467 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Asian Journal of Education and Training Vol. 5, No. 3, 467-472, 2019 ISSN(E) 2519-5387 DOI: 10.20448/journal.522.2019.53.467.472 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Examining Teaching Styles of Academicians Employed in Faculties of Sports Sciences Sevinç NAMLI1 Anil TÜRKELİ2 ( Corresponding Author) 1Erzurum Technical University, Faculty of Sports, Department of Physical Training and Sports, Turkey. 2Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Department of Physical Education and Sports, Turkey. Abstract The aim of this study is to determine teaching styles of faculty members employed in several universities in Turkey. To that end, 105 faculty members employed in Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Atatürk University, Erzurum Technical University, Bartın University, Sakarya University, Adıyaman University, Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey University and Gazi University participated in the study. In this study, Grasha’s Teaching Styles Inventory was used as the data collection tool. In the analysis of data, t-test, One-Way ANOVA and correlation analysis were utilized as well as mean and standard deviation values. Results of the study revealed that teaching styles of the faculty members did not differ by gender. In the analyses conducted with respect to academic title, a statistically significant difference was found between those with title of lecturer and associate professor and those with title of professor in terms of expert style and personal style sub-dimensions. Considering teaching styles, expert, authoritarian and personal styles were found to be high; facilitator and delegator styles were found to be moderate among faculty members. Keywords: Academician, Teaching style, Sports sciences, Grasha, Physical education, Sport. Citation | Sevinç NAMLI; Anil TÜRKELİ (2019). Examining Teaching Styles of Academicians Employed in Faculties of Sports Sciences. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 5(3): 467-472. History: Received: 21 June 2019 Revised: 29 July 2019 Accepted: 4 September 2019 Published: 8 October 2019 Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Publisher: Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Acknowledgement: Both authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Funding: This study received no specific financial support. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing. Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 468 2. Method ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 469 3. Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 470 4. Result and Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................... 471 References ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 472 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.522.2019.53.467.472&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ https://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/1047 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0958-6792 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3961-7759 https://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/1047 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0958-6792 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3961-7759 https://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/1047 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0958-6792 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3961-7759 https://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/1047 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0958-6792 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3961-7759 Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(3): 467-472 468 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Contribution of this paper to the literature This study contributes to the existing literature by determining teaching styles of academicians in universities and to the development of teaching methods and techniques. 1. Introduction People can make out of any event, situation, subject or object. The experiences of people and the things they have seen, heard or interacted with are the primary driving force to make out different meanings towards an object, situation or event. In addition, personal traits, age, race, intelligence, and gender have an impact on this case. The protagonists of the learning process are those who teach and learn. These two fundamental characters have inevitably individual differences. Recognizing that individual characteristics and learning styles differ in the learning process means that different teaching styles should be recognized in the teaching process. Considering such differences of learners, a teacher shapes the learning process by including his/her own individual characteristics. Physical characteristics of a learning environment inevitably have a place in the learning process, but physical conditions have never been sufficient alone. However, in parallel with technological improvements, the settings of teaching process have improved considerably. However, the order of importance of physical conditions among other factors is still lacking in the upper ranks. Academic optimism, including the concepts of academic emphasis, common self-efficacy and trust and referring to teachers' beliefs