Examination of sports science faculty students’ attitudes towards online learning by different variables

Keywords: Sports sciences, online learning, coronavirus anxiety, life satisfaction, academic self-sufficiency


Background and Study Aim. In distance education, students’ attitudes towards this method gain importance in the process. The aim of this research is to examine the impact of coronavirus anxiety, academic self-sufficiency and life satisfaction levels of students in the faculty of sports sciences over their attitudes towards online learning. Material and Methods. A total of 379 sports science faculty students voluntarily participated for the cross-sectional data collection. A simple random sampling method was used in the selection of students from four universities in the Eastern Anatolian region, which make up the universe of the study. Data were collected electronically and analysed by IBM SPSS and AMOS statistical package program. Results. The structural equity model results revealed that academic self-sufficiency and life satisfaction are positive predictors of online learning attitudes and negative predictors of coronavirus anxiety. Online learning attitude was found to be positively correlated with other variables other than coronavirus anxiety. In addition, it has been determined that the scale total scores are slightly above average, except for coronavirus anxiety. Conclusions. The results have been discussed in terms of their meaning for the environment of physical education. In this research, which created a model for understanding online learning attitudes in students of the faculty of sports sciences, it was understood that coronavirus anxiety has a statistically significant effect on online learning attitudes while academic self-sufficiency and life satisfaction do not have a statistically significant effect. Students’ positive attitude towards online learning and understanding the predictors of this attitude will be a development to be appreciated by all stakeholders of the subject.


Download data is not yet available.

| Abstract views: 75 | PDF Downloads: 47 |

Author Biographies

Hulusi Böke, Yaşar Öncan Secondary School
yakamoz8386@gmail.com; Ministry of Education, Yaşar Öncan Secondary School; Malatya, Turkey.
Şakir Tüfekçi, Inonu University
sakir.tufekci@inonu.edu.tr; Sports Management Department, Inonu University; Malatya, Turkey.


1. Hergüner G, Yaman Ç, Sarı SÇ, Yaman MS, Dönmez A. The effect of online learning attitudes of sports sciences students on their learning readiness to learn online in the era of the new coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19). Turkish Online J Educ Technol. 2021; 20:68–77.

2. Watkins R, Leigh D, Triner D. Assessing readiness for e‐learning. Perform Improv Q. 2004; 17:66–79.

3. Yamamoto G, Altun D. The coronavirus and the unstoppable rise of online education. Journal of University Studies. 2020;3:25–34.

4. Zhong R. The coronavirus exposes education's digital divide. New York Times. 2020;18.

5. Aldhafeeri FM, Khan BH. Teachers' and students' views on e-learning readiness in Kuwait's secondary public schools. J Educ Technol Syst. 2016; 45:202–35.

6. Higher Education Information Management System [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 26]. Available from: https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/

7. Alomyan H, Au W. Exploration of ınstructional strategies and ındividual difference within the context of web-based learning. Int Educ J. 2004; 4:86–91.

8. Pierce R, Stacey K, Barkatsas A. A scale for monitoring students' attitudes to learning mathematics with technology. Comput Educ. 2007; 48:285–300.

9. Scheiter K, Gerjets P. Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educ Psychol Rev. 2007; 19:285–307.

10. Yang A, Lau L. Student attitudes to the learning of English at secondary and tertiary levels. System. 2003; 31:107–23.

11. Merisuo-Storm T. Pupils' attitudes towards foreign-language learning and the development of literacy skills in bilingual education. Teach Teach Educ. 2007; 23:226–35.

12. Yudko E, Hirakawa R, Chi R. Attitudes, beliefs, and attendance in a hybrid course. Comput Educ. 2007; 50:1217–27.

13. Aktaş Ö, Büyüktaş B, Gülle M, Yıldız M. Attitudes of sports science students towards distance education during the days of isolation caused by the covid-19 virus. Sivas Cumhuriyet University Sports Science Journal. 2020; 1:1–9.

14. Buhr K, Dugas MJ. The intolerance of uncertainty scale: Psychometric properties of the English version. Behav Res Ther. 2002; 40:931–45.

15. Öncü H. Adaptation of the academic self-efficacy scale into Turkish. J Kirsehir Educ Fac. 2012;13.
16. Zimmerman BJ. Self-efficacy and educational development. Self-Efficacy Chang Soc. 1995; 1:202–31.

