AKRAN ÖĞRETİMİ MODELİNİN AKADEMİK ÖĞRENME ZAMANINA VE VOLEYBOL BECERİLERİNİN ÖĞRENİMİNE ETKİSİ

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4, 184 - 202, 23.02.2016

A.Dilşad Mirzeoğlu , Süleyman Munusturlar Aylin Çelen

https://doi.org/10.17644/sbd.171672

Cited By: 4

Öz

Bu çalışmanın birbiriyle ilişkili olduğu düşünülen iki farklı amacı bulunmaktadır. Bu amaçlardan biri farklı öğretim yeterliğine (acemi ve deneyimli) e beceri düzeyine sahip olan öğrencilerle yürütülen akran öğretim modelinin, voleybol dersindeki akademik öğrenme zamanına etkisini belirlemektir. Çalışmanın diğer bir amacı da, bu modelin etkilerini voleybol becerilerini öğrenme açısından karşılaştırmaktır. Çalışma yarı deneysel araştırma modeli ile oluşturulmuş, kontrol grupsuz öntestsontest deseni kullanılmıştır. Çalışmaya 2012-2013 öğretim yılı güz döneminde Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Yüksekokulu’nda öğrenim görmekte olup zorunlu (11 kişi-deney grubu I) ve seçmeli (11 kişi-deney grubu II) voleybol dersi alan öğrenciler katılmıştır. Araştırma verilerini toplamak için araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen manşet pas, tenis servis ve smaç ile ilgili gözlem formları; Bartlett ve diğerleri (1991) tarafından geliştirilen manşet pas ve servis testleri, Stanley (1967) tarafından geliştirilen smaç testi kullanılmıştır. Akademik öğrenme zamanına (AÖZ-BE) ilişkin verilerin toplanmasında ise Parker (1989) tarafından geliştirilen AÖZ-BE gözlem formunun kullanıldığı yapılandırılmış alan çalışması gözlem tekniği kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen verilerin çözümlenmesinde Wilcoxon işaretli sıralar testi, Mann Whitney U testi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada elde edilen bulgulara göre,  her iki gruptaki öğrencilerin voleybolu oluşturan tüm  becerilerde sontest puanları lehine anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmuştur. Ancak her iki grupta bulunan öğrencilerin standartlaştırılmış manşet pas, tenis servis ve smaç testleri ve gözlem formları erişi karşılaştırıldığında iki grup arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır. Yine iki grubun gözlem formları kullanılarak belirlenen voleybola ait manşet pas, tenis servis ve smaç becerileri erişi testi puanlarında da iki grup arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark olmadığı görülmüştür. Çalışmada ayrıca deneyimli öğretici grubunun acemi öğretici grubuna göre daha yüksek düzeyde AÖZ-BE yüzdesine sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Akran öğretimi; Akademik öğrenme zamanı; Voleybol

THE EFFECTS OF PEER TEACHING MODEL ON ACADEMIC LEARNING TIME AND LEARNING VOLEYBALL SKILLS

Öz

There were two objectives in this study. One of them was to determine the effect of peer teaching which was applied with the students who had different teaching competence (novel and experienced) and voleyball skill levels on academic learning time. The other objective was to compare the effects of this model on the learning volleyball skills. This study was arranged with quasi-experimental design and prepost without control group model was used. The study was carried out in 2012-2013 spring semester at The School of Physical Education and Sport. 22 students from third class who have compulsory (11 students experimental group I) and elective (11 students experimental group II) volleyball class participated in this study. The observation forms included forearm pass,tennis serve and spike developed by the researchers and the tests of forearm pass ans service developed  by Barlett et all. (1991), spike test developed by Stanley (1967) were used to collect the data. Besides, structured area observation technigue was used to collect the data by using observational instrument developed by Parker (1989) in ALT-PE. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test and Mann Whitney U test were used to anayze the data. The results revealed that there were significant differences between pre and post test scores of the students who tookvolleyball course by both novice and experienced student teachers. On the other hand, the comparison of the two groups’achivement scores in standardized tests and observation forms were showed that no significant difference between the two groups. However, experimental group I had higher percentage in ALT-PE than experimental group II.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Peer teaching, Academic learning time, Volleyball

