{"id":356,"date":"2009-10-05T09:30:40","date_gmt":"2009-10-05T09:30:40","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2013-11-25T19:40:05","modified_gmt":"2013-11-25T19:40:05","slug":"physical-education-teacher-candidates-and-professional-codes-of-ethics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/physical-education-teacher-candidates-and-professional-codes-of-ethics\/","title":{"rendered":"Physical Education Teacher Candidates and Professional Codes of Ethics"},"content":{"rendered":"
O\u011fuz \u00d6zbek, Ankara University, School of Physical Education and Sports, Ankara, Turkey<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

The purpose of this study was to determine the levels by which the students in Departments of Physical Education agree with the professional codes of ethics for physical education teachers. One hundred twenty-two students receiving education in Departments of Physical Education and Sports in three universities participated in the research. A questionnaire consisting of 32 items was used as the data collection tool. Physical education teacher candidates studying in different universities stated that they fully agreed with the professional codes of ethics for physical education teachers. However, they were observed to have different opinions regarding some ethics codes depending on gender, class, and school variables.
\n<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h3>\n

Ethics lies on the basis of all relationships established by humans. There are such values as love, respect, gratitude, and trust in a relationship between two persons. (Ku\u00e7uradi, 1996). Ethical behavior considers the rights and interests, as well as the existence of others (Haynes, 2002). The goal of an ethical relationship is being able to show that ethical action is a basic characteristic of human existence; that is being able to teach to love people (Pieper, 1999). Studies on ethics deal with the standards used in the rightfulness or wrongfulness of human behavior. They seek answers to such questions as to which behaviors are good, desirable, and acceptable (G\u00f6z\u00fctok, 1999).<\/p>\n

Professional ethics resulted from an increase in ethical problems in certain professions or from the awareness of these increasing problems. Ethics of medicine, law, sports, press, and education are some examples of professional ethics (Tepe, 2000). Professional ethics are a set of general rules that look at the work performed by the members of the profession from an ethical point of view and that are complied with by the majority of these members (Sockett, 1990; Kultgen, 1988). Ethical codes laid down by professional organizations and supported by sanctions will guide the person who applies them and help him\/her to decide in potential dilemmas (Fain, 1992). Even though professional codes of ethics are regulated separately for every profession, such codes as honesty, legality, reliability, professional loyalty, and respect apply to all professions (Wiley 2000).<\/p>\n

When education was taken up as a multidimensional system, ethical conduct came to be one of these dimensions (Barcena & G\u0131l, 1993). Ethics of education interests all of society. Behaviors related to students are central to the ethics of education. It is the duty of all educators to provide the student with humane living conditions within the environment of education. The relationship between the teacher and the student must be based on love and respect (Bilgen, 1994).<\/p>\n

Ethical relationships are expected to be experienced within the environment of education. For this reason, ethics codes that are determined for education must have compliance by educators. Universal values such as honesty, fairness, loyalty, and respect are taken as basis when determining ethics codes. The basic purpose of ethics codes is to make application most beneficial, to provide public benefit, to protect the profession, to discipline the members, and to guide the teachers in solving ethical dilemmas they may encounter during daily applications (Campbell, 2000).<\/p>\n

Physical education teachers are faced with making ethical decisions while they are fulfilling their duties in schools and sports facilities (Harrison and Blakemore, 1992). Physical education teachers must act in compliance with professional ethics while they are performing their duties in order to protect service ideals, regulate competition within the profession, and raise the quality of the service provided. The first known codes of ethics in literature for physical education teachers were proposed in 1950 by the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (AAHPER) professional ethic board, and published in the Journal of Physical Education and Recreation in 1950 (Resick, Seidel, & Mason, 1975). A major part of these professional codes of ethics regulate the relationship between the teacher and the student. Other ethics codes are concerned with the relationship of teachers and their colleagues, their responsibilities towards the society, participation in professional organizations, and professional development.<\/p>\n

It was observed that the definitions made related to ethical dilemmas were more successful, their theoretical and practical knowledge concerning ethical dilemmas increased, and their solutions and recommendations for ethical problems became more successful at the end of their education (Bergem, 1993). In a study conducted by Priest, Krause, and Becah (1999), ethical value choices of students were discovered to have changed positively at the end of a four years higher education.<\/p>\n

