| fullrecord |
[{"key": "dc.contributor.advisor", "value": "Lounassalo, Irinja", "language": null, "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "advisor", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.author", "value": "Pirinen, Aleksi", "language": "", "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "author", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.date.accessioned", "value": "2024-06-10T11:48:36Z", "language": null, "element": "date", "qualifier": "accessioned", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.date.available", "value": "2024-06-10T11:48:36Z", "language": null, "element": "date", "qualifier": "available", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.date.issued", "value": "2024", "language": null, "element": "date", "qualifier": "issued", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.identifier.uri", "value": "https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/95708", "language": null, "element": "identifier", "qualifier": "uri", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.description.abstract", "value": "The aim of this Master's thesis was to investigate the prevalence of different assessment \nmethods in secondary school physical education (PE) and PE teachers' views regarding student \nassessment. According to previous research, PE teachers find interpreting the assessment \ncriteria of the curriculum challenging when assigning summative grades, and at the same time, \nthey have little experience with formative assessment, which is known for its learning \nsupportive effect. Despite the benefits of formative assessment, its full potential has not yet \nbeen utilized in physical education. While teachers' views of assessment may reflect how they \nutilize assessment in their teaching. There is limited research on PE teachers' assessment views \nand assessment methods in Finland.\nThe data for the study was collected as part of the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture funded project \"Development of Assessment Competence for Teachers of Physical and Health \nEducation\" (2018\u20132021). An online survey was e-mailed in 2019 to members of The \nAssociation of Physical and Health Educators in Finland. A total of 201 PE teachers responded \nto the survey. In this study, the sample was limited to physical education teachers teaching in \nsecondary school (N=147, 78 % females). The data was analyzed using SPSS software. A \nhierarchical cluster analysis was conducted on the data to identify groups of teachers with \ndiffering assessment methods. The resulting groups were compared using cross-tabulation and \nthe chi-square test based on gender, age, and variables measuring assessment views. \nAdditionally, open-ended responses from teachers were subjected to a data-driven content \nanalysis by categorizing similar responses into groups. After classification, the content analysis \nwas continued by quantifying the data.\nThree distinct assessment profiles were identified among PE teachers: observers (n=96),\nformative assessors (n=31) and measurers (n=20). The groups did not differ by age. Women \nwere more prevalent in the group of formative assessors, while men were more prevalent in the \ngroup of measurers, but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0,261). Formative\nassessors more often than others believed that assessment supports lesson planning (p<0,05). \nGood student assessment was most frequently described as diverse, encouraging, and fair. The \nfindings of the study on the prevalence of observation as an assessment method confirm \nprevious beliefs about its common use in physical education. In contrast, other assessment \nmethods are relatively rare. There are also differences in how PE teachers emphasize various \nmethods in physical education assessment. This can lead to a situation where students are in \nunequal positions, with some receiving more diverse assessments compared to others. The \nresults of the study may help teachers better understand their own assessment practices and \nfurther diversify their assessment methods.", "language": "en", "element": "description", "qualifier": "abstract", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.description.abstract", "value": "T\u00e4m\u00e4n pro gradu -tutkielman tavoitteena oli selvitt\u00e4\u00e4 erilaisten arviointimenetelmien yleisyytt\u00e4 \nyl\u00e4koulun liikuntatunneilla ja yl\u00e4koulun liikunnanopettajien k\u00e4sityksi\u00e4 oppilasarvioinnista.