Modele dayalı uygulamada beden eğitimi öğretmenini güçlendiren ve yavaşlatan ögeler

Öz

Beden Eğitimi Lise Öğretim Programı’nda 2009’da yapılan değişiklikle derslerin işlenmesine yönelik yeni model uygulamaları önerilmiştir. Metzler (2005), öğretmenlerin seçebileceği öğretime rehberlik edebilecek 9 farklı öğretim modeli tanımlar. Bu modeller içinde Hellison’ un ortaya koyduğu ‘Bireysel ve Sosyal Sorumluluk Modeli’ (BSSM) beden eğitiminde özellikle duyuşsal özelliklerin öğrenciye kazandırılmasında yol gösterici olmaktadır. Ancak modelin yürütülmesinde öğretmenin rolünün iyi bilinmesi ve benimsenmesi gerekmektedir. Öğretmenlerin rollerini yerine getirirken modelin yürütülmesini güçlendiren ve yavaşlatan unsurlar, bu modeli uygulamayı düşünen beden eğitimi öğretmenlerine programlarını daha etkili tasarlamalarına yardım edecektir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bireysel ve sosyal sorumluluk modelini dersinde uygulamış bir öğretmenin uygulamada karşılaştığı yavaşlatıcıları ve güçlendiricileri ortaya koymaktır. Eylem araştırması ile tasarlanan bu çalışmanın veri toplama araçları; öğretmen ve öğrenci günlükleri, danışman ve uzman görüşmelerinden elde edilmiştir. Veriler içerik analizi ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgulara göre, model uygulamasını güçlendiren unsurlar; Öğretmen-uzman işbirliği, içerik seçimi ve iş arkadaşları ile olan etkileşimdir. Model uygulanmasını yavaşlatan unsurlar ise; ders hazırlığı yapma zorluğu (seviyelere göre etkinlik bulmama, ders planı yapma, yansıma alma), zaman yetersizliği ve değişen öğretmen rolüdür. Sonuç olarak, öğretmenler modele dayalı uygulamada kendi rollerini öğrenip deneyimleyerek uygulamalardaki etkililiği arttırabilirler

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bireysel ve sosyal sorumluluk modeli, güçlendirici, yavaşlatıcı

THE ENHANCER AND INHIBITOR FACTORS THAT PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER’S IMPLEMENTATİON IN MODEL-BASED PRACTICE

Abstract

With the innovation of high school Physical Education curriculum in 2009, the new pedagogical model applications have been suggested for teaching. Metzler (2005), defines 9 different teaching models that will guide the teaching model the teachers will choose among. In these models, ‘Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR)’ which Hellison proposed guides teachers in helping pupils gain particularly affective features in physical education. However, the role of a teacher should be well understood and it should be adopted in the implementation of the model. The factors, which enhance and inhibit the implementation of the model the teachers perform, would help the physical education teachers considering applying the model to design their programs more effectively. The aim of this study is to reveal the enhancers and inhibitors encountered during the implementation by a teacher who applied personal and social responsibility model in his/her class. In the study action research approach was employed and the data were obtained from teacher and student logs, and the consultant and expert interviews. Data were analyzed using content analysis. According to the findings, factors enhancing the implementation of the model were the teacher-expert collaboration, selection of content and interaction with colleagues. Factors inghibiting the implementation were difficulty in preparing a lesson (difficulty in finding activities according to level, lesson planning, and receiving reflection), lack of time and the changing role of teachers. As a result, teachers can increase the effectiveness of the application by learning and experiencing their roles in model based practice

Keywords

• personal and social responsibility model, enhancer, inhibitor

Kaynakça

1. Barrett KR, Turner AP (2000): Sandy’s challenge: New game, new Paradigm. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 19, no. 2: 162-81.
2. Bechtel PA, O’Sullivan M (2007): Enhancers and inhibitors of teacher change among secondary physical educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26 (3), 221-235
3. Brooker R, Kirk D, Braiuka, ve ark. (2000): Imple- menting a game sense approach to teaching junior high school basketball in a naturalistic setting. Eu- ropean Physical Education Review 6, no. 1: 7-26.
4. Brunton, JA (2003): Changing hierarchies of power in physical education using sport education. Euro- pean Physical Education Review 9, no. 3: 267–84.
5. Calderon, M (1999): Teachers Learning Communi- ties for Cooperation in Diverse Settings. Theory in- to Practice 38 (2): 94–99.
6. Casey A, Dyson B, Campbell A (2009): Action research in physical education: Focusing beyond myself through cooperative learning. Educational Action Research, 17(3), 407-423.
7. Casey, A (2014): Models-based practice: great white hope or white elephant? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy.19 (1), 18-34.
8. Casey A, Dyson B (2009): The implementation of models-based practice in physical education through action research. EPER, 15(2), 175 -199.