17. Suk Hwang Y, Vrangistinos K. Elementary ın-service teachers' self-regulated learning strategies related to their academic achievements. J Instr Psychol. 2002; 29:147–54.

18. Hampton NZ, Mason E. Learning disabilities, gender, sources of efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement in high school students. J Sch Psychol. 2003; 41:101–12.

19. Alcı B, Erden M, Baykal A. The pattern of explanatory and predictive relationships between university students' mathematics achievement and their perceived problem-solving skills, self-efficacy perceptions, metacognitive self-regulation strategies and OSS numerical scores. Boğaziçi University Education Journal.2008;25:53–68.

20. Huebner ES, Antaramian SP, Hills KJ, Lewis AD, Saha R. Stability and predictive validity of the brief multidimensional students' life satisfaction scale. Child Indic Res. 2011; 4:161–8.

21. Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH. How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw Hill; 2012.

22. Gürbüz S, Şahin F. Research methods in social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing; 2016.

23. Ullman JB. Structural equation modeling. In: Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, editors. Using Multivar Stat. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 2001. p. 653–771.

24. Tanaka JS, Panter AT, Winborne WC, Huba GJ. Theory in personality and social psychology with structural equation models: A primer in 20 questions. In: Hendrik C, Clark M, editors. Rev Pers Soc Psychol. New bury Park: Sage; 1990. p. 217–41.

25. Preacher KJ, Coffman DL. Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA [Computer software]. 2006.

26. Usta İ, Uysal Ö, Okur MR. Online learning attitude scale: development, validity and reliability. J Int Soc Res. 2016; 9:2215–22.

27. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1984; 49:391–411.

28. Marsh HW, Balla JR, McDonald RP. Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: Effects of sample size. Psychol Bull. 1988; 103:391–411.

29. Creswell JW. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. Pearson Education Inc.; 2012.

30. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 2003.

31. Domino G, Domino ML. Psychological testing: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.

32. Yılmaz M, Gürçay D, Ekici G. Adaptation of the academic self-efficacy scale into Turkish. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal. 2007; 33:253–9.

33. Biçer İ, Çakmak C, Demir H, Kurt ME. Coronavirus anxiety scale short form: Turkish validity and reliability study. Anadolu Klin Medical Science Journal. 2020; 25:216–25.

34. Dağlı A, Baysal N. Adaptation of life satisfaction scale into Turkish: validity and reliability study. Electron Sos Science Journal. 2016;15.

35. Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu, G. Büyüköztürk Ş. Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications. Ankara: Pegem Academy; 2016.

36. Şimşek ÖF. Introduction to structural equation modeling: Fundamentals and applications of LISREL. Ankara: Ekinoks; 2007.

37. Sümer N. Structural equation models: Basic concepts and sample applications. Turkish Psychological Writings. 2000; 3:49–74.

38. Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 2007.

39. George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 2003.

40. Can A. Quantitative data analysis in scientific research process with SPSS. Ankara: Pegem Academy Publications; 2016.

41. Morgan GA, Leech NL, Gloeckner GW, Barrett KC. SPSS for introductory statistics: Use and interpretation. Psychology Press; 2004.

42. Arbuckle JL. Amos 5.0 update to the AMOS user's guide içinde. Chicago: Small Waters Corp.; 2003.

43. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS, basics concepts, applications, and programming. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001.

44. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res Online. 2003; 8:23–74.

45. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2009.

46. Telli SG, Altun D. The coronavirus and the unstoppable rise of online education. Journal of University Studies. 2020; 3:25–34.

47. Brinkerhoff J, Koroghlanian CM. Student computer skills and attitudes toward ınternet-delivered ınstruction: an assessment of stability over time and place. J Educ Comput Res. 2005; 32:27–56.

48. Belcheir MJ, Cucek M. Faculty perceptions of teaching distance education courses. Idaho; 2002.

49. Drennan J, Kennedy J, Pisarski A. Factors affecting student attitudes toward flexible online learning in management education. J Educ Res. 2005; 98:331–8.

50. Moore RE. Effects of the use of two different teaching styles on motor skill acquisition of fifth-grade students [Doctoral Dissertation]. [Texas]: East Texas State University; 1996.

