SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitim ve Bilim / 2013 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 170

The evaluation of feedback usage in physical education and sports lessons in terms of teacher’s dimension

Beden eğitimi ve spor derslerinde dönüt kullanımının öğretmen boyutuyla değerlendirilmesi

Murat KANGALGİL
Pages
384–400
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Differences among feedback usages according to gender, age (feedback form, feedback statements, feedback feature) and service year (feedback form, feedback statements) variables was significant in the research (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research was conducted to determine Physical Education and Sports Teachers (PEST)’ feedback usage ratio and how are effected according to some variables.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research was conducted with 2827 PEST’s in school year 2011-12.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Differences among feedback usages according to gender, age (feedback form, feedback statements, feedback feature) and service year (feedback form, feedback statements) variables was significant in the research (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This research was conducted to determine Physical Education and Sports Teachers (PEST)’ feedback usage ratio and how are effected according to some variables. The research was conducted with 2827 PEST’s in school year 2011-12. Frequency, percentage, “t” test and ANOVA were used in data analysis. The findings showed that PEST’s frequently (43.1%) use verbal feedback, sometimes (39.2 %) use visual feedback and (40%) use both verbal and visual feedback. It was shown that PEST’s frequently (41.6%) use knowledge of result, always (56.1%) use knowledge of performance, frequently (41.3%) use explanatory feedback, always (62%) use corrective feedback and use post-motion feedback (40.2%) when they give feedback. It was also shown that PEST’s use summary feedback (48.4%), average feedback (48.2%), program feedback (47.9%), parameter feedback (45.5%) and immediately feedback frequently; delayed feedback (33.8%) occasionally. It appears that PEST’s always (54.3%) use value statements, frequently (38.9%) use neutral statements and rarely use ambiguous statements (36.5%), frequently use qualitative (50.1%) and quantitative (33.5%) statements; always (54.5%) use positive statements and frequently (34.2%) use negative statements when they give feedback. Differences among feedback usages according to gender, age (feedback form, feedback statements, feedback feature) and service year (feedback form, feedback statements) variables was significant in the research (p

Özet

Araştırma Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Öğretmenlerinin (BEÖ) dönüt kullanım oranları ve dönüt kullanımının bazı değişkenlere göre nasıl etkilendiğinin tespiti amacıyla yapılmıştır. Araştırma 2011-2012 öğretim yılında toplam 2827 BEÖ’ne yapılmıştır. Veri analizinde, frekans, yüzde, “t” testi, tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA) kullanmıştır. Bulgularda; BEÖ’nin sıklıkla (%43,1) sözel dönüt, arasıra (%39,2) görsel dönüt, yine arasıra (%40) hem sözel hem görsel dönüt kullandıkları görülmüştür. BEÖ’nin dönüt verirken sıklıkla sonuç bilgisi (%41,6), herzaman süreç bilgisi (%56,1), sıklıkla açıklayıcı dönüt (%41,3), her zaman düzeltici dönüt (%62) ve hareketten sonra dönüt (%40,2) kullandıkları görülmüştür. BEÖ’nin sıklıkla özet dönüt (%48,4), ortalama dönüt (%48,2), program dönüt (%47,9), parametre dönüt (%45,5) ve anında dönüt (%47,4)) kullandığı; arasıra geciktirilmiş dönüt (%33,8) kullanıldığı görülmüştür. BEÖ’nin dönüt verirken her zaman değer ifadeleri (%54.3), sıklıkla yansız ifadeler (%38.9) ve nadiren belirsiz ifadeler (%36.5), sıklıkla niteliksel (%50.1) ve niceliksel ifadeler (%33.5) kullandığı; pozitif ifadeleri her zaman (%54.5), negatif ifadeleri sıklıkla (34.2) kullandığı görülmektedir. Araştırmada, cinsiyet, yaş (dönüt veriliş şekilleri, dönüt ifadeleri ve dönüt özellikleri alt boyutlarında) ve hizmet yılına (dönüt veriliş şekilleri ve dönüt ifadeleri alt boyutlarında) göre dönüt kullanımında farklar anlamlı bulunmuştur (p

🔖

Cite This Article

KANGALGİL, M. (2022). The evaluation of feedback usage in physical education and sports lessons in terms of teacher’s dimension. Eğitim ve Bilim, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 170, 384–400. https://ajindex.com/articles/497500

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Abrahamson, E. (2010). Assessment through video-feedback on an undergraduate sports rehabilitation programme. Higher Education Academy [HEA] Case Study. Retrieved from. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/hlst/documents/case_studies/147_abrahamson_ video-feedback. Adams, E., & Rollings, A. (2007). Fundamentals of Game Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Amorose, A. J. & Weiss, M. R. (1998). Coaching feedback as a source of information about perceptions of ability: A Developmental Examination. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 20: 395–420.
  2. Badami, R., Vaez Mousavi, M., Wulf, G., & Namazizadeh, M. (2011). Feedback after good versus poor trials affects intrinsic motivation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 360e364. Biesinger, K., & Crippen, K. (2010). The effects of feedback protocol on self-regulated learning in a web-based worked example learning environment. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1470–1482.
  3. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching For Quality Learning At University: What The Student Does. Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice 5, no. 1: 7–68.
  5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standarts through classroom assesment. Phi Delta Kappan 80 (2): 139–147.
  6. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee C. & Marshall, B. (2003). Assessment for Learning: Putting It into Practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  7. Brookhart, S. M. (2011) Tailoring feedback. Effective feedback should be adjusted depending on the needs of the learner. Education Digest Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 76 (9), 33-36
  8. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2003). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı: İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni, SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum. Geliştirilmiş 3. Baskı Ankara:
  9. Pegem A Yayıcılık. Cann, A. J. (2007). Podcasting is dead. Long live video! Bioscience Education, 10 (C1). www. bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol10/beej-10-C1.pdf Chen, D. D. (2001). Trends in augmented feedback research and tips for the practitioner. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 72(1), 32–36.
  10. Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2007). Feedback after good trials enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 40-47.
  11. Coulter, G. A., & Grossen, B. (1997). The effectiveness of in-class instructive feedback versus afterclass instructive feedback for teacher