that their students can achieve success, facilitates the development of scientific knowledge and helps students and their families overcome challenging situations that they can confront through collaboration (Hoy et al., 2006). The characteristics that a good teacher should have are its way of presenting the subject, guiding students, emotional and social bond established during the learning process, and individual characteristics (Özabacı and Acat, 2005). Grasha (2002) states that teachers' continuous and consistent behaviors in their interaction with students in the learning process constitute the basics of teaching style (Grasha, 1996). Teaching style emerges as presenting the course, advising the students, guiding the process, and taking individual characteristics into account. There are many complementary definitions of teaching style literature. In these definitions, Dunn and Dunn (1979) drew attention to method, teaching environment, and materials used; Fischer and Fischer (1979) and Conti (1985) emphasized consistent and continuous behavior; Cross (1981) focused on collection, organization, transfer of information and making it meaningful; Heimlich and Norland (2002) emphasized the importance of beliefs and values. Teaching style, which is associated with learning styles that differ according to individual characteristics, leads teachers to adopt different schools. Teachers should try to be effective with additional methods, recognizing that a single style may not be suitable for all learners (Dunn and Dunn, 1979). Heimlich and Norland considered their evaluation of their own teaching styles as a starting point. Accordingly, any teaching style cannot be bad, but the teacher may have misused the methods of the style or in-class practices remain weak (Heimlich and Norland, 2002). Teaching style is a reflection tool of teacher's personality traits and value judgments about teaching. It also includes feelings, motivations, values and beliefs of the teacher about the subject matter. Thus, teachers' academic knowledge and skills, as well as their perceptions, form their behaviors within a specific teaching style (Üredi and Üredi, 2007). Although there are many different classifications regarding teaching styles, the model based on teacher behaviors has revealed that there are five categories of teaching styles: expert, authoritarian, personal, facilitator and delegator (Grasha, 1994). Expert model: Teachers in this model have the required level of knowledge and professional field expertise. They usually apply the traditional style of teaching practices, namely the teacher-centered teaching process. Providing detailed information to their students, they encourage students to develop themselves. In some cases, excessive information may discourage students who have no knowledge of the subject. Authoritarian model: Teachers in this model are rule-oriented. They explain the rules that must be obeyed by students and guide them by expressing the expected behaviors. Personal model: In this model, teachers' task is to be a role model for students. They provide guidance for students to determine their behaviors and to follow the behavioral patterns they exhibit. They think that the teaching process is merely personal. Therefore, they emphasize that it is important to observe and follow a model. Facilitator model: Teachers in this model are sensitive to individual needs of their students. They construct teaching styles in accordance with characteristics of their students. They work with students and guide, support and facilitate their learning. They have a flexible style according to the aims of students. Delegator model: Teachers within this model aim to enable students to act freely and to work on their own will and thus, to increase their capacity. In this model, it is important that students take responsibility and have an entrepreneurial spirit (Bilgin and Bahar, 2008). 1.1. Aim of the Study Every stage of a good education, which is an indicator of a developed society, must be carefully prepared and implemented. Among these stages, university education constitutes a separate place among the other levels as it prepares students for their potential professions. Education mediates preparation of students to a profession and thus, to life. The role of university instructors in the training of individuals who will be a driving force to the economy is considerable. It is among the duties of academicians to educate students with the necessary knowledge and to prepare them fully for the profession and therefore, for life. Considering all these issues, teaching style and approach adopted by academicians as well as learning styles have an effect on students' learning. In this study, it was aimed to examine teaching styles of academicians employed in faculties of sports sciences by different variables. While variables were being identified, it was observed academicians in faculties of sports sciences in Turkey are generally alumni of four departments and attend classes in such departments. Titles of Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(3): 467-472 469 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group academicians who are entitled to lecture are Teaching Assistant, Research Assistant PhD, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. The variables were determined according to such criteria by reviewing the relevant literature. The number of Research Assistants, PhD reached was too low to include them in the study. Therefore, research questions of the study are following: Do teaching styles of academicians differ by gender? 