\nAikaisemman tutkimuksen mukaan liikunnanopettajat kokevat opetussuunnitelman \narviointikriteerien tulkinnan haastavaksi summatiivista arvosanaa annettaessa ja samalla \nomaavat vain v\u00e4h\u00e4n kokemusta formatiivisesta eli oppimista tukevasta arvioinnista. \nFormatiivisen arvioinnin hy\u00f6dyist\u00e4 huolimatta sen t\u00e4ytt\u00e4 potentiaalia ei viel\u00e4 k\u00e4ytet\u00e4 \nliikunnanopetuksessa. Opettajan omat k\u00e4sitykset arvioinnista voivat heijastua siihen, kuinka \nopettaja arviointia hy\u00f6dynt\u00e4\u00e4 opetuksessaan. Liikunnanopettajien arviointik\u00e4sityksi\u00e4 ja heid\u00e4n \nk\u00e4ytt\u00e4mi\u00e4\u00e4n arviointimenetelmi\u00e4 on tutkittu Suomessa rajallisesti. \nTutkielman aineisto on ker\u00e4tty osana opetus- ja kulttuuriministeri\u00f6n (2018\u20132021) rahoittamaa \n\u201dLiikuntaa ja terveystietoa opettavien opettajien arviointiosaaminen kehitt\u00e4minen\u201d -hanketta. \nLiikunnan ja terveystiedon opettajat ry:n j\u00e4senille l\u00e4hettiin s\u00e4hk\u00f6postitse s\u00e4hk\u00f6inen kysely \nvuonna 2019. Kyselyyn vastasi yhteens\u00e4 201 liikunnanopettajaa. T\u00e4ss\u00e4 tutkielmassa otos \nrajattiin yl\u00e4koulussa opettaviin liikunnanopettajiin (N=147; 78 % naisia). Aineistoa analysoitiin \nSPSS-ohjelmistolla. Aineistolle tehtiin hierarkkinen klusterianalyysi, jonka avulla pyrittiin \nl\u00f6yt\u00e4m\u00e4\u00e4n arviointimenetelmilt\u00e4\u00e4n toisistaan eroavia opettajaryhmi\u00e4. Muodostuneita ryhmi\u00e4 \nvertailtiin kesken\u00e4\u00e4n sukupuolen, i\u00e4n ja arviointik\u00e4sityksi\u00e4 mittaavien muuttujien mukaan \nristiintaulukoinnilla ja khiin neli\u00f6 -testill\u00e4. Lis\u00e4ksi opettajien avoimista vastauksista tehtiin \naineistol\u00e4ht\u00f6inen sis\u00e4ll\u00f6nanalyysi luokittelemalla samanlaisia vastauksia omiksi ryhmikseen. \nSis\u00e4ll\u00f6nanalyysi\u00e4 jatkettiin luokittelun j\u00e4lkeen kvantifioimalla aineisto.\nLiikunnanopettajien k\u00e4ytt\u00e4mien arviointimenetelmien perusteella muodostui kolme \nopettajaryhm\u00e4\u00e4: havainnoijat (n=96) sek\u00e4 formatiiviset arvioijat (n=31) ja mittaustuloksia \npainottavat (n=20) Ryhm\u00e4t eiv\u00e4t eronneet toisistaan i\u00e4n mukaan. Naiset painottuivat \nformatiivisten arvioijien ryhm\u00e4ss\u00e4 ja miehet mittaustuloksia painottavissa, mutta ero ei ollut \ntilastollisesti merkitsev\u00e4 (p=0,261). Formatiiviset arvioijat ajattelivat muita useammin, ett\u00e4 \narviointi tukee opetuksen suunnittelua (p<0,05). Hyv\u00e4\u00e4 oppilasarviointia pidettiin useimmiten \nmonipuolisena, kannustavana ja tasapuolisena. Tutkielman tulos havainnoinnin yleisyydest\u00e4 \narviointimenetelm\u00e4n\u00e4 vahvistaa aikaisempia k\u00e4sityksi\u00e4 sen yleisyydest\u00e4 liikunnanopetuksessa. \nSen sijaan muut arviointimenetelm\u00e4t olivat suhteellisen harvinaisia. Opettajien k\u00e4ytt\u00e4miss\u00e4 \narvioitimenetelmiss\u00e4 oli my\u00f6s eroja siin\u00e4, kuinka he painottivat eri menetelmi\u00e4 liikunnan \narvioinnissa. T\u00e4m\u00e4 voi johtaa siihen, ett\u00e4 oppilaat ovat kesken\u00e4\u00e4n ep\u00e4tasa-arvoisessa asemassa, \njos toisia arvioidaan monipuolisemmin kuin toisia. Tutkielman tulokset voivat auttaa opettajia \ntiedostamaan arviointiperiaatteitaan ja edelleen monipuolistamaan arviointik\u00e4yt\u00e4nteit\u00e4\u00e4n.", "language": "fi", "element": "description", "qualifier": "abstract", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.description.provenance", "value": "Submitted by Miia Hakanen (mihakane@jyu.fi) on 2024-06-10T11:48:36Z\nNo. of bitstreams: 0", "language": "en", "element": "description", "qualifier": "provenance", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.description.provenance", "value": "Made available in DSpace on 2024-06-10T11:48:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0\n Previous issue date: 2024", "language": "en", "element": "description", "qualifier": "provenance", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.format.extent", "value": "90", "language": "", "element": "format", "qualifier": "extent", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.language.iso", "value": "fin", "language": null, "element": "language", "qualifier": "iso", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.rights", "value": "In