Sports Science and Physical Education
Mohsen Hallaji
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to criticize the book “Instructional Models for Physical Education”. The research method of critical philosophical exploration and society was the study of the content and structure of the book. National Criticism Questionnaire was used as a tool and framework ...
Read More
The purpose of this study was to criticize the book “Instructional Models for Physical Education”. The research method of critical philosophical exploration and society was the study of the content and structure of the book. National Criticism Questionnaire was used as a tool and framework for the critique. The book has 693 pages, two parts, and 15 chapters. The findings of the review were presented in two dimensions: description and interpretation of the form and content of the work. The points regarding the form analysis include layout, literary editing, full ID, and good quality prints. Some content scores include content in sections and chapters, content matching with the headlines of some academic lessons, expanding the idea of designing and implementing physical education lessons’ shapes such as low charm, large numbers book pages. Content failures encompass duplication of content, relative neglect to refer to existing scientific theories, lack of mentioning the integration patterns, the problem of teaching a book during a semester for a two-unit lesson, moderate and weak equation of specialized terminology, and uncertainty to translate book. According to the teacher’s guide books, this book is not recommended to Iranian Physical education teachers.
Sports Science and Physical Education
Mohsen Hallaji
Volume 17, Issue 6 , November 2017, , Pages 115-133
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to review and critique the book “Physical Education in Schools”. For this purpose, the questionnaire "Review and review of texts and books of humanities (national books)" developed by the Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies as a tool and framework ...
Read More
The purpose of this research was to review and critique the book “Physical Education in Schools”. For this purpose, the questionnaire "Review and review of texts and books of humanities (national books)" developed by the Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies as a tool and framework of critique was used. The face, structure, and content validity of the questionnaire were determined by a panel of faculty members inside and outside the Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies. The book "Physical Education in Schools" has 441 pages of four sections and fifteen chapters. The findings of the critique were presented from two perspectives: points and defects of form and content. Form factors (formal comprehensiveness) were evaluated to the optimum level. Content scores include: the content of sections and chapters to create logical order,internal consistency of content within the seasons, the inclusion of resources at the end of each section, the absence of scientific bias, the proportional of the content with Islamic culture and values, the symmetry of the chapters to be aligned with headings, the use of components of formal comprehensiveness in the transfer of content concepts, the quality of the application, and the equivalence of technical terms. The formal defects are mainly due to the low attractiveness of the cover, the ambiguous expression of the main purpose of the effect, the lack of a preface, a glossary, the goals of the lesson, the summary of the chapter and section, the conclusions and suggestions, the subject glossary, and medium quality printing, including items such as paper type, book cover, set up tables and charts, etc.). Content deficiencies include lack of general idea and disturbance in the use of structural and content models in providing the content of the book, lack of adequate references and incompleteness of them, lack of presenting comprehensive image of all components of the physical education course, relative disregard referring to the existing scientific theories, the discrepancy between the content of the book and the heading of a particular lesson, and finally the failure to use all the components of formal comprehensiveness in the conveying and strengthening of the content.
