Kamu Hizmetinde Resmi Görevli Antrenörlerin Antrenörlük Öz-yeterlik Düzeyleri

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 1 - 11, 29.06.2024

Musa Karnikara Mustafa Karahan

https://doi.org/10.32706/tusbid.1473103

Öz

Kamu hizmetindeki antrenörlerin öz-yeterlik düzeylerinin bilinmesi önemli bir gerekliliktir. Bu konuda araştırma eksikliği nedeniyle bu çalışmada kamu hizmetinde resmi olarak görevlendirilmiş antrenörlerin antrenörlük öz-yeterlik düzeylerinin cinsiyet, spor türü, antrenörlük sertifika düzeyi, spor ve antrenörlük deneyimleri gibi değişkenler açısından incelenmesi amaçlandı.
Bu araştırmaya Türkiye'nin her bir bölgesinden en az ikinci kademe antrenörlük belgesine sahip 324 antrenör gönüllü olarak katılmıştır. Bu çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak antrenörlük öz-yeterlik ölçeği ve kişisel bilgi formu da kullanıldı. Veriler internet ağı üzerinden bir bağlantı aracılığıyla toplandı.
Katılımcıların öz-yeterlikler genelde%84.6, motivasyonda %84.3, teknikte %85.6, oyun stratejisinde %81.2, karakter oluşumunda %88.3 ve fiziksel kondisyonda %82.5 olarak yüksek seviyede idi. Genel antrenörlük yeterliliği ve alt boyutları öz-yeterlikte bireysel ve takım sporları antrenörleri arasında farklılıklar önemli değildi. Ancak, antrenörlük belgesi açısından bütün öz-yeterliklerde anlamlı farklılıklar vardı (p<0.05). Erkek antrenörler sadece fiziksel kondisyonda kadın antrenörlerden daha yüksek bir öz-yeterliğe sahipti (p<0.05). Bunun yanı sıra, sporculuk tecrübesi olan antrenörlerin oyun stratejisi öz-yeterlik düzeyleri spor tecrübesi olmayanlara göre daha yüksekti (p<0.05).
Bu çalışma, antrenörlerin öz-yeterliğine ilişkin inançlarının yüksek düzeyde olduğunu gösterdi. Bunun yanı sıra, fiziksel kondisyonda cinsiyetin, oyun stratejisinde sporculuk deneyimin, genel ve tüm alt boyutlardaki öz-yeterlikte ise antrenörlük belge kademesinin önemli olduğu sonucuna varıldı.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Antrenör Yeterliği, Spor Tipi, Antrenörlük Belgesi, Cinsiyet

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma Helsinki bildirgesi ile uyumludur. Bu çalışma için; Aksaray Üniversitesi İnsan Araştırmaları Etik Kurulundan 22.02.2021 tarihinde ‘Etik Kurul İzni’ alınmıştır.

Destekleyen Kurum

Yok

Coaching Self-Efficiency Levels of Official Coaches in Public Service

Öz

It is important to know the self-efficacy levels of public service coaches, who play an important role in developing sports in the country. Given the limited research on this topic, this study aims to investigate the coaching self-efficacy levels of coaches working in public service. The study will consider variables such as gender, type of sport, coaching certification level, and coaching and sports player experience.
A total of 324 coaches from all regions of Turkey with at least a second-level coaching certificate were voluntary participants in this research. This study used the coaching self-efficacy scale and personal information form as data collection tools. The data was collected through an internet connection
Participants' self-efficacy was 84.6% in general, 84.3% in motivation, 85.6% in technique, 81.2% in-game strategy, 88.3% in character formation and 82.5% in physical condition, Differences between individual and team sports coaches in general self-efficacy and its subscales self-efficacy were not significant. However, there were significant differences in all self-efficacy regarding coaching certification (p<0.05). Male coaches had higher than female coaches in physical condition, and coaches with athletic experience had higher self-efficacy in-game strategy than those without experience (p<0.05).
The present study reveals that the participants' belief in their coaching efficacy is at a high level. In addition, it was concluded that gender in physical condition, athletic experience in game strategy, and coaching certificate level both general and in all its sub-dimensions are important for the efficacy perception levels of the coaches in this study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Coaching Self-Efficacy, Sport Type, Coaching Certificate, Gender

