职前课堂教师对体育教学的看法与经验:选择体育专业是否重要?

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Niki Tsangaridou, Charalambos Y Charalambous, Ermis Kyriakides
{"title":"职前课堂教师对体育教学的看法与经验:选择体育专业是否重要?","authors":"Niki Tsangaridou, Charalambos Y Charalambous, Ermis Kyriakides","doi":"10.1177/1356336x231203082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although in recent years there has been growing attention on how preservice classroom teachers (PCTs) learn to teach physical education (PE), it is still unclear if there are differences between PCTs who choose a PE specialization and those who do not. Investigating such differences could provide insights about the potential role of a PE specialization in PCTs’ learning. In this context, the purpose of this study was to explore the views and experiences of teaching PE of two groups of PCTs—one with a PE specialization and another without—during their student teaching. Data gathered through semi-structured interviews with 14 Cypriot PCTs, seven with a PE specialization and seven with no such specialization, were analyzed inductively. Although this analysis yielded similarities in the participants’ views on motor, cognitive, and affective domains, notable differences were also identified between participants’ views. PCTs in the PE specialization group emphasized more the correct performance and application of skills in games, seemed to feel more confident regarding their practices in teaching PE, and were largely concerned with the content being appropriate to students’ level. Conversely, participants in the no-specialization group raised more concerns about the task selection, sequencing, and time allocation. To the extent these differences are related to PCTs’ specialization, we suggest that a PE pathway be developed as a choice in teacher education. Alternatively, if this is not feasible, the study findings suggest that PCTs should at least be provided with opportunities to take more PE courses.","PeriodicalId":47681,"journal":{"name":"European Physical Education Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preservice classroom teachers’ views and experiences of teaching physical education: Does taking a physical education specialization matter?\",\"authors\":\"Niki Tsangaridou, Charalambos Y Charalambous, Ermis Kyriakides\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1356336x231203082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although in recent years there has been growing attention on how preservice classroom teachers (PCTs) learn to teach physical education (PE), it is still unclear if there are differences between PCTs who choose a PE specialization and those who do not. Investigating such differences could provide insights about the potential role of a PE specialization in PCTs’ learning. In this context, the purpose of this study was to explore the views and experiences of teaching PE of two groups of PCTs—one with a PE specialization and another without—during their student teaching. Data gathered through semi-structured interviews with 14 Cypriot PCTs, seven with a PE specialization and seven with no such specialization, were analyzed inductively. Although this analysis yielded similarities in the participants’ views on motor, cognitive, and affective domains, notable differences were also identified between participants’ views. PCTs in the PE specialization group emphasized more the correct performance and application of skills in games, seemed to feel more confident regarding their practices in teaching PE, and were largely concerned with the content being appropriate to students’ level. Conversely, participants in the no-specialization group raised more concerns about the task selection, sequencing, and time allocation. To the extent these differences are related to PCTs’ specialization, we suggest that a PE pathway be developed as a choice in teacher education. Alternatively, if this is not feasible, the study findings suggest that PCTs should at least be provided with opportunities to take more PE courses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Physical Education Review\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Physical Education Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x231203082\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Physical Education Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x231203082","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管近年来人们越来越关注职前任课教师如何学习体育教学,但目前还不清楚选择体育专业的职前任课教师与不选择体育专业的职前任课教师之间是否存在差异。调查这些差异可以提供关于体育专业在pct学习中的潜在作用的见解。在此背景下,本研究的目的是探讨两组体育专业教师(一组体育专业教师和另一组体育专业教师)在学生教学过程中对体育教学的看法和经验。通过对14名塞浦路斯pct进行半结构化访谈收集的数据进行归纳分析,其中7名具有PE专业,7名没有此类专业。虽然这一分析得出了参与者在运动、认知和情感领域的观点相似,但也发现了参与者观点之间的显著差异。体育专业组的pct更强调游戏中技能的正确表现和应用,似乎对他们在体育教学中的实践更有信心,并且在很大程度上关心内容是否适合学生的水平。相反,非专业化组的参与者对任务选择、顺序和时间分配表现出更多的担忧。在某种程度上,这些差异与pct的专业化有关,我们建议在教师教育中发展体育途径作为一种选择。或者,如果这是不可行的,研究结果表明,至少应该为pct提供参加更多体育课程的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Preservice classroom teachers’ views and experiences of teaching physical education: Does taking a physical education specialization matter?
Although in recent years there has been growing attention on how preservice classroom teachers (PCTs) learn to teach physical education (PE), it is still unclear if there are differences between PCTs who choose a PE specialization and those who do not. Investigating such differences could provide insights about the potential role of a PE specialization in PCTs’ learning. In this context, the purpose of this study was to explore the views and experiences of teaching PE of two groups of PCTs—one with a PE specialization and another without—during their student teaching. Data gathered through semi-structured interviews with 14 Cypriot PCTs, seven with a PE specialization and seven with no such specialization, were analyzed inductively. Although this analysis yielded similarities in the participants’ views on motor, cognitive, and affective domains, notable differences were also identified between participants’ views. PCTs in the PE specialization group emphasized more the correct performance and application of skills in games, seemed to feel more confident regarding their practices in teaching PE, and were largely concerned with the content being appropriate to students’ level. Conversely, participants in the no-specialization group raised more concerns about the task selection, sequencing, and time allocation. To the extent these differences are related to PCTs’ specialization, we suggest that a PE pathway be developed as a choice in teacher education. Alternatively, if this is not feasible, the study findings suggest that PCTs should at least be provided with opportunities to take more PE courses.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Physical Education Review
European Physical Education Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: - Multidisciplinary Approaches: European Physical Education Review brings together contributions from a wide range of disciplines across the natural and social sciences and humanities. It includes theoretical and research-based articles and occasionally devotes Special Issues to major topics and themes within the field. - International Coverage: European Physical Education Review publishes contributions from Europe and all regions of the world, promoting international communication among scholars and professionals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信