Kaynakça

• Anderson LW, Walberg HJ. (Eds.). (1983). Timepiece: extending and enhancing learning time. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
• Ayers FS. (2009), The effects of using peer tutors for visually impaired students in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. 80(3), 8-51.
• Ayvazo S, Ward P. (2009). Effects of classwide peer tutoring on the performance of sixth-grade students during a volleyball unit. The Physical Educator, 66 (1), 12- 22.
• Balcı A. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma: Yöntem, Teknik ve İlkeler. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Barrett, TM. (2005). Effects of cooperative learning on performance on 6th grade physical education students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 24, 103-111.
• Bartlett J, Smith L, Davis K, Peel J. (1991). Development of a valid voleyball skills test battery. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 62, 19-21.
• Beckett KD. (1989). The effects of motor appropriate engagement ALT-PE(M) on achievement in a badminton skill during an experimental teaching unit. The Physical Educator, 46(1), 36-40.
• Bullough VR, Young J, Birrell JK., Clark DC, Egan MW, Erickson L. ve diğ. (2003). Teaching with a peer: a comparison of two models of student teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 57-73.
• Büyüköztürk Ş, Çakmak EK, Akgün ÖE, Karadeniz Ş, Demirel F. (2014). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara:Pegem Akademi.
• Cervantes CM, Lieberman LJ, Magnesio B, Wood, J. (2013). Peer tutoring: meeting the demands of inclusion in physical education today. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 83(3), 43-48.
• Darst P, Vogler EW, Mars H, Cusimano B. (1990). Relationship of presage, context, and process variables to ALT-PE of elementary level mainstreamed students. Adapted Physıcal Actıvıty Quarterly,7, 298-313.
• Denham C, Lieberman P. (1980). Time To Learn. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
• Deri V. Emmanouilidou K, Vassiliadou O, Kioumourtzoglou E. (2007). Academic learning time in physical education(ALT-PE): Is it related to fundamental movement skill acquisition and learning? International Journal of Sport Science, 3, 12-23.
• Dixon SL. (1997). A study of ALT-PE and opportunity to respond to determine teaching effectiveness of college basketball coaches. (Doctoral Dissertation, University Microfilms No: 9727479).
• Doğanay A. (2007). Öğretim İlke ve Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Yayımcılık.
• Ernst M, Byra M. (1998). Pairing learners in the reciprocal style of teaching: influence on student skill, knowlegde and socialization. Physical Education, 55(1), 24-36.
• Evans SA, Nguyen PT, Barret TM, Johnson
• MK.,Doutis Brobst B, Shinoda Y. (1999). Curriculum effects in seventh-grade pickleball. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 444-454.
• Godbout P, Brunelle J, Tousignant M. (1983). Academic learning time in elementary and secondary physical education classes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 54, 11-19.
• Graham G, Hopple C, Manros M, Sitzman T. (1993). Novice and experienced children’s physical education teachers: insights into their situational decision making. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,12, 197-214.
• Harrison J M, Preece LA, Blakemore CL, Richards RP, Wilkinson C, Fellingham GW. (1999). Effects of two instructional models – skill teaching and mastery learning- on skill development, knowledge, self-efficacy and game play in volleyball, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Human Kinetics Publishers, 19, 34- 57.
• Hastie PA. (1994). Selected teacher behaviors and student ALT-PE in secondary school physical education, Journal of Teachıng in Physıcal Education.13. 242-259.
• Hogan DM, Tudge JR. (1999). Implications of
• Vygotsky’s theory for peer learning. In A.M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 39- 65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Houston-Wilson C, Dunn,J, Van der Mars H, McCubbin J. (1997). The effect of peer tutors on motor performance in integrated physical education classes. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 14, 298-313. 40. Siedentop
• Iserbyt P, Madou B, Vergauwen L, Behets D. (2011). Effect of peer mediated instruction with task cards on motor skill acquisition in tennis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 31-50.
• Johnson M, Ward P. (2001). Effects of class-wide peer tutoring on correct performance of striking skills in 3rd grade physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 247-263.
• Kaptan S. (1995). Bilimsel Araştırma ve İstatistik Teknikleri. Ankara: Tekışık Web Ofset Tesisleri. 27. Krippendorff
• K. (2004). Content Analysis: An
• Introduction to Its Methodology. Second edition, Sage Publication.