Copyright", "language": "en", "element": "rights", "qualifier": null, "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.other", "value": "liikunnanopetus", "language": "", "element": "subject", "qualifier": "other", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.title", "value": "Erilaisten arviointimenetelmien yleisyys yl\u00e4koulun liikunnanopetuksessa ja yl\u00e4koulun liikunnanopettajien k\u00e4sityksi\u00e4 oppilasarvioinnista", "language": "", "element": "title", "qualifier": null, "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.type", "value": "master thesis", "language": null, "element": "type", "qualifier": null, "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.identifier.urn", "value": "URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202406104479", "language": null, "element": "identifier", "qualifier": "urn", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.type.ontasot", "value": "Master\u2019s thesis", "language": "en", "element": "type", "qualifier": "ontasot", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.type.ontasot", "value": "Pro gradu -tutkielma", "language": "fi", "element": "type", "qualifier": "ontasot", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.faculty", "value": "Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences", "language": "en", "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "faculty", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.faculty", "value": "Liikuntatieteellinen tiedekunta", "language": "fi", "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "faculty", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.department", "value": "Sport and Health Sciences", "language": "en", "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "department", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.department", "value": "Liikunta- ja terveystieteet", "language": "fi", "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "department", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.organization", "value": "University of Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4", "language": "en", "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "organization", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.contributor.organization", "value": "Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4n yliopisto", "language": "fi", "element": "contributor", "qualifier": "organization", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.discipline", "value": "Physical Education Teacher Education", "language": "en", "element": "subject", "qualifier": "discipline", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.discipline", "value": "Liikuntapedagogiikka", "language": "fi", "element": "subject", "qualifier": "discipline", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "yvv.contractresearch.funding", "value": "0", "language": "", "element": "contractresearch", "qualifier": "funding", "schema": "yvv"}, {"key": "dc.type.coar", "value": "http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_bdcc", "language": null, "element": "type", "qualifier": "coar", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.rights.accesslevel", "value": "openAccess", "language": null, "element": "rights", "qualifier": "accesslevel", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.type.publication", "value": "masterThesis", "language": null, "element": "type", "qualifier": "publication", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.oppiainekoodi", "value": "502", "language": null, "element": "subject", "qualifier": "oppiainekoodi", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.yso", "value": "arviointi", "language": null, "element": "subject", "qualifier": "yso", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.yso", "value": "arviointimenetelm\u00e4t", "language": null, "element": "subject", "qualifier": "yso", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.subject.yso", "value": "opettajat", "language": null, "element": "subject", "qualifier": "yso", "schema": "dc"}, {"key": "dc.rights.url", "value": "https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/", "language": null, "element": "rights", "qualifier": "url", "schema": "dc"}]
|