ارزشیابی برنامه درسی کارشناسی ناپیوسته دبیری تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی

نظریان مادوانی, عباس; رمضانی, علیرضا; شرف بیانی, حمیدرضا

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

¹ استادیار دانشکده تربیت‌بدنی و علوم ورزشی دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجائی

² استادیار دانشکده تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجائی

³ کارشناس ارشد برنامه‌ریزی درسی، کارشناس برنامه‌ریزی تربیت معلم دفتر برنامه‌ریزی و تالیف کتب درسی

چکیده

هدف پژوهش حاضر، ارزشیابی برنامه درسی کارشناسی ناپیوسته دبیری تربیت‌بدنی و علوم ورزشی بود. جامعه آماری پژوهش شامل کلیه دانشجویان سال آخر دوره کارشناسی ناپیوسته رشته تربیت‌بدنی و علوم ورزشی، مدرسان و فارغ‌التحصیلان تربیت‌بدنی مراکز تربیت‌معلم سراسر کشور بود. روش نمونه‌گیری، تصادفی خوشه‌ای و نمونه تحقیق شامل 90 مدرس، 187 دانشجوی سال آخر و 69 معلم بود. روش تحقیق توصیفی- پیمایشی و ابزار جمع‌آوری اطلاعات، پرسشنامه محقق‌ساخته بود. طبق نتایج تحلیل مولفه‌های اصلی، چهار عامل هدف و محتوا، روش اجرا (تدریس)، امکانات و تجهیزات آموزشی و روش ارزشیابی برنامه درسی مشخص گردید که بر اساس نوع سوالات همبسته و ماهیت آنها نامگذاری عامل‌ها انجام شد. تحلیل داده‌ها از طریق روش‌های آماری توصیفی همچون فراوانی، درصد، میانگین و انحراف استاندارد انجام شد. نتایج نشان داد حدود 50 درصد از کل گروه‌ها، سرفصل‌های دروس برنامه درسی را با اهداف این دوره همراستا نمی‌دانند و میزان اثربخشی و توفیق برنامه درسی در نیل به اهداف را ضعیف ارزیابی می‌کنند. 65 درصد از این افراد، تجهیزات و اماکن آموزشی موجود را متناسب با نیازهای آموزشی برنامه درسی مذکور نمی‌دانند. همچنین نتایج نشان داد محتوای دروس نظری با روش‌های تدریس سخنرانی (72 درصد)، مشارکتی (71 درصد) و سمینار (66 درصد) و محتوای دروس عملی با روش‌ تدریس مشارکتی (72 درصد) متناسب است. ضمنا محتوای دروس نظری با روش‌های ارزشیابی کتبی مستمر و پایانی به شکل‌های چهارگزینه‌ای (80 درصد)، کوتاه‌پاسخ (78 درصد) و تشریحی (77 درصد) و در دروس عملی (77 درصد)، با روش ارزشیابی عملی متناسب است. با توجه به نتایج تحقیق حاضر پیشنهاد می‌شود کمیته بازنویسی محتوای برنامه درسی مذکور و نیازسنجی و ساماندهی امکانات و فضاهای آموزشی جهت رفع کاستی‌ها تشکیل شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessment of non-continuesly Bachlore Curriculum of physical education teaching

نویسندگان [English]

Abbas Nazarian Madavani ¹
Ali Reza Ramezani ²
Hamid Reza Sharafbaiani ³

¹ Assistance Professor, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University

² Assistance Professor, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University

چکیده [English]

The goal of this study was to assess of non-continuously Bachelor Curriculum of physical education teaching. The Statistical popularly in this study was the physical education students of Teacher training courses bachelor who studied in teacher training institutions, the professors who teach these different courses and physical education teacher graduated of this institutions. In this study, stratified sampling was used and the subjects in the strata were selected randomly. The sample was 69 graduated of this institutions, 187 physical education students and 90 professors. This is descriptive-survey study. The researcher made questionnaire was used was used to collect data. According to result of PCA, Curriculum is studied on the basis of four elements which are: objective and content, teaching strategies, Educational Facilities and Equipment, evaluation. To analyze the information taken from the questionnaires, some statistical methods were used such as: frequency, percentage, means, standard deviation in descriptive statistics To do the above testes, SPSS Software 18 version was used. The finding showed that 50 percent of whole groups, described contents of the curriculum of education courses with goal and assessed effectiveness and successfulness this curriculum in goals reach at low levels. 65 present of whole groups stated that the present educational equipment and facilities don’t adapt with educational needs. Also, the results showed, theoretical courses content adapted with teaching method of speaking (72 present), cooperation (71 present), seminar (66 present) and practical courses content adapted with teaching method of cooperation (72 present). By the way, the theoretical courses content adapted with assessing method of writing and finally and continually quadruple (80 present), brief-answer (78 present), descriptive (77 present) and practical courses content with assessing method of practical (77 present). That is recommended, establishing committee for re-writing of this curriculum content, assessing needs and organizing of educational equipment and facilities.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Curriculum
Evaluation
Teacher Training
Physical Education

مراجع

1. Abedi, l. A. (1998). Investigation and analysis of the general skills taught in the curriculum of two years courses teacher training courses, master's thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University, Faculty of Humanities.

