پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 559 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,433 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 7,386,259 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 3,849,232 |
مقایسه سه روش تدریس بر میزان یادگیری و رضایتمندی فراگیران در آموزش تربیت‌بدنی (روش معلم محور، فراگیرمحور و ترکیبی) | ||
| مطالعات بین رشته ای در آموزش | ||
| دوره 5، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 16، مهر 1405، صفحه 172-195 اصل مقاله (787.22 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48310/ise.2026.22317.1572 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| حامد عبدی* 1؛ عباس باقری1؛ فریبرز عرفانی زاده2؛ پرستو گودرزی3 | ||
| 1گروه آموزش تربیت بدنی، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، صندوق پستی 889-14665، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2گروه مدیریت آموزشی، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، صندوق پستی 889-14665 تهران، ایران | ||
| 3دانش آموخته دکتری مدیریت آموزشی، گروه علوم تربیتی، واحد خرم آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، خرم آباد، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| پیشینه و اهداف: پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی تاثیر سه روش تدریس معلم محور، فراگیر محور و ترکیبی بر میزان یادگیری و رضایتمندی دانشجویان انجام شد. روش‌ها: این پژوهش با رویکرد کمی و با به‌کارگیری طرح نیمه‌تجربی (نوع پیش‌آزمون – پس‌آزمون) با گروه‌های مقایسه انجام شد. جامعه آماری پژوهش را کلیه دانشجویان سال سوم رشته آموزش تربیت‌بدنی پردیس شهید باهنر دانشگاه فرهنگیان استان مرکزی در سال تحصیلی ۱۴۰۵–۱۴۰۴ تشکیل دادند (45 نفر). نمونه‌گیری به روش سرشماری انجام شد و هر 45 دانشجو در پژوهش شرکت کردند و با استفاده از جدول اعداد تصادفی، به سه گروه آموزش تخصیص داده شدند. محتوای آموزشی برای همه گروه‌ها، آموزش هندبال (شامل ۲۴ جلسه طی ۱۲ هفته) بود. ابزارهای جمع آوری داده ها شامل آزمون اصلاح‌شده هندبال (دارای روایی و ضریب همبستگی درون‌خوشه‌ای، ICC =0/74) و پرسشنامه رضایت از روش تدریس کومار (2019) (دارای روایی و پایایی، α=0/91) بود. داده‌ها با استفاده از نرم افزار SPSS و آزمون ANCOVA و ANOVA و آزمون توکی تحلیل شدند. یافته‌ها: تفاوت معناداری بین میانگین نمرات متغیر یادگیری (F= 18/76؛ p < 0/001؛ η² = 0/48) و رضایتمندی (F= 15/34؛ p < 0/001؛ η² = 0/42) در سه گروه مورد آزمایش وجود داشت. نتایج آزمون تعقیبی توکی نشان نیز داد در هردو متغیر یادگیری و رضایتمندی، میانگین نمرات گروه ترکیبی به طور معناداری بالاتر از گروه معلم‌محور و فراگیرمحور و گروه فراگیرمحور نیز به طور معناداری بالاتر از گروه معلم‌محور بود (p < 0/05). نتیجه‌گیری: توصیه می‌شود معلمان تربیت‌بدنی با گذار از رویکردهای صرفاً سنتی، به سمت طراحی آموزشی انعطاف‌پذیر و ترکیبی حرکت کنند و از بستر مجازی به‌عنوان مکمل آموزش حضوری بهره بگیرند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| تدریس؛ یادگیری؛ معلم محور؛ فراگیرمحور؛ روش ترکیبی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Comparison of Three Teaching Methods on the Level of Learning and Satisfaction of Learners in Physical Education Instruction (Teacher-Centered, Learner-Centered and Blended Methods) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Hamed Abdi1؛ Abbas Bagheri1؛ Fariborz Erfanizadeh2؛ Parastoo Godarzi3 | ||
| 1Department of Physical Education, Farhangian University, P.O. BOX 14665-889, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Department of Educational Administration, Farhangian University, P.O. Box 14665-889, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3PhD in Educational Management, Department of Educational Sciences, Khoramabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khoramabad, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Background and Objectives: Teaching methods in physical education are generally categorized into three main approaches: the teacher-centered (command style) method, in which the teacher is the primary decision-maker and model; the learner-centered (discovery or problem-based) method, in which the teacher acts as a guide and facilitator and students actively participate in discovering solutions and making decisions; and the blended method, meaning blended learning, which is the purposeful integration of face-to-face instruction and digital content delivered via a virtual platform, and represents an instance of the flipped classroom model. In recent years, with the emergence of educational technologies, the blended method has gained considerable popularity. Nevertheless, choosing the optimal teaching method is often based on experience or personal preference, which can lead to inefficiency in the educational process. Therefore, the need for systematic empirical evidence to select the optimal teaching method is an undeniable necessity. However, a review of the literature shows that findings regarding the definitive superiority of a particular method are inconsistent: some studies support the effectiveness of the learner-centered method on motivation and creativity, while other research considers the teacher-centered method more efficient for the early stages of learning complex skills, and there is also evidence of the effectiveness of the blended method. Moreover, individual factors such as age, gender, and fitness level may also moderate effectiveness. Consequently, determining the most effective teaching method has always been a challenging issue with scattered findings. Hence, the present study was designed with the aim of systematically comparing the effect of three teaching methods—teacher-centered, learner-centered, and blended—on two indicators: learning and satisfaction among physical education students. Methods: This quantitative study employed a quasi-experimental design (pre-test/post-test) with comparison groups. The statistical population consisted of all third-year Physical Education students at the Shahid Bahonar Campus of Farhangian University in Markazi Province during the 1404–1405 academic year (N=45). A census sampling method was used, with all 45 students participating in the study; they were assigned to three instructional groups—teacher-centered, learner-centered, and blended—using a table of random numbers. Inclusion criteria were informed consent, no prior specialized handball training, and full physical health; the exclusion criterion was absence from more than three sessions, which did not occur for any participant. Data collection instruments were employed in two parts: 1) a handball test to assess skill learning, adapted from Hadavi et al. (2016) and the Ministry of Education guidelines (2017). This test evaluated three skills: dribbling, three steps, and shooting in three stations. Scoring was based on total execution time plus a two-second penalty for each missed shot or technical error. Content validity was confirmed by eight coaches, and inter-rater reliability was calculated with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.74 in a pilot study with 30 participants. 