Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, üniversite öğrencilerinde bireyselleştirilmiş öğretim modelinin, voleybol becerilerini öğrenme ve voleybol dersine yönelik tutum düzeylerine etkisinin belirlenmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Araştırmada, yarı deneme modellerinden ön-testson-test kontrol gruplu model kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu spor bilimleri fakültesi, spor yöneticiliği ve rekreasyon bölümlerinde öğrenim görmekte ve seçmeli voleybol derslerine kayıt yaptırmış olan 30 (15 deney grubu ve 15 kontrol) öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Araştırmanın deney ve kontrol gruplarını oluşturan öğrenciler, 6 hafta araştırmaya katılmışlardır. Veri toplama aracı olarak öğrencilerin duyuşsal alanlardaki gelişimlerini ölçmek amacıyla Mirzeoğlu'nun geliştirdiği 'Voleybol Dersine Karşı Tutum Ölçeği' ve psikomotor alanlardaki gelişimlerini ölçmek amacıyla Mirzeoğlu'nun geliştirdiği' Gözlem Formları' kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde, betimsel istatistik, bağımlı ve bağımsız gruplar t-testi istatistiksel yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Araştırma bulgulara göre deney ve kontrol grubunu oluşturan öğrencilerin voleybol dersine yönelik tutum ve psikomotor alan (parmak pas, manşet pas ve tenis servis) ön-test ve son-test puanları arasında, son-testler lehine istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar olduğu belirlenmiştir. Deney ve kontrol gruplarının voleybol dersine yönelik tutum ve psikomotor alan erişi puanları karşılaştırıldığında, her iki ölçümde de anlamlı bir fark olmadığı belirlenmiştir. Sonuç: Sonuç olarak üniversite öğrencileri için hem bireyselleştirilmiş öğretim modeli hem de doğrudan öğretim modelinin, öğrencilerin voleybol dersine yönelik tutumlarını ve psikomotor alanı oluşturan parmak pas, manşet pas ve tenis servis becerilerini geliştirmede olumlu katkısının olduğu söylenebilir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Model temelli öğrenme; bireyselleştirilmiş öğretim modeli; doğrudan öğretim modeli; voleybol; tutum
Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of the personalized system of instruction on the learning of volleyball skills and the attitude towards volleyball course of university students. Material and Methods: The research was conducted by using a pre-test/post-test control group model structured under the quasi-experimental model. The research group was formed by 30 students (15 participating in experiment group and 15 participating in the control group), who was studying at the faculty of sport sciences, department of sport management and department of recreation of universities, and had registered to the elective volleyball course. The participants formed the experiment and control groups and attended a 6-week study. The data of the study was obtained by Attitude towards Volleyball Course Scale, developed by Mirzeoğlu and observation forms, developed by Mirzeoğlu for psychomotor domain development. Descriptive statistic, dependent and independent samples t-test statistical methods were used for data analysis. Results: The findings of the study showed, a significant difference in favour of post-test result, when the attitude towards volleyball course and psychomotor domain (overhead pass, forearm pass, and tennis service skills) pre-test post-test results of experiment and control group participants were compared. No significant difference was noted between two groups when the attitude towards volleyball course and psychomotor domain gain scores were compared. Conclusion: To conclude, it could be mentioned that both personalized system of instruction and direct instruction method had a positive contribution to the attitude towards volleyball course and the overhead pass, forearm pass, and tennis service skills, which form the psychomotor domain.
Keywords: Model-based learning; personalized system of ınstruction; direct instruction model; volleyball; attitude
- Prewitt SL. The personalized system of instruction: fidelity and effect on health-realted fitness knowledge and in-class physical activity [Master's thesis]. ABD: The University of Utah; 2014. Erişim tarihi: 12.03.2019. [Link]
- Keller FS. Good-bye, teacher... Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1968;1(1):79. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Metzler MW. Instructional Models for Physical Education. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2005. p.217-55. [Link]
- Taveggia TC. Personalized instruction: a summary of comparative research, 1967-1974. American Journal of Physics. 1976; 44(11): 1028-33. [Crossref]
- Allen C. Personalized system of ınstruction and student performance in high school weight training courses [Doctoral thesis]. United States of America: Liberty University; 2015. Erişim tarihi: 14.01.2019. [Link]
- Hannon JC, Holt BJ, Hatten JD. Personalized systems of instruction model: teaching health-related fitness content in high school physical education. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction. 2008;2(2):20-33. [Crossref]
- Lowry WH, Thornburg MS. A working bibliography on the Keller Plan (PSI). Bibliography. 1988. [Link]
- Seidentop D. How to use personalized system of instruction in college teaching. National College Physical Education Association for Men Proceedings. Kansas City: 77th Annual Meeting; 1974. p.116-25.
