Evaluation of the Constructivist Learning Environments of Physical Education Teacher Candidates

Abstract

The aim of this research is to evaluate the constructivist learning environments of physical education and sport teacher candidates. For this purpose, 928 students (523 male, 405 female) selected by the appropriate sampling method from the Physical Education and Sport Teaching Department of 17 universities consisted the sample of the research. In the study; "Constructivist Learning Environments Evaluation Scale" developed by Arkun and Askar (2010) was used in order to reveal the opinions of the students about the constructivist learning environment. The scale consists of 7 Likert type, 6 sub dimensions and 28 items. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient for this study was found to be .93. The lowest score that can be taken from the scale is 28 and the highest score is 196. Kruskal Wallis Variance Analysis and Mann Whitney U test were used because the obtained data did not show normal distribution (Kolmogorov-Smirnov), and the significance level was taken as 0.05. As a result of the research, the constructivist learning environments of 17th universities 3rd and 4th grade teacher candidates were evaluated in terms of age, gender and grade variables. According to this, there was no significant difference when the average scores of constructivist learning environments were compared in terms of age and class levels of physical education and sports teacher candidates. In comparison with gender, female teacher candidates were found to have a more constructive learning environment.

Keywords

• hysical Education,teacher candidate,constructivist learning,learning environments

Kaynakça

1. Altun, S., & Buyukduman, F. I. (2007). Teacher and Student Beliefs on Constructivist Instructional Design: A Case Study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(1): 30-39.
2. Ardic, U. (2015). Examination of Interviews of Secondary Education Students towards Constructivist Learning Environments (Umraniye District Example). Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Yeditepe University Institute of Educational Sciences, Istanbul.
3. Arkun, S., & Askar, P. (2010). Development of the Constructivist Learning Environment Assessment Scale. Hacettepe University Journal of Education Faculty, 39, 32-43.
4. Atasay, S., & Akdeniz, A. R. (2006). Evaluating the application process of the worksheets developed in accordance with the constructivist learning theory. National Education Journal, 170, 157-175.
5. Atila, M. E., Yasar, M. D., Yildirim, M., & Sozbilir, M. (2015). Perception of 6th, 7th, and 8th Grade Students in Terms of Constructivist Learning Understanding of Science Courses. National Education Journal, 205, 112-124.
6. Bagci-Kilic, G. (2001). Creator Science Teaching. Journal of Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 1(1): 7-22.
7. Bal, A.P., & Doganay, A. (2009). A Look at the Constructivist Learning Environment in the Mathematics Lesson of the Fifth Grade Primary School Students. Journal of the Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, 18 (2): 156-171.
8. Bas, G. (2012). Evaluation of primary school students perceptions of constructivist learning environment in terms of different variables. Journal of Education and Training Research, 1 (4); 203-215.

9. Bay, E., & Karakaya, S. (2009). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Constructivist Approach Based Teacher Training. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 8 (28); 40-55.
10. Brekelmans, M., van den Eeden, P., Terwel, J., & Wubbels, Th. (1997). Student characteristics and learning environment interactions in mathematics and physics education: A resource perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 283–292.
11. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1998). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
12. Demirel, O. (2008). Constructivist training. Contemporary approaches in education and teaching symposium. Istanbul.
13. Demirtas, B., Oguz, Y., Uredi, L., & Akbasli, S. (2015). Constructivist Learning Environment Assessment. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education. Special Issue, 235 – 245.
14. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.
15. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for The Design and Delivery of Instruction. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Gijbels, D. Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Bossche, P. (2006). New learning environments and constructivism: The students’perspective. Instructional Science, 34, 213–226.
17. Hudson, P. (2013). Desirable attributes and practices for mentees: Mentor teachers’ expectations. European Journal of Educational Research, 2(3): 107-119.
18. Karasar, N. (2016). Scientific Research Method. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
19. Kurtdede-Fidan, N., & Duman, F. (2014). The extent to which classroom teachers have the qualifications required by the constructivist approach. Journal of Education and Science, 39(174): 143-159.
20. Kingsley, L., & Romine, R. (2014).Measuring teaching best practice in the induction years: Development and validation of an item-level assessment. European Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 87-109.
21. Nayman, O. (2011). Evaluation of the Learning Environment in Science and Technology Classroom Based on Constructivism, Unpublished Master's Thesis, Eskisehir Osmangazi University Educational Sciences Institute.
22. Ocak, G. (2012). Evaluation of teachers' achievement of constructive learning environment as teacher and teacher candidates. Education and Science, 37(166): 25-40.
23. Oguz, A. (2004). Higher education programs in the information age. National Educational Journal, 164. Retrieved from http://yayim.meb.gov.tr/dergiler/164/oguz.htm.
24. Ozden, Y. (2003). Learning and Teaching. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.
25. Segers, M. & Dochy, F. (2001). New Assessment Forms in Problem-based Learning: The value-added of the students' perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3): 327-343.
26. Sonmez, V. (2008). Philosophy of Education. Ankara: Ani Publishing.
27. Sonmez, V., & Alacapinar, F.G. (2011). Exemplified Scientific Research Methods. Ankara: Ani Publishing.
28. Sasan, H. (2002). Yapılandırmacı ogrenme [Contructivist learning]. Journal of Education for Life. 74, 49-52.
29. Tynjala, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 3(5): 357-442.
30. Uredi, I. ve Uredi, L. (2007). Creating Learning Environments that Enhance Students' Self-Regulatory Skills. Edu7, 2(2).
31. Vygotskij, L. S., Rieber, R. W., Bruner, J. S., & Minick, N. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. (The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky.) New York: Plenum.
32. Wells, G. (1995). Language and the Inquiry-Oriented Curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 25(3): 233-248.
33. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative Processes of Comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4): 345-376.