You are here

Home » Content

Araştırmacı Öğretmen ve Beden Eğitiminin Gelecekte Hayatta Kalışı

The Teacher-As-Researcher and the Future Survival of Physical Education

Journal Name:

  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi Spor Bilimleri Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2010

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Many have suggested that the industrial model of schooling (i.e. one that concentrates on the year-on-year production of ‘educated’ students) is no longer suitable for a post-industrial education system. With this in mind, and in considering the three possible futures described by Kirk (2010) in his book Physical Education Futures, this paper suggests that teachers hold the key to the future survival of physical education. The industrial model of physical education has led to the evolution of an approach to teaching that foregrounds the development of sport-techniques (most especially in team games) at the expensive of understanding and intelligent performance. One possible future (and the one that looks most likely at this time) is what Kirk called ‘more of the same.’ With this response physical education will continue to foreground games and their techniques and ignore the growing dissatisfaction around this approach. Such a resolute decision to change nothing will lead – either quickly or slowly – to the second of Kirk’s (2010 futures: extinction. Such an end might see our subject replaced with daily physical activity overseen by untrained professionals, perhaps on computer consoles such as the wii, or the eradication of the subject altogether. The third future is ‘radical reform’ and this paper suggests that such change needs to be driven by teachers with their expertise in classrooms. In doing this we recommend practitioner research, under the guise of action research, as the means through which to discover and then enact the changes needed to save and rejuvenate physical education.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Birçok araştırmacı, sınaî öğretim modelinin (yani yıllar boyu ‘eğitilmiş’ öğrenciler üzerine yoğunlaşan modelin) sanayi sonrası eğitim sistemi için artık uygun olmadığını ileri sürmüştür. Bu düşünceyi ve Kirk’ün (2010) Physical Education Futures adlı kitabında tanımladığı üç muhtemel geleceği göz önüne alan bu çalışma, öğretmenlerin beden eğitiminin gelecekte de devam etmesi konusunda kilit rol oynadıklarını ileri sürmektedir. Beden eğitiminin sınaî modeli, öğretmenlik için spor tekniklerinin (en çok da takım oyunlarının) anlama ve akıllı performans pahasına gelişmesini ön planda tutan bir yaklaşım oluşmasına neden olmuştur. Muhtemel geleceklerden biri (ve şu anda en muhtemel gözüken) Kirk’ün ‘sürekli aynı’ olarak tanımladığı gelecektir. Bu cevapla beden eğitimi, oyunları ve oyun tekniklerini ön plana çıkaracak ve bu yaklaşım için gittikçe artan memnuniyetsizliği de göz ardı edecektir. Hiç bir şeyi değiştirmemeye yönelik böylesine kesin bir karar, er ya da geç Kirk’ün (2010) ikinci gelecek tahminiyle sonuçlanacaktır: yok olma. Böyle bir son, konumuzun eğitimsiz profesyoneller tarafından belki de Wii gibi bilgisayar konsolları aracılığıyla yönetilen günlük fiziksel aktivitelerin yerini aldığına ya da konunun tekrar gündeme geldiğine şahit olabilir. Üçüncü gelecek ‘radikal reform’dur ve bu çaserlışma, böyle bir değişimin sınıflarda öğretmenlerin uzmanlığında yürütülmesi gerektiğini ileri sürmektedir. Böylece, beden eğitimini kurtarıp canlandırmak için gerekli olan değişikliklerin uygulanabilmesini sağlayan bir araç olarak, eylem araştırması adı altında uygulama araştırması yapılmasını tavsiye ediyoruz.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_152775_21_pp_110-121.pdf
  • 3
110–121
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Barthes R. (1977). Image, Music, Text. New York: Hill
and Wang.
2. Brookfield S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective
teacher. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
3. Brookfield S. (1997). On the certainty of public shaming:
working with students ‘who just don’t get it’, Improving
Student Learning, Symposium, 17-31.
4. Carter K. (1998). Action research in partnership:
Establishing teachers as key players on the school
effectiveness stage. Educational Action Research, 6 (2),
275-303.
5. 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.
6. Casey A, Dyson B. (2009). One teacher’s attempts,
through action research, to use models-based practice.
European Physical Education Review, 15 (2), 175-199.
7. Casey A. (2010a). Educational action research: a means
of coping with the systemic demands for continual
professional development in physical education?. Paper
to be presented at the British Educational Research
Association Conference, Warwick.
8. Casey A. (2010b). Moving my own goal posts: reflective
practice as a means of pedagogical change in physical
education. Paper presented to the 16th International
Reflective Practice Conference, University of
Bedfordshire, UK.
9. Casey A. (2010c) Practitioner research in physical
education: Teacher transformation through
pedagogical and curricular change. (Unpublished PhD).
Leeds Metropolitan University.
10. Cochran-Smith M, Lytle SL. (2007). Everything’s
ethics. (A. Campbell & S. Groundwater-Smith,Ed.), An
ethical approach to practitioner research: Dealing