- Cregger R, Metzler M. PSI for a college physical education basic instructional program. Educational Technology. 1992;32(8):51-6. [Link]
- Sural V, Savaş S. Farklı öğretim yöntemleriyle işlenen basketbol dersinin öğrencilerin psikomotor erişi düzeylerine etkisi [The effects of basketball classes taught through different education models on psychomotor achievement skills of students]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. 2015;25(1): 345-60. [Link]
- Güneş B, Yılmaz E. The effect of tactical games approach in basketball teaching on cognitive, affective and psychomotor achievement levels of high school students. Education and Science. 2019;44(200):313-31. [Link]
- Karasar N. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. 22. Baskı. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık; 2011. [Link]
- Mirzeoğlu AD. Voleybol dersindeki davranışların öğreniminde, yapılandırmacı öğrenme etkinliklerinin öğrenci erişi düzeyine etkisi [Doktora tezi]. Bolu: Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi; 2000. Erişim tarihi: 02.01.2019. Erişim linki: [Link]
- Senemoğlu N. Gelişim, Öğrenme ve Öğretim: Kuramdan Uygulamaya. 26. Baskı. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık; 2018. [Link]
- Alpar R. Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlik-Güvenirlik. 6. Baskı. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık; 2020. [Link]
- Annarino A. Individualized instructional materials. In: Hellison ID, Enberg ML, Jacobsen S, Lawson H, eds. Personalize Learning in Physical Education. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Amer Alliance for Health Physical; 1976. p.64-75. [Link]
- Kulik J, Kulik CLC, Cohen PA. A meta-analysis of outcome studies of Keller's personalized system of instruction. American Psychologist. 1979;34(4): 307-18. [Crossref]
- Young A. Personalized system of instruction in physical education. International Journal of Arts and Humanities. 2019;5(1):13-5. [Link]
- Colquitt G, Pritchard T, McCollum S. The personalized system of instruction in fitness education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. 2011;82(6):46-54. [Crossref]
- Lee WA, Rengasamy S, Hooi LB, Varatharajoo C, Azeez MIK. The effectiveness of teaching games for the improvement of the hockey tactical skills and the state of self-confidence among 16 years old students. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Sport an Health Sciences. 2015;9(7):2296-302. [Link]
- Wallhead TL, Ntoumanis N. Effects of a sport education intervention on students' motivational responses in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2004;23(1):4-18. [Crossref]
- Güneş B, Çoknaz H. Beden eğitimi dersi cimnastik ünitesinde işbirliğine dayalı öğrenmenin öğrencilerin erişi düzeylerine etkisi [The effects of cooperative learning on the achievements of students in gymnastic unit]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education. 2010;39(39):207-19. [Link]
- Gurvitch R, Metzler M. Theory into practice: keeping the purpose in mind: the implementation of instructional models in physical education setting, Journal for Physical and Sport Educators. 2010;23(3):32-5. [Crossref]
- Ormond T, Christie B, Barbieri D, Schell B. A comparison of sport education and the traditional unit approach: game play, activity levels, and knowledge. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (Supplement). 2002;73:A-77. [Link]
- Browne TBJ, Carlson TB, Hastie PA. A comparison of rugby seasons presented in traditional and sport education formats. Europian Physical Education Review. 2004;10(2):199-214. [Crossref]
- Pritchard T, Hawkins A, Wiegand R, Metzler JN. Effect of two instructional approaches on skill development, knowledge and game performance. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 2008;12(4):219-36. [Crossref]
- Pritchard T, Penix K, Colquitt G, McCollum S. Effects of a weight training personalized system of instruction course on fitness levels and knowledge. Physical Educator. 2012;69(4):342-59. [Link]
- Prewitt SL, Hannon JC, Colquitt G, Brusseau TA, Newton M, Shaw J. Effect of personalized system of instruction on health-related fitness knowledge and class time physical activity. The Physical Educator. 2015;72(5):23-39. [Crossref]
- Friskawati GF, Ilmawati H, Suherman A. Effect of personalized system for instructions (PSI) on physical fitness of senior high school nursing's student. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2017;180(1):012262. [Crossref]
- Viness S, Colquitt G, Pritchard T, Johnson C. Using the personalized system of instruction to differentiate instruction in fitness. Physical Educator. 2017;74(3):518. [Crossref]
.: Process List