, G., & Smith, G. S. (2003). Swimming lessons, swimming ability, and the risk of drowning. Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 10(4), 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1076/icsp.10.4.211.16775
5. Carroll, J.B (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733
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. Cohen, S. A. (1987). Instructional alignment: searching for a magic bullet. Educational Researcher, 16(8), 16–20.
8. Dervent, F., Tsuda, E., Devrilmez, E., & Ward, P. (2016). Content development coding assessment manual. Version 2.1.

9. Dervent, F., Ward, P., Devrilmez, E., & Tsuda, E. (2018). Transfer of content development across practica in physical education teacher education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(4), 330-339. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0150
10. Dervent, F., Devrilmez, E., İnce, M., & Ward, P. (2020). A national analysis of the content knowledge of Turkish physical education teacher education students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 25(6), 613–628.
11. Doutis, P., & Ward, P. (1999). Chapter 4: Teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the Saber-Tooth Project reform and of their changing workplace conditions. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18(4), 417–427.
12. Erdmann, R., D. Chatzopoulos, and H. Tsormbatzoudis. 2006. "Pupils Grading: Do teachers grade according to the way they report?" International Journal of Physical Education 43 (1): 4-10.
13. Farias, C., Teixeira, J., Ribeiro, E., & Mesquita, I. (2022). Effects of a two-stage physical education teacher education program on preservice teachers’ specialized content knowledge and students’ game-play in a student-centered Sport Education-Step Game approach. European Physical Education Review, 28(3), 816 834. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x221084516
14. Graber, K. C. (1991). Studentship in Preservice Teacher Education: A Qualitative study of undergraduate students in Physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1991.10607517
15. Hastie, P.A., & Siedentop, D. (2006). The classroom ecology paradigm. In SAGE publications Ltd eBooks. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608009.n12
16. Iserbyt, P., Ward, P., & Li, W. (2015). Effects of improved content knowledge on pedagogical content knowledge and student performance in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1095868
17. Iserbyt, P., Coolkens, R., Loockx, J., Vanluyten, K., Martens, J., & Ward, P. (2020). Task adaptations as a function of content knowledge: a functional Analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 91(4), 539–550.
18. Iserbyt, P., Lund, J., & Lux, F. (2024). Instructional alignment in Physical education student teachers’ lesson plans for individual sports. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2024-0041
19. Iserbyt, P., Mous, A., Vandenlindenloof, C., & Vanluyten, K. (2024b). The effect of content knowledge on content development, task adaptations, and children’s task performance in elementary school. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2023-019
20. James, A. R., Griffin, L. L., & Dodds, P. (2008). The relationship between instructional alignment and the ecology of physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(3), 308–326.
21. John PD (2006) Lesson planning and the trainee: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies 38(4): 483–498.
22. 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(2), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0168
23. Kim, I., & Ward, P. (2020). Changes in the content development and adaptive competence of teachers following a specialized content knowledge workshop. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40(4), 626–634. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2020-0082
24. Lund, J., & van der Mars, H. (2022). Physical education’s real brass ring… time to get the field back on track. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 93(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2022.2006010
25. Lund, J., Veal, M.L. (2008). Measuring pupil learning— how do student teachers assess within instructional models? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 1-26.
26. Lund, J., & Veal, M.L. (2013). Assessment-driven instruction in physical education: A standards-based approach to promoting and documenting learning. Human Kinetics.
27. Lund, J., & Shanklin, J. (2011). The impact of accountability on student performance in a secondary physical education badminton unit. The Physical Educator, 68(4), 210–220.
28. Matanin, M., Tannehill, D. (1994). Assessment and grading in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13(4), 395–405.
29. Penney, D., Brooker, R., Hay, P., & Gillespie, L. (2009). Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment: Three message systems of schooling and dimensions of quality physical education. Sport, education and society, 14(4), 421-442. DOI: 10.1080/13573320903217125
30. Redelius, K., and P.J. Hay. (2012). Student views on criterion-referenced assessment and grading in Swedish physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 17 (2): 211-25.
31. Rink, J. (1979). Development of a system for the observation of content development in physical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University.
32. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundation of the new Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
33. Silverman, S., Kulinna, P. H., & Crull, G. (1995). Skill-related task structures, explicitness, and accountability: relationships with student achievement. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1995.10607653
34. Society of Health and Physical Educators of America (SHAPE America). (2024). Swimming and your health. (2024, November 13). Healthy Swimming. https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-swimming/about/index.html
35. The American Red Cross, (2024). Safety training for swim coaches, online content. Redcross.org. https://www.redcross.org/take-a-class/classes/safety-training-for-swim-coaches-online-content-only/a6R0V0000015Fhb.html
36. Thorburn, M. (2007). "Achieving conceptual and curriculum coherence in high-stakes school examinations in Physical Education." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 12 (2): 163-84.
37. Tomlinson, C.A. (2014) The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. 2nd Edition, ASCD, Alexandria.
38. Van Der Mars, H., McNamee, J., & Timken, G. (2018). Physical Education meets Teacher Evaluation: Supporting physical educators in formal assessment of student learning outcomes. The Physical Educator, 75(4), 582–616. https://doi.org/10.18666/tpe-2018-v75-i4-8471
39. Veal, M.L. (1988). "Pupil Assessment Perceptions and Practices of Secondary Teachers." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 7 (4): 327-42.
40. 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.
41. Ward, P., Kim, I., Ko, B., & Li, W. (2014). Effects of improving teachers’ content knowledge on teaching and student learning in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86(2), 1-10.
42. 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(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2016-0059
43. Ward, P., Ayvazo, S., Dervent, F., Iserbyt, P., & Kim, I. (2020). Instructional progression and the role of working models in physical education. Quest, 72(4), 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2020.1766521
44. Ward, P., Kim, I., Li, W., Ko, B., Iserbyt, P., Sinelnikov, O.A., & Curtner-Smith, M.D. (2022). The role of content knowledge in influencing student physical activity, on-task behavior, and skill performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 94, Article 186. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2021.1979186
45. World Health Organization (2024). Preventing drowning: practical guidance for the provision of day-care, basic swimming and water safety skills, and safe rescue and resuscitation training.
46. Wiggins, G., McTighe, J. (2005) Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
47. YMCA, (2024). Water safety and swimming. YMCA.org. https://www.ymca.org/what-we-do/healthy-living/water-safety
48. Zhu, X. (2015). Student perspectives of grading in physical education. European Physical Education Review 21 (4): 409-420