Theoretical and applied perspectives of the kinesiology discipline in the field of physical education and sports science

Keywords: didactic activity, knowledge, opinions, teaching, evaluation, performance standard

Abstract

Background and Study Aim. The study intends to estimate the theoretical and applied perspectives of the Kinesiology discipline in the field of Sport and Physical Education science. Material and Methods. A total number of 127 subjects (students of the Physical Education and Sport Department in the University of Pitești) participated in this research. There are 59 students in Physical Education and Sport (PES), 37 in Sport and Motor Performance (SMP) and 31 in Physical Education and Sport Conversion (PESC). The research was conducted during COVID-19 pandemic, in the academic year 2021-2022. The teaching and evaluation activity in the Kinesiology discipline was carried out online by means of Zoom program. The monitoring of the teaching activity was done with the help of the university e-learning platform. The opinions of the subjects on the discipline taught and the assessment of the teaching staff by the students were analyzed using Google Forms questionnaire. The fundamental basic knowledge in Kinesiology was evaluated using the following indicators: S1 (periodically evaluated activities) = A1 (40%) +A2 (20%), final evaluation (FE) – examination (40%), S2 – sum of the fractions of grade obtained at the periodic evaluations and those from the final verification. Results. The analysis of the subjects’ opinions regarding the topic of the discipline taught reveals 5% moderate opinions, 16% - good and 79% very good ones. The evaluation of the basic fundamental knowledge in Kinesiology highlights the following values of the indicators: A1 (40%) – an average of 8.05 points between groups (p<0.01); A2 (20%) - an average of 7.95 points (p>0.05); S1 – an average of 4.81 points (p<0.05). The final evaluation (40%) in the exam shows an average of 3.36 points (p<0.01); S2 has 8.17 points (p<0.01); the final grade between groups has an average of 8.29 points, with differences of rounding in student’s favor (p<0.05). The analysis of students’ opinions concerning the teaching activity in Kinesiology discipline shows that 76% rate it as excellent, 14% - very good, 6.7% - good, 1.9% - satisfactory and 1.4% unsatisfactory (extracurricular activity). Conclusions. There were shown the subjects’ opinions on the Kinesiology discipline topics and the weight of meeting the minimum and maximum performance standards. The preferred or practiced sports chosen in the researched study programs were presented. The results of the evaluation of the basic fundamental knowledge highlight the value of the averages between groups for the evaluated indicators. These results also reveal the opinions of the students about the didactic activity carried out by the professor in the discipline studied.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

| Abstract views: 101 | PDF Downloads: 62 |

Author Biographies

Veaceslav Manolachi, State University of Physical Education and Sport
manolachivsciences@yahoo.com; ”Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati (Galati, Romania); State University of Physical Education and Sport (Chisinau, Republic of Moldova).
Vladimir Potop, University of Pitesti
vladimir_potop@yahoo.com; Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of Pitesti (Pitesti, Romania); State University of Physical Education and Sport (Chisinau, Republic of Moldova).
Andrii Chernozub, Lesya Ukrainka Volyn National University
chernozub@gmail.com; Lesya Ukrainka Volyn National University; Lutsk, Ukraine.
Oleksii Khudyi, Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University
o.khudyi@chnu.edu.ua; Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University; Chernivtsi, Ukraine.
Irina Delipovici, ”Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati
delipovici.irina@mail.ru; ”Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati (Galati, Romania); State University of Physical Education and Sport (Chisinau, Republic of Moldova).
Sergey Eshtayev, Uzbek State University of Physical Education and Sport
Eshtaev84@mail.ru; Uzbek State University of Physical Education and Sport; Chirchik, Uzbekistan.
Liviu E. Mihailescu, University of Pitesti
liviumihailescu2006@ yahoo.com; Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of Pitesti; Pitesti, Romania.

References

1. Castelli DM, Mitchell LS. Selective integration: Roles for public health, kinesiology, and physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2021;40(3):402-411.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2020-0245

2. Rink J. What knowledge is of most value? Perspectives on kinesiology from pedagogy. Quest, 2007;59(1):100-110.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2007.10483540

3. Lawson HA, Kretchmar RS. A generative synthesis for kinesiology: Lessons from history and visions for the future. Kinesiology Review, 2017;6 (2):195-210.
https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2017-0002

4. Anderson DI, van Emmerik RE. Perspectives on the academic discipline of kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 2021;10(3):225-227.
https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2021-0029

5. Crețu M. Kinesiologie generală [General kinesiology]. Publishing House of the University of Piteşti, 2013. (in Romanian).