51. Sarıtaş E, Barutçu S. Digital transformation in teaching and students' readiness for online learning: A study on Pamukkale University students during the pandemic period. Journal of Internet Applications and Management. 2020; 11:5–22.

52. Love EG, Love DW, Northcraft GB. Is the end in sight? Student regulation of in-class and extra-credit effort in response to performance feedback. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2010; 9:81–97.

53. Sadik A, Reisman S. Design and implementation of a web-based learning environment: Lessons learned. Q Rev Distance Educ. 2004; 5:157–71.

54. Prior DD, Mazanov J, Meacheam D, Heaslip G, Hanson J. Attitude, digital literacy and self-efficacy: Flow-on effects for online learning behavior. Internet High Educ. 2016; 29:91–7.

55. Dhull I, Sakshi M. Online learning. Int Educ Res J. 2017;3.

56. Hung ML, Chou C, Chen CH, Own ZY. Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Comput Educ. 2010; 55:1080–90.

57. Yaman M. Perceptions of students on the application of distance education in physical education lessons. Online Submiss. 2009;8.

58. Dutile C, Wright N, Beauchesne M. Virtual clinical education: going the full distance in nursing education. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev. 2011; 11:43–8.

59. Yalçın İ, Mançe Çalışır Ö, Can N, Yalçın S, Çolak B. Protective and moderator effect of risk factors on the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and mental health variables. Ankara; 2020.

60. Çetin C, Anuk Ö. Loneliness and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: A sample of public university students. Journal of Eurasia Sauce and Econ Research. 2020; 7:170–89.

61. Duman N. Fear of COVID-19 and intolerance of uncertainty in college students. J Soc Sci. 2020; 4:426–37.

62. Cao W, Fang Z, Hou G, Han M, Xu X, Dong J, et al. The psychological impact of the covid-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Resesarch. 2020; 287:1–5.

63. Dikmen M. The relationship between university students' depression levels and social media addictions in the COVID-19 pandemic: A structural equation model. Journal of Addiction - J Depend. 2021; 22:20–30.

64. Çölgeçen Y, Çölgeçen H. Evaluation of anxiety levels due to the Covid-19 pandemic: The case of Turkey. Electron Turkish Stud. 2020;15.

65. Şen Ö, Kızılcalıoğlu G. Determining the views of university students and academicians on distance education during the Covid-19 pandemic process. Int J 3D Print Technol Digit Ind. 2020; 4:239–52.

66. Acar K, Mor A, Baynaz K, Arslanoğlu E. An investigation on anxiety states of students in faculty of sport sciences during COVID-19. Int J Disabil Sport Heal Sci. 2020; 3:66–73.

67. Saltürk A, Güngör C. The experience of transition to distance education during the covid-19 pandemic period from the eyes of university students. J Soc Sci. 2020; 36:137–74.

68. Dai, D. & Xia X. Whether the school self-developed e-learning platform is more conducive to learning during the Covıd-19 pandemic? Best Evid Chin Edu. 2020; 5:569–80.

69. Eroğlu O, Yıldırım Y, Şahan H. Examining the relationship between academic self-efficacy and academic motivation levels of students in the faculty of sports sciences: The case of Akdeniz University. Turkish Journal of Sports Science. 2017; 1:38–47.

70. Satıcı B, Gocet-Tekin E, Deniz ME, Satıcı SA. Adaptation of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Its association with psychological distress and life satisfaction in Turkey. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2020.

71. Kaçik S, Acar F. Examination of university students' fear of missing out and their level of life satisfaction in terms of demographic variables. Kayseri University Sos Science Journal. 2020; 2:74–90.

72. Ekizler H. The effect of mental well-being on covid-19 related anxieties. J Curr Res Bus Econ. 2020; 10:173–86.

73. Behan C. The benefits of meditation and mindfulness practices during times of crisis such as COVID-19. Ir J Psychol Med. 2020;1.

74. Di Giuseppe M, Gemignani A, Conversano C. Psychological resources against the traumatic experience of COVID-19. Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2020;17.
How to Cite
Böke H, Tüfekçi Şakir. Examination of sports science faculty students’ attitudes towards online learning by different variables. Physical education of students. 2021;25(4):212-20. https://doi.org/10.15561/20755279.2021.0402