• Lieberman LJ, Dunn J, Van der Mars H, McCubbin J. (2000). Peer tutors’ effects on activity levels of deaf students in inclusive elemantary physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quartery, 17, 20-39.
• Longueville FA, Gernigon C, Huet ML, Calopi M, Winnykamen F. (2002). Peer tutoring in a physical educatin setting: influence of tutor skill level on novice learners’motivation and performance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 105-123.
• Lund J. (1997). Authentic assesment: its development and applications. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 68(7), 25- 40.
• Melograno VJ. (1997). Integrating assesment into physical education teaching. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 68, 34-37.
• Metzler M. (1990). Instructional supervision for physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
• Metzler M. (2005). Instructional models for physical education.Second Edition. United States of America: Holcomb Hathaway, Inc.
• Munusturlar S, Mirzeoğlu N, Mirzeoğlu AD. (2014). The effect of different teaching styles used in physical education courses on academic learning time, Education and Science, 39,(173), 366-379.
• NASPE (1995). Moving into the Future: National Standarts for Physical Education. St.Louis: Mosby.
• Parker M. (1989). Analyzing physical education and sport instruction. Darst, P.W., Zakrajsek, D.B. ve Mancini, V.H (ed.). Second Edition, Illınois: Human Kinetics Books.
• Parker M, O’Sullivan M. (1983). Modifying academic learning time–physical education for game play contexts and other reflections. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Monograph, Dodds & Rife (eds.), 8-10.
• Placek JH, Randall L. (1986). Comparison of academic learning time in physical education: students of specialist and nonspecialists. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 157 – 165.
• Randall LE, Imwold CH. (1989). The effect of an intervention on academic learning time provided by preservice physical education teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physıcal Education, 8, 271-279.
• D. (1983). Academic learning time:
• reflections and prospects. Journal of Teaching in
• Physical Education, Dodds & Rife (eds.), Monograph, 3-7.
• Siedentop D. (1991). Developing teaching skills in physical education(3rd ed). Mayfield Publishing Company, CA 94041.
• Siedentop D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education. Daryl Siedentop, Deborah Tannehill. Mountain View, Calif. : Mayfield Pub.
• Siedentop D, Tannehill D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education (4th Edt.). Palo Alto: CA:Mayfield.
• Silverman S, Dodds P, Placek J, Shute S, Rife F. (1984). Academic learning time in elementary school physical education (ALT-PE) for student subgroups and instructional activity units. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55(4), 365-370.
• Silverman S, Devillier R, Ramirez T. (1991). The
• validity of academic learning time-physical education (ALT-PE) as a process measure of student achievement. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 319-325. 46. Silverman
• S. (1985). Students’characteristics
• mediating engagement—outcome relationships in
• physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 66-72.
• Temple V, Lynnes,MD. (2008). Peer tutoring for
• inclusion. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 55, 11-21.
• Townsend JS, Mohr DJ. (2002, November). Reviev and implications of peer teaching researh. Teaching Elementary physical Education,13(6), 28-31.
• Turner JC, Meyer DK. (2000). Studying and
• understanding the instructional contexts of classroom: using our past to forge our future. Education Psychologist, 35, 69-85.
• Van der Mars H. (1989). Observer reliability: issues and procedures. Darst, P. W. , Zakrajsek, D. B. and Mancini, V. H. (ed.). Analyzing Physical Education and Sport Instruction. (53-80). Second Edition, Illinois: Human Kinetics Books.
• Ward P, Crouch WD, Patrick CA. (1998). Effects of peer- mediated accountability on opportunities to respond and correct skill performance by elemantary school children in physical education. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8(1), 103-114.
• Webster G. (1987). Influence of peer tutors upon academic learning time-physical education of mentally handicapped students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 393-403.
• Yıldırım, A. (2003). Analysis of academic learning time in physical education classes of prospective and inservice teachers, Ankara, Graduate School of Social Sciences of Middle East Technical University.
• Yıldırım A, İnce ML, Kirazcı S, Çiçek Ş. (2007).
• Beden eğitimi öğretmenleri ve öğretmen adaylarının derslerindeki akademik öğrenme sürelerinin analizi, Spor Bilimleri Dergisi,18 (1), 31-41.