9. Detert JR, Seashore Louis K, ve ark. (2001): A cultural framework of education: Defining quality values and their impact in U.S. high schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12 (2), 183-212.
10. Clarke G, Quill M (2003): Researching sport edu- cation in action: A case study. European Physical Education Review 9, no. 3: 253–66.
11. Dinkelman T (1997): The promise of action re- search for critically reflective teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 32 (4), 250-274.
12. Doutis P, Ward P (1999): Chapter 4: Teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the saber-tooth pro- ject reform and of their changing workplace condi- tions [Monograph]. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 417-427.
13. Dyson B, Rubin A (2003): Implementing coopera- tive learning in elementary physical education. JOPERD: 74, no. 1: 48–55.
14. Dyson B, Strachan K (2004): The ecology of coop- erative learning in a high school physical education programme. Waikato Journal of Education 10: 117– 3
15. Faucette N (1987): Teachers’ concerns and partici- pation styles during in-service education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 6, 425-440.
16. Fisette JL, Bohler HR, Carpenter E, ve ark. (2006): Preservice teachers’ experiences implementing a tactical games model. Research Quarterly for Exer- cise and Sport, 77(suppl.), A-56–A-57.
17. Fullan MG (1992): Successful school improvement: The implementation perspectives and beyond. Buckingham, MK, Great Britain: Open University Press.
18. Fullan, M. (1999): Change Forces: The Sequel. London: Falmer Press.
19. Fullan MG, Stiegelbauer S (1991): The new mean- ing of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
20. Goodnough K (2010): Teacher Learning and Col- laborative “Knowledge-of-Practice” in the Context of Science Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education 21: 917–935. Generating a
21. Goodyear VA, Casey A (2015): Innovation with change: developing communities of practice to help teachers move beyond the 'honeymoon' of pedagog- ical renovation, Physical Education and Sport Ped- agogy, 20, No. 2: 186–203.
22. Gurvitch R, Tjeerdsma Blankenship BT, Metzler MW, ve ark. (2008): Chapter 3: Student Teachers’ Implementation of Model-Based Instruction: Facili- tators and Inhibitors. Journal of Teaching in Physi- cal Education 27 (4): 466–486.
23. Hellison D (2011): Teaching responsibility through physical activity (3rd ed.) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
24. Hensen KT (1996): Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher edu- cation (2nd ed., pp. 53-66). New York: Macmillan.
25. İnce ML, Hünük D (2010): Eğitim Reformu Sü- recinde Deneyimli Beden Eğitimi Öğretmenlerinin Kullandıkları Öğretim Stilleri ve Stillere İlişkin Al- gıları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35 (157), 128-139.
26. Joyce B, Weil M (1980): Models of teaching (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27. Keske G, Gürsel F, Alagül Ö (2012): Can you gain a healthy nutrition habit by physical literacy? Pro- cedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012) 1097-1102.
28. Lund JL, Gurvitch R, Metzler MW (2008): Chapter 7: Influences on cooperating teachers’ adoption of model-based instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 27(4), 549-570.
29. McCaughtry N, Sofo S, Rovegno I, ve ark. (2004): Learning to teach sport education: Misunderstand- ings, pedagogical difficulties, and resistance. Euro- pean Physical Education Review 10, no. 2: 135-56.
30. McNeill MC, Fry JM, Wright SC, ve ark. (2004): ‘In the local context’: Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum. Sport Education and Society, 9, 3-32.
31. Meb (1988): T.C. Milli Eğitim Gençlik ve Spor Bakanlığı İlköğretim Okulları Lise ve Dengi Okul- lar Beden Eğitimi Dersi Öğretim Programları. İs- tanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
32. Meb (2009): Ortaöğretim beden eğitimi dersi öğretim programı (9-12. Sınıflar). Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
33. Metzler MW, Mc Cullick BA (2008): Chapter 5: Introducing innovation to those who matter most- The P-12 pupils’ perceptions of model-based in- struction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Educa- tion, 27, 512–528.
34. Metzler M (2005): Instructional models for physical education. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.
35. Miles BM, Huberman AM (1994): Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. O’Donovan T, MacPhail A, Kirk D (2010): Active citizenship through sport education. Education 3-13 38, no.2:203-15.
37. Rossi T, Fry J, McNeill M, ve ark. (2007): The games concept approach (GCA) as a mandated practice: Views of Singaporean teachers. Sport, Education and Society 12, no. 1: 93–111.
38. Strauss A, Corbin J (1998): Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for develop- ing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39. WFDF (2015): Rules of Play. http://www.wfdf.org/ (05 Ocak 2015)
40. Wright S (2007): Student teachers’ tactical games teaching. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78 (suppl.), A-77.
41. Wright S, McNeill M, Fry J, ve ark. (2006): Impli- cations of student teachers’ implementation of a curricular innovation. Journal of Teaching in Phys- ical Education, 25, 310–328.
42. Yıldırım A, Şimşek H (2011): Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, 8. Baskı, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.