2) The Kumar (2019) Teaching Method Satisfaction Questionnaire, with 20 items and a five-point Likert scale, measuring four dimensions: enjoyment, appropriateness, motivation, and usefulness. Face and content validity were confirmed by eight experts with a content validity index (CVI) above 0.79, and reliability was calculated with Cronbach's alpha of 0.91 in a pilot study with 30 students. The educational intervention consisted of 24 sessions of 90 minutes each (12 weeks, two sessions per week) of handball instruction. All factors, including the instructor (holding a PhD in Physical Education), content, number and duration of sessions, facilities, and training location, were identical for all groups, and only the teaching method differentiated them. A learning pretest was administered before the intervention, and a learning and satisfaction posttest was administered immediately after the course ended. Findings: Data from 45 participants in three groups of 15 were analyzed. Statistical assumptions, including normality of distribution (Kolmogorov–Smirnov), homogeneity of variances (Levene's test), linearity of the relationship, and homogeneity of regression slopes, were checked and confirmed. For the learning variable, the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for pretest scores, showed a significant difference among the three groups (F = 18.76, p < 0.001, η² = 0.48), meaning that 48% of the variance in learning scores was explained by the type of teaching method. Tukey's post-hoc test showed that the mean scores of the blended group were significantly higher than those of the teacher-centered group (p < 0.001) and the learner-centered group (p = 0.02), and the mean scores of the learner-centered group were significantly higher than those of the teacher-centered group (p < 0.01). For the satisfaction variable, the results of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) also showed a significant difference among the three groups (F = 15.34, p < 0.001, η² = 0.42), meaning that 42% of the variance in satisfaction scores was explained by the type of teaching method. Tukey's post-hoc test showed that the mean scores of the blended group were significantly higher than those of the teacher-centered group (p < 0.001) and the learner-centered group (p = 0.03), and the mean scores of the learner-centered group were significantly higher than those of the teacher-centered group (p < 0.01). The large effect sizes for both variables indicate a considerable practical impact of the teaching method. Overall, a hierarchical pattern of blended > learner-centered > teacher-centered was observed for both learning and satisfaction. Conclusion: The primary objective of this study was to compare three teaching methods—teacher-centered, learner-centered, and blended regarding learners' skill proficiency and satisfaction in physical education training. The findings revealed significant differences among the three groups concerning both skill proficiency and satisfaction; specifically, the blended group outperformed the learner-centered and teacher-centered groups, while the learner-centered group outperformed the teacher-centered group. This pattern can be interpreted in light of the existing literature: differences in instructional methods are not limited merely to the degree of teacher guidance or learner participation; rather, the manner in which these two components are combined and how the learning experience is organized are equally crucial. These findings align with research by Valle-Muñoz et al. (2025) and Shasti et al (2023) regarding the role of participation in satisfaction, as well as studies demonstrating the effectiveness of the blended approaches. Conversely, they differ from research reporting greater effectiveness for teacher-centered methods (Rink, 2010; Hadadi & Sadri, 2021). This discrepancy may be attributed to variations in the type of skill, learner proficiency levels, the implementation of the teaching method, and the extent of guidance provided. Consequently, the findings must be interpreted within the specific context of the study. Limitations regarding the sample, restricted to third-year physical education students at a Farhangian University campus, affect the generalizability of the results to other age groups, academic disciplines, and educational settings. Furthermore, while factors such as course content, the instructor, teaching duration, and educational facilities were standardized, achieving complete control over all individual and environmental variables influencing skill acquisition and satisfaction remains challenging. In this regard, it is recommended that future research examine larger and more diverse samples, longer training periods, skill training and various levels of physical effects, sustainable teaching methods, and robust, acceptable study mechanisms | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Teaching, Learning, Teacher-centered, Learner-centered, Blended Method | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 4 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 2 |
||