Kaynakça

• Araya, J., Bennie, A., & O’Connor, D. (2015). Understanding performance coach development: Perceptions about a postgraduate coach education program. International Sport Coaching Journal, 2(1), 3-14.
• Bailey, R. (2006). Physical education and sport in schools: A review of benefits and outcomes. Journal of School Health, 76(8), 397-401.
• Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change, Psychological Review. 84, 191–215.
• Boardley, I. D. (2018). Coaching efficacy research: learning from the past and looking to the future. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 214-237.
• Buğdaycı, S. (2018). Antrenörlerin İletişim Becerileri ile Öz-Yeterliliklerinin İncelenmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi. Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Doktora Tezi.
• Chapari, L., Yoosefy, B., & Zardoshtian, S. (2020). The effect of coaching behaviour on self-efficacy and team performance in Iranian Women Football Pro League. Journal of Sport Management, 12(1), 19-33.
• Chase, M. A., Feltz, D. L., Hayashi, S. W., & Hepler, T. J. (2005). Sources of coaching efficacy: The coaches’ perspective. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3(1), 27-40.
• Cunningham, G.B., Doherty, A.J. & Gregg, M.J. (2007). Using social cognitive career theory to understand head coaching intentions among assistant coaches of women’s teams. Sex Roles, 56, 365-372.
• Çik, B. (2019). Sporcular tarafından algılanan antrenör davranışlarının antrenörlerin yeterliğiyle ilişkisinin incelenmesi. Master's thesis, Marmara Universitesi,Turkey.
• Everhart, C.B., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Gender differences in preferences for coaching as an occupation: The role of self-efficacy valence and perceived barriers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(2), 188-200.
• Eroğlu, O., Yıldırım, Y., & Şahan, H. (2017). Spor bilimleri fakültesindeki öğrencilerin akademik öz-yeterlik ve akademik güdülenme düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: Akdeniz Üniversitesi örneği. Türkiye Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 38-47.
• Eroğlu, O., & Yıldırım, Y. (2018). Beden eğitimi ve spor öğretmeni adaylarının akademik öz-yeterlik düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Türkiye Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 2 (2), 67-73.
• Feltz DL, Lirgg C. (2001). Self-efficacy Beliefs of Athletes, Teams, and Coaches. In: Singer R, Hausenblas, Janelle C, Eds. Handbook of Sport Psychology, 2nd Ed. John Willey and Sons, 340-361.
• Feltz, D.L., Chase, M.A., Moritz, S.E. & Sullivan P.J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 765-776.
• Feltz, DL, Hepler,TJ, Roman, N, and Paiement, C. (2009). Coaching Efficacy and Volunteer Youth Sport Coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 23:1, 24-41.
• Genç DA (1998) Spor Hukuku, Alfa Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Gilbert, W., & Ark., (2009). An evaluation strategy for coach education programs. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(2).
• Göral, K. (2014). Futbol Antrenörlerinin Yeterliliği, Karar Verme Stratejileri ve Takım Performansları Arasındakġ İlişkinin İncelenmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Yayınlanmış Doktora Tezi. Bolu.
• İhsan, S., Ekici, S., Soyer, F., & Eskiler, E. (2015). Does self-confidence link to motivation? A study in field hockey athletes. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 10(1), 24-35.
• Karahan, M. (2016). Are Candidate Coaches Ready for Coaching? Coaching Efficacy of Candidate Coaches. World Journal of Research and Review, 3(6), 9-14.
• Kassim, A. F. M. and Boardley, I. D. Kassim, A. F. M., & Boardley, I. D. (2018). Athlete perceptions of coaching effectiveness and athlete-level outcomes in team and individual sports: a cross-cultural investigation. The Sport Psychologist, 32(3), 189-198.
• Kavussanu, M., Boardley, I. D., Jutkiewicz, N., Vincent, S., & Ring, C. (2008). Coaching efficacy and coaching effectiveness: Examining their predictors and comparing coaches’ and athletes’ reports. The Sport Psychologist, 22(4), 383-404.
• Keatlholetswe, L., & Malete, L. (2019). Coaching efficacy, player perceptions of coaches’ leadership styles, and team performance in premier league soccer. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 90(1), 71-79.
• Maddux, J. E. (2016). Self-efficacy. In Interpersonal and intrapersonal expectancies (pp. 41-46). Routledge.
• Marback, T.L., Short, M.W., Short, S.E., & Sullivan, P.J. (2005). Coaching confidence: An exploratory investigation of sources and gender differences. Journal of Sport Behavior, 28, 18-34.
• McCormick, M. J. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: Applying social cognitive theory to leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 22-33.
• Mesquita, I., Borges, M., Rosado, A., & Batista, P. M. (2012). Self‐efficacy, perceived training needs and coaching competences: The case of Portuguese handball. European Journal of Sport Science, 12(2), 168-178.
• Myers ND, Vargas-Tonsing TM and Feltz DL. (2005). Coaching efficacy in intercollegiate coaches: sources, coaching behaviour, and team variables. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,; 6: 129–143.
• Myers, N. D., Feltz D. L., Chase, M. A., Reckase, M. D., & Hancock, G. R. (2008). The Coaching Efficacy Scale II-High school teams. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(6), 1059-1076.
• Sarı, İ., & Bayazıt, B. (2017). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviours, motivation and self-efficacy in wrestlers. Journal of Human Kinetics, 57(1), 239-251.
• Sullivan, P. J., Ragogna, M., & Dithurbide, L. (2019). An investigation into the Dunning–Kruger effect in sport coaching. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(6), 591-599.
• Sullivan, P., Paquette, K. J., Holt, N. L., & Bloom, G. A. (2012). The relation of coaching context and coach education to coaching efficacy and perceived leadership behaviours in youth sport. Sport Psychologist, 26(1), 122-134.
• Teatro, C, Thompson, M, Kulinna, PH., Mars, H and Kwan, J., Y. (2017). Coaching behaviours and stakeholders’ views of coaches’ efficacy. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 12(4) 452–460.
• Unutmaz, V., & Gençer, T. (2017). Antrenör yeterlilik ölçeği II'nin Türkçe uyarlama çalışması. Spor Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 69-78.
• Villalon, C. A., & Martin, S. B. (2020). High school coaches’ coaching efficacy: relationship with sport psychology exposure and gender factors. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 32(1), 64-80.
• Yıldırım, İ. (2015). Revised version of physical education teachers’ self-efficacy scale. Journal of Human Sciences, 12(1), 870-886.