2. Abell, M. M., Debra K. B, and Thomas J. S. (2005). Access to the General Curriculum: A Curriculum and Instruction Perspective for Educators, Intervention in school and clinic, 41(2), 82–86.

3. Akker, J.H Vanden. (2003). Curriculum persective: An Introduction. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

4. Alimirzaei, M. (2008). Determination of the quality of different aspects of Khage Nasir al-Din Tusi University activities with respect to the concepts of Sublimation model EFQM, master's thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences.

5. Alkin M. (1989). Three Decades of Curriculum Evaloation, The International Encycolopedia of Curriculum.

6. Atdgia, N. (2012). Determination of the quality of physical education and sports science graduate courses in public universities of the country from the perspective of students, faculty and administrators of these courses, sport management studies, 16, 36-13.

7. Cobb, V. (1999). An International Comparison of Teacher Education، Eric Digest, Eric Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education Washington DC.

8. Collinson, V & Yumiko O. (2001). The professional development of teachers in the united States and Japan, European journal of teacher education, 24, 223-48.

9. Estiri, D. (1995). Curriculum, abstracts, Department of Education in Tehran.

10. Gaeini, A. (1993). Evaluating the curriculum of physical education in schools across the country, university master's thesis.

11. Gaff G. J, Ratcliff l. (1996). James and Associates Handbook of undergraduate curriculum. John Wiley publisher. Ltd.

12. Gavidpour, S. (2000). Determination of curriculum physical education compliance with the job requirements graduates from the perspective of high school teachers and physical education experts in Isfahan, MS Thesis, School of Management and Educational Planning, University of Isfahan.

13. General specifications, batch undergraduate teacher education curriculum of physical education and sport science, Adopted by the meeting of the Higher Council for Planning 369, dated 4/11/1377.

14. Gregor, s., janko, s. (2012). Influence of the quality implementation of a physical education curriculum on the physical development and physical fitness of children BMC Public Health, 12, 61.

15. Indiana Departement of Education. (2010). Indiana Content Standards for Educators Physical Education.

16. Kashef, M. (1999). Evaluation the new physical education curriculum of the teacher training centers in terms of responding to the professional needs of Student teachers from the perspective of teachers, administrators and students, master's thesis, university.

17. Kouzechian, H. (2000). Determination of training status of students in the Faculty of Physical Education, Harakat journal, 4: 53-37.

18. Livington, A. (1996). Redefinding the role of physical activity cources in the preparation of physical education teaching profissionals, the physical educator (5): 110-114.

19. Mehdizade, A., Shafiei, N. (2009). Assess the quality of teacher training curricula, Journal of Educational Psychology, Tonekabon Islamic Azad University, first year (1), 46-60.

20. Molaeinegad, A., Zekavati, A. (2007). A comparative study of teacher education curriculum in England, Japan, France, Malaysia and Iran, Journal of Educational Innovations, No. 26, the seventh year.

21. Saylor, J. G., Alexander, William M., Lewis A. (1993). Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning, translated by khoynegad, Gholamreza, Astan Quds Razavi, Mashhad, first printing.

22. Tyler, R. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Cage, IL: University of Chicago Press.

23. Vassiliki D., Andreas A., Kyriaki E., Efthemis K. (2012). What do Greek physical education teachers know about elementary student assessment? Journal of Human Sport & Exersice, 7(3).

24. Villegas, E. & Reimers F. (2000). The Professional Development of Teachers as Lifelong Learning: Models،Practices and factors that Influence it, The Board on International Comparative Studies in Education of the National Research Council.Washington D.C.

25. Wang, J. (1994). Curriculum decision marking in chines higher education. State university of New York at Albany. Http: // w.w.w lib. Umi. Com/dissertations.

26. Yoshima, A. (1986). Expected style of Pre-Service programs for Teachers: Objectives, Content, Methods and Educational innovation in Japan،ERIC Number: ED 285762.

27. Zais, R S (1976). Curriculum principles and foundations. New York: Thomas. Y.Crowell Company.

28. Zolaktaf, V. Kargarfard, M., Karami, H. (2004). Updating the physical education and sports science curriculum from the perspective of faculty, Olympic Magazine, Issue 2 (26).

مطالعات مدیریت ورزشی

ارزشیابی برنامه درسی کارشناسی ناپیوسته دبیری تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی

مراجع

مراجع

دوره 7، شماره 31 - شماره پیاپی 31
مهر و آبان 1394
صفحه 49-70

ارزشیابی برنامه درسی کارشناسی ناپیوسته دبیری تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی

مراجع

مراجع

دوره 7، شماره 31 - شماره پیاپی 31مهر و آبان 1394صفحه 49-70

دوره 7، شماره 31 - شماره پیاپی 31
مهر و آبان 1394
صفحه 49-70