1. Do teaching styles of academicians differ according to their major? 2. Do teaching styles of academicians differ by seniority? 3. Do teaching styles of academicians differ by their titles? 2. Method 2.1. Design of the Study This study adopted the survey method within descriptive research models. It is a method that examines the existing situation and describes the situations of the events, assets, groups and institutions and presents them with all their features. By means of this method, it is tried to describe and present the current conditions and situations through a sample taken from the universe or the whole universe to reach a general result in large groups (Cohen et al., 1997; Karasar, 2009). 2.2. Limitations of the Study The limitations of the study are summarized in four items: 1. The data collected about the study is limited to teaching style and teaching approaches scales. 2. The data were collected from eight universities in convenience sampling method. 3. Only survey technique was used as the data collection tool in the study. 4. The results of the study are limited to the size and characteristics of the sample. 2.3. Study Group The study group is composed of academicians employed in faculties of sports sciences of Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Atatürk University, Erzurum Teknik University, Bartın University, Sakarya University, Adıyaman University, Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey University and Gazi University. The study was limited to academicians who are entitled to work and to lecture in faculties of sports sciences. Because of the small number of Research Assistants, PhD, they were not included in the analyses. Table-1. Demographic characteristics of participants. Demographic characteristic N (%) Gender Female 36 34,3 Male 69 65,7 Graduation Physical edu. teaching 50 38,2 Coaching training 21 2,7 Sports management 11 38,2 Recreation 23 20,9 Academic Title Lecturer 36 34,3 Assistant professor 35 33,3 Associate professor 23 21,9 Professor 11 10,5 Seniority 1-5 years 23 21,9 6-10 years 43 41,0 11-15 years 13 12,3 16-20 years 11 10,5 21 years and over 15 14,3 Total 105 100 Table 1 indicates that a total of 105 academicians, 36 (%34.3) females and 69 (%65.7) males, participated in the study. The participants are alumni of the departments of Physical Education Teaching (n=50, %38.2), Coaching Training (n=21, %2.7), Sports Management (n=11, %38.2), and Recreation (n=23, %20.9). 2.4. Data Collection Tools In the study, Grasha’s Teaching Style Inventory (TSI) which was adapted into Turkish by Sarıtaş and Süral (2010) was used as the data collection tool. The scale consists of five sub-dimensions and consists of 40 items. The sub-dimensions of the scale were “Expert”, “Authoritarian”, “Personal”, “Facilitator” and “Delegator” teaching styles. In the adaptation study for the Turkish version of the TSI, the author found the reliability coefficient of the scale as .875. The internal consistency coefficient of the scale was found to be .78. Scoring was determined as “low”, "moderate" and "high" for each sub-dimension of the scale. Rating information is given in Table 2. Table-2. Scoring of sub-dimensions of the TSI. Teaching styles Degrees of teaching styles Low Moderate High Expert [1.0-2.8] [2.9-3.8] [3.9-5.0] Authoritarian [1.0-1.8] [1.9-3.0] [3.1-5.0] Personal [1.0 -2.8] [2.9-3.4] [3.5-5.0] Facilitator [1.0-2.9] [3.0-4.0] [4.1-5.0] Delegator [1.0-1.8] [1.9-2.8] [2.9-5.0] Source: http://www.iats.com/publications/GLSI.html Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(3): 467-472 470 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 2.5. Data Analysis Normality was examined once before the analysis of the data. Accordingly, it was determined that the data distributed normally. Therefore, it was decided to use parametric tests. In addition to descriptive statistics, independent group t-test, One-Way ANOVA and Pearson Correlation techniques were used for data analysis. Significance value was taken as 0.05. 3. Findings This section contains the results of the relevant analyses. The results of the analysis for Grasha’s TSI by the gender variable are shown in Table 3. Table-3. Analysis results for the TSI by the gender variable. Teaching styles Gender N x SS SD t p Expert Female 36 31.9722 5.29952 103 1.13 .261 Male 69 30.9275 4.01951 Authoritarian Female 34 31.1176 5.67165 103 0.178 .588 Male 69 30.9275 4.78760 Personal Female 36 32.6667 4.83440 103 0.675 .501 Male 69 32.0145 4.62885 Facilitator Female 36 34.0833 5.38981 103 0.94 .94 Male 69 32.3913 4.58969 Delegator Female 36 29.9167 4.36463 103 1.155 .251 Male 69 28.9710 3.77286 *p < 0.05. In Table 3, no statistically significant difference was found in each sub-dimension of the TSI by the gender variable. It is observed that female participants have higher mean scores than male participants in all teaching style dimensions. The findings related to the TSI by the major variable are given below. Table-4. Analysis results for the TSI by the major variable. Teaching styles Major N x SS SD F p Difference Expert Teaching 50 31.9400 2.68336 101 2.693 .05 Teaching