6. Hopsicker PM, Hochstetler D. The future of sport philosophy in higher education kinesiology. Quest, 2016; 68(3):240-256.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1181556

7. Solmon MA Physical education and sport pedagogy: The application of the academic discipline of kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 2021;10(3):331-338.
https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2021-0026

8. Gill DL. Integration: The key to sustaining kinesiology in higher education. Quest, 2007;59 (3):269-286.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2007.10483552

9. Knudson D. Future trends in the kinesiology sciences. Quest, 2016;68(3):348-360.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1184171

10. Schary DP, Cardinal BJ. Interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary research and teaching in kinesiology: Continuing the conversation. Quest, 2015;67(2):173-184.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2015.1017586

11. Bice MR, Hollman A, Bickford S, Bickford N, Ball JW, Wiedenman EM, ... Adkins, M. Kinesiology in 360 degrees. International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education, 2017;1(1):9-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24711616.2016.1277671

12. Dzewaltowski DA, McElroy M, Musch TI, Poole DC, Harms CA. Kansas State University physical activity systems framework: Integration of the discipline of kinesiology and public health. Kinesiology Review, 2015;4(4):346-354.
https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2015-0034

13. Joseph J., Kriger D. Towards a decolonizing kinesiology ethics model. Quest, 2021;73(2):192-208.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2021.1898996

14. Weiss MR. Cheering for the Children: My Life's Work in Youth Development Through Sport. Kinesiology Review, 2021;10(2):155-167.
https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2020-0064

15. Nachman J, Joseph J, Fusco C. ‘What if what the professor knows is not diverse enough for us?’: whiteness in Canadian kinesiology programs. Sport, Education and Society, 2022;27(7):789-802.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1919613

16. Jenny O, Sherwood JJ, Yingling VR. Undergraduate research and service-learning programs in a kinesiology program at a teaching university. Quest, 2016;(2):1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1226908

17. Duke LM, Gorman JP, Browne JM. How kinesiology leaders can use the constructs of adaptive, complexity, and transformational leadership to anticipate and prepare for future possibilities. Kinesiology Review, 2021;10(4):449-456.
https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2021-0046

18. Ennis CD. New directions in undergraduate and graduate education in kinesiology and physical education. Quest, 2010;62(1):76-91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2010.10483633

19. Lee TD, Carnahan H. Motor learning: Reflections on the past 40 years of research. Kinesiology Review, 2021;10(3):274-282.
https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2021-0018

20. Mihaiu C, Gulap M, Aducovschi D, Grosu VT. Online platform for dance sport competitions and training seminars. The 17th International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education. Bucharest, April 22-23, 2021; 3: 380-386.
https://doi.org/10.12753/2066-026X-21-191

21. Gill DL, Reifsteck EJ, Madrigal L. From sport psychology to sport and exercise psychology: A 40-year update. Kinesiology Review, 2021;10(3):301-307.
https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2021-0020

22. Alexandrescu VM, Mihailescu L. Methodological arguments support in maintaining the development of an antidoping competence in the formal education of high school sports program students. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2021;21(6):3586-3592.
https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2021.06484

23. Potop V, Manolachi V. The Scientific Impact of Applied Biomechanics Research in Artistic Gymnastics. Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 2020;12(3):213-218.
https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/12.3/318

24. Gamalii V, Potop V, Lytvynenko Y, Shevchuk O. Practical use of biomechanical principles of movement organization in the analysis of human motor action. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2018;18(2):874-877.
https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2018.02129

25. Toma G, Toma S. Occupational therapy in the complex treatment of clients with cerebral palsy. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2019;19(6 suppl):2322-2327.
https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2019.s6351

26. Lee SM, Lee JH. Effect of balance taping using kinesiology tape for a hamstring muscle injury and traumatic knee pain in an amateur university football player: A case report. Medicine, 2018; 97(23):e10973.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000010973

27. Grigore MF. Influence of dance sport on the development of the capacity for ambidexterity and laterality of juniors I (12-13 years old). Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2017;17(5 suppl), 2250-2254.
https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2017.s5238

28. Fleancu JL, Nini F. Methods of evaluating the specialized training at the level of the women's national basketball team in Romania. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2018;18(5 suppl):1991-1993.
https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2018.s5295

29. Bernicu AR, Mihăilescu N, Mihăilă I. Strategies for the optimization of the specific training of junior and specialized handball players in the extreme position. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2021;21(3):1491-1497.
https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2021.03189

30. Rapotan A, Mihăilescu L, Mihai I. The paradigm of the manifestation level of proprioception in triple jumpers-case studies. Journal of Physical Education & Sport, 2022;22(8):1914-1921.
https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2022.08242

31. Manolachi V. Direction of knowledge formation in the field of power training of athletes specialized in sports wrestling. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2019;19(6 suppl), 2218-2222.
https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2019.s6333

32. Manolachi V. Specifics of the development of strength abilities in modern wrestling. Ukrainian Journal of Medicine, Biology and Sport, 2018;5(6):378-385.
https://doi.org/10.26693/jmbs05.06.378

33. Potop V, Manolachi V, Mihailescu L, Manolachi V, Kulbayev A. Knowledge of the fundamentals necessary for the scientific research activity in the field of Physical Education and Sports Science. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2022;22(8):1922-1926. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2022.08243
Published
2022-12-26
How to Cite
1.
Manolachi V, Potop V, Chernozub A, Khudyi O, Delipovici I, Eshtayev S, Mihailescu L. Theoretical and applied perspectives of the kinesiology discipline in the field of physical education and sports science. Physical Education of Students. 2022;26(6):316-24. https://doi.org/10.15561/20755279.2022.0606
Section
Articles