with issues and dilemmas in action research (p. 24-41).
London: Routledge.
11. Collier J. (1945/2005). The Institute of Ethnic Affairs.
(B. Cooke & J.W. Cox, Ed.), Fundamentals of Action
Research: Volume 1. The Early Years (p. 57-67). London:
Sage.
12. Dewey J. (1897). My Pedagogic Creed, School Journal,
54: 77-80 (accessed from: http://dewey.pragmatism.
org/creed.htm on 25/3/09)
13. Doyle D. (2007). Transdisciplinary enquiry: Researching
with rather than on. (A. Campbell & S. Groundwater-
Smith, Ed.), An ethical approach to practitioner research
(p. 75-87). New York: Routledge.
14. Elliott J. (1976-1977/2007). Developing hypotheses
about classrooms from teachers’ practical constructs:
An account of the work of the Ford Teaching Project. (J.
Elliott, Ed.), Reflecting where the action is: The selected
works of John Elliott(p. 30-61). London: Routledge.
15. Elliott J. (1983/2007). A curriculum for the study
of human affairs: The contribution of Lawrence
Stenhouse. (J. Elliott, Ed.), Reflecting where the action
is: The selected works of John Elliott, (p. 15-29). London:
Routledge.
16. Elliot J. (1991). A model of professionalism and its
implications for teacher. British Educational Research
Journal, 17 (4), 309-318
17. Foucault M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of
the prison. New York: Allen and Unwin.
18. Fullan M. (1999). Change Forces: The Sequel. London:
Falmer.
19. Graham G. (1981). Research on teaching physical
education: A discussion with Larry Locke and Daryl
Siedentop. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
1(1), 3-15.
20. Groundwater-Smith S, Mockler N. (2005).
Practitioner research in education: Beyond celebration.
British Educational Research Association Conference,
Liverpool Hope University, UK.
21. Hamilton D. (1990). Learning about education: An
Unfinished Curriculum, Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
22. Hargreaves A. (1982). The Rhetoric of School-Centred
Innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies,14 (3), 251-266.
23. Hargreaves A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing
Times: Teachers’ Work and Culture in the Postmodern
Age. New York: Teachers College Press.
24. Kirk D. (1995). Action Research and Educational Reform
in Physical Education. Pedagogy in Practice, 1, 4-21.
25. Kirk D. (2010). Physical Education Futures. London:
Routledge
26. Lawson H.A. (2009). Paradigms, exemplars and social
change, Sport, Education and Society, 14, 77-100.
27. Lewin K. (1946). Action Research and Minority
Problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34-46.
28. Locke L. (1992). Changing Secondary School Physical
Education. Quest, 44, 361-372.
29. Lundgren U. (1983). Curriculum theory, between hope
and happening: Text and context in curriculum. Geelong:
Deakin University.
30. Martinek TJ, Butt K. (1988). An application of an action
research model for changing instructional practice.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 214-220.
31. McKay J, Gore J, Kirk D. (1990). Beyond the limits of
technocratic physical education, Quest, 42 (1), 52-75.
32. McKenna J, Dunstan-Lewis N. (2004). An action
research approach to supporting elite student-athletes
in higher education. European Physical Education
Review, 10, 179-198.
33. McNiff J. (2002). Action research for teachers: A
practical guide. London: David Fulton Publishers.
34. Medina J. (2008). Brain Rules: 12 principles of surviving
and thriving at work, home and school. Seattle, WA: Pear
Press.
35. Meyer H, Hamilton B, Kroeger S, Stewart S, Brydon-
Miller M. (2004). The unexpected journey: Renewing
our commitment to students through educational
The Teacher-As-Researcher 121
action research. Educational Action Research, 12 (4),
557-573.
36. Rolfe G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour:
Quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 53 (3), 304–310.
37. Schempp P. (1987). Research on teaching in physical
education: Beyond the limits of natural science. Journal
of Teaching in Physical Education, 6, 111-121.
38. Siedentop D. (2002). Content knowledge for physical
education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21,
368-377.
39. Smith A, Thurston M, Lamb K, Green K. (2007).
Young people’s participation in National Curriculum
Physical Education: A study of 15–16 year olds in North-
West England and North-East Wales. European Physical
Education Review, 13, 165-194.
40. Somekh B, Zeichner K. (2009). Action research for
educational reform: Remodelling action research
theories and practices in local contexts. Educational
Action Research, 17 (1), 5–21.
41. Stenhouse L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum
Research and Development. London: Heinemann.
42. Stringer E. (1996). Action research: A guide for
practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Tinning RI. (1987). Beyond the development of a
utilitarian teaching perspective: An Australian case
study of action research. (G.T. Barrette, R.S. Feingold,
C.R. Rees, & M. Piéron, Ed.), Myths, models and methods
in sport pedagogy (p.113 – 122). Champaign, Illinois:
Human Kinetics.
44. Zeichner K. (2001). Educational action research. (P.
Reason & H. Bradbury, Ed.), Handbook of Action
Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (p. 273–
283). London: Sage.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com