and recreation Coaching 21 32.0952 4.45987 Management 11 31.5455 5.27946 Recreation 23 29.0000 6.47372 Authoritarian Teaching 50 31.9800 3.32271 101 1.156 .33 Coaching 21 30.4762 4.96608 Management 11 31.3636 5.31550 Recreation 23 29.7391 7.71785 Personal Teaching 50 32.4600 2.77165 101 .34 .796 Coaching 21 32.3333 4.96320 Management 11 32.8182 5.75879 Recreation 23 31.3913 6.94615 Facilitator Teaching 50 33.7400 2.85579 101 .829 .481 Coaching 21 32.1429 6.38189 Management 11 32.8182 6.06330 Recreation 23 32.1304 6.30515 Delegator Teaching 50 29.7400 2.84863 101 1.357 .26 Coaching 21 29.5714 5.05541 Management 11 29.8182 5.32575 Recreation 23 27.8261 4.26030 *p<0.05. In Table 4, a statistically significant difference was found between the alumni of teaching and recreation departments in the expert style sub-dimension in favor of the alumni of teaching departments (F(3.101): 2.693; p<0.05). There was no significant difference in Authoritarian (F(3.101): 1.156; p>0.05), Personal (F(3.101): .34; p>0.05), Facilitator (F(3.101): .829; p>0.05) and Delegator (F(3.101): 1.357; p>0.05) styles sub-dimensions by the major variable. The findings related to the TSI by the seniority variable are given below. Table-5. Analysis results for the TSI by the seniority variable. Variable Analyzes Expert Authoritarian Personal Facilitator Delegator Seniority Correlation -.208* -.094 -.165 -.045 -.068 p .033* .347 .092 .652 -.490 N 105 105 105 105 105 *p<0.05. In Table 5, a statistically significant negative correlation was found between the expert style sub-dimension of the TSI and the seniority variable. No significant relationship was found between the other sub-dimensions of the scale. The findings related to the TSI by the academic title variable are given below. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(3): 467-472 471 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Table-6. Analysis results for the TSI by the academic title variable. Teaching styles Academic title N x SS SD F p Difference Expert Lecturer 36 32.8889 2.954 101 4.073 .009 Lecturer and Assoc. Prof., Professor Assist. Prof. 35 31.5429 3.837 Assoc. Prof. 23 29.4783 5.451 Professor 11 29.0000 6.48 Authoritarian Lecturer 36 32.1389 3.015 101 2.087 .107 Assist. Prof. 35 31.4857 3.98 Assoc. Prof. 23 30.4783 6.947 Professor 11 28.0000 8.00 Personal Lecturer 36 34.1111 3.087 101 5.983 .001 Lecturer and Assoc. Prof., Professor Assist. Prof. 35 32.6000 3.574 Assoc. Prof. 23 30.4783 5.203 Professor 11 28.6364 7.593 Facilitator Lecturer 36 34.2778 3.203 101 2.168 .096 Assist. Prof. 35 33.1143 4.027 Assoc. Prof. 23 31.8261 5.466 Professor 11 30.6364 8.924 Delegator Lecturer 36 30.3333 3.224 101 1.442 .235 Assist. Prof. 35 29.0286 3.501 Assoc. Prof. 23 28.6957 4.16 Professor 11 28.0000 6.526 *p<0.05. In Table 6, there was a statistically significant difference between those with titles of "lecturer", "associate professor" and those with title of "professor" in the expert style sub-dimension in favor of lecturers (F(3.101): 4.073; p<0.05). Moreover, a statistically significant difference was found between those with titles of "lecturer", "associate professor" and those with title of "professor" in the personal style sub-dimension in favor of lecturers (F(3.101): 5.983; p<0.05). There was no significant difference in Authoritarian (F(3.101): 2.087; p>0.05), Facilitator (F(3.101): 2.168; p>0.05) and Delegator (F(3.101): 1.442; p>0.05) styles sub-dimensions by the academic title variable (F(3.101): 2.087; p>0.05). 4. Result and Recommendations Today, parallel to the research on learning styles of students, studies being conducted on teaching styles of teachers are becoming more and more important. It is, therefore, critical to determine teaching styles of academicians as teachers. The study, which aimed to determine which teaching style of the academicians employed in the faculties of sports sciences according to Grasha’s TSI, was participated by a total of 105 academicians, 36 females and 69 males, voluntarily. In the study, no statistically significant difference was found in each sub-dimension of the scale by the gender variable. Female participants have higher mean scores than male participants in all teaching styles. In his study conducted in 2002 to determine teaching styles of faculty members, Grasha found that female and male faculty members differed on the basis of teaching styles. He found that females had lower scores in expert, authoritarian and personal styles sub-dimensions but, higher scores in facilitator and delegator sub-dimensions than male participants. In their study to determine teaching styles of female and male teachers, Saracaloğlu (2011). Reported that the choice of teaching style did not differ by the gender variable except facilitator teaching style. The faculties of sports sciences, which we included in the study group, consist of four departments. These include physical education and sports teaching, coaching, sports management and recreation. Only students of physical education and sports teaching department can attend formation courses. For this reason, it was examined whether there was a difference between the academicians who are alumni of these departments in terms of teaching styles. Results revealed a statistically significant difference between the alumni of teaching and recreation departments in the expert style sub-dimension by the major variable in favor of the alumni of teaching departments. Such difference is thought to be due to the effect of formation courses taken by the alumni of teaching departments. For another sub-problem of the study, results revealed a statistically significant negative correlation between the expert style sub-dimension and the seniority variable. It can be said that having less term of office puts the expert style sub-dimension forward. No significant relationship was found between other sub-dimensions of the scale related to seniority. Maden (2012), Kılıç and Dilbaz (2013) did not find any difference between seniority and teaching style dimensions in their studies. Arpaci (2013), Saracaloglu et al. (2017) stated that there was only a difference between seniority and expert teaching style. There was a statistically significant difference between those with titles of "lecturer", "associate professor" and those with title of "professor" in the expert and personal styles sub-dimensions in favor of lecturers. We believe that weekly attendance period of the lecturers is the primary reason for such a result. Overall, in terms of teaching styles or the academicians in the study, it was observed that the expert, authoritarian and personal teaching styles were found to be high and facilitator and delegator styles were found to be moderate. 4.1. Recommendations This study was limited to 105 academicians from eight universities. It is recommended by researchers to study larger study groups for more generalizable results and to conduct studies that measure students' learning styles, too. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2019, 5(3): 467-472 472 © 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group There are different scales in the literature on teaching styles. It is also among the recommendations of the researchers to contribute to the literature by administering a few of these scales to the same study group. References Arpaci, M., 2013. Teaching styles of religious culture and moral teachers example of Diyarbakir. Atatürk University Journal of Theology, 40: 251-270. Bilgin, İ. and M. Bahar, 2008. Investigation of the relationship between teaching and learning styles of classroom teachers. Gazi University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 28(1): 19-38. Cohen, L., L. Manion and K. Morrison, 1997. Methodology of educational research. Athens: Ekfrasi. Conti, G.J., 1985. The relationship between teaching style and adult student learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 35(4): 220-228.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848185035004004. Cross, K.P., 1981. Adults as learners. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Dunn, R.S. and K.J. Dunn, 1979. Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they... Can they... Be matched? Educational Leadership, 36(4): 238- 244. Fischer, B.B. and L. Fischer, 1979. Styles in teaching and learning. Educational Leadership, 36(4): 245-254. Grasha, A.F., 1994. A matter of style: The teacher as expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator. College Teaching, 42(4): 142-149.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1994.9926845. Grasha, A.F., 1996. Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. San Bernardino, CA: Alliance Publishers. Grasha, A.F., 2002. Teaching with style. San Bernadino: Alliance Publishers. Heimlich, J.E. and E. Norland, 2002. Teaching style: Where are we now? New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 93: 17- 26.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.46. Hoy, W.K., C.J. Tarter and A.W. Hoy, 2006. Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Aducational Research Journal, 43(3): 425-446.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043003425. Karasar, N., 2009. Research method. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık. Kılıç, F. and A.G. Dilbaz, 2013. Examination of the teaching styles of science high school teachers in terms of various variables. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 6(6): 715-738.Available at: https://doi.org/10.9761/jasss1628. Maden, S., 2012. Teaching styles of Turkish teachers. International Turkish Literature Culture Education Magazine, 1(1): 178-200.Available at: https://doi.org/10.7884/teke.20. Özabacı, N. and M.B. Acat, 2005. Comparison of pre-service teachers' perceptions of their own characteristics and ideal teacher characteristics. Educational Administration in Theory and Practice, 42(42): 211-236. Saracaloglu, A.S., Ç.A. Karademir, B. Dincer and N.C. Dedebali, 2017. Determination of teachers' teaching styles, self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Education Sciences, 12(1): 58-85. Saracaloğlu, S., 2011. Investigation of teaching styles of class, science and technology and Turkish teachers abstract. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 6(3): 2314-2327. Sarıtaş, E. and S. Süral, 2010. Grasha-reichmann learning and teaching style of the scale study Turkish adaptation. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 5(4): 2162-2177. Üredi, L. and I. Üredi, 2007. Primary school teachers' perceptions of teaching profession as predictors of their preferred teaching styles. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 3(2): 133-144. Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article.