The pre-service education received by teachers will have an influence on the decisions to be made by them in ethical incidents they encounter during the course of their professional lives. In research conducted by Tirri (1999), teachers stated that they encountered ethical dilemmas in matters related to passing courses, education, lessons and success, moral dimensions of student behavior, cheating, negative student behavior, and general rules in school. Some very sensitive situations were expressed by some of the teachers who took part in the research. For instance, if a teacher has to touch his\/her student as required by his\/her profession, s\/he is faced with a dilemma. The teacher must decide on the limits of the help s\/he will provide to his\/her students. Such dilemmas are mostly encountered by special education and physical education teachers (Tirri, 1999).<\/p>\n

Physical education teachers in Turkey are educated in Schools of Physical Education and Sports in universities and Departments of Physical Education and Sports connected education faculties. Students take special skill examinations in order to be admitted to these departments. Physical education teacher candidates receive four years of higher education consisting of general knowledge, professional knowledge for teaching, and field education knowledge. The physical education teacher training program, which was prepared centrally by the Higher Education Council in 1997, is applied in all universities. All physical education teacher candidates graduate from programs consisting of the same courses and contents. With a recent amendment made to the program, optional courses have been proposed to be introduced for the students to acquire professional ethics (Y\u00d6K, 2007).<\/p>\n

The education received by physical education teachers has a major influence on their behavior inside the school and the classroom. Therefore, physical education teacher candidates should acquire the qualifications of being able to act in compliance with the professional ethics along with professional knowledge and skills during their pre-service education.<\/p>\n

The basic aim of this study was to determine the levels by which the students in departments of physical education agree with the professional codes of ethics for physical education. With this aim was an intent to determine whether or not the opinions of students in Departments of Physical Education regarding the levels of agreement with the professional codes of ethics displayed differences depending on gender, class, and school variables.<\/p>\n

Method<\/h3>\n

The survey method was used in this research. The scale developed by \u00d6zbek (2003) was used in order to measure the levels by which physical education teacher candidates agreed with of professional codes of ethics for physical education teachers. The validity and reliability of the measuring tool, was studied again. Factor analysis was carried out for the structural validity of the measuring tool and total correlation analysis of items was evaluated. Before conducting factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was observed in order to determine the suitability of the size of sampling to factor analysis and the KMO value was found to be .90. The minimum KMO value must be .60 in order for a factor analysis to be realized on the data (Pallant, 2005). The .90 KMO value, which was observed in this case, showed that the data were suitable for factor analysis. On the other hand, the Barlett test result for the factor analysis of 32 items was found to be 2837.291, (p < 0.001). The KMO and Barlett test results indicated that a factor analysis could be conducted on these data. As a result of the factor analysis, the scale was decided to be one-dimensional. The total declared variance was calculated as 46.4 %. A declared variance of 30 % or more is considered sufficient in single-factor scales (B\u00fcy\u00fck\u00f6zt\u00fcrk, 2002). The factor load values of the items included in the scale ranged between .37 and .83. A factor load value of .30 or more was taken as basis while deciding on including an item in the scale. None of the items was excluded from the scale in this case (see Table 1). The correlation coefficient of the items included in the scale, on the other hand, ranged between .37 and .81 (See Table 1). The total correlation coefficient of items is required to be at least .30 (Pallant, 2005). According to this, no items were excluded from the scale. All of the 32 items in the original scale were kept without any change. The internal consistency coefficient Alpha, which is calculated for the reliability of the scale, was found as .95. Therefore, the scale was considered valid and reliable.<\/p>\n

Table 1.
\nFactor Load of the Items in the Scale and Their Total Correlation Values<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Item<\/p>\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Factor Load<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Item<\/p>\n

Total r<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Item<\/p>\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Factor Load<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Item<\/p>\n

Total r<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.72<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.74<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.64<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.62<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.63<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.56<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.62<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.74<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.64<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.63<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.83<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.52<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.51<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.62<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.82<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.48<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

31<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.79<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.83<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The scale contained the 32 professional codes of ethics given chart 2 along with personal information. The options of the scale and their points were determined as, Fully disagree (1 point), Somewhat agree (2 points), Moderately agree (3 points), Mostly agree (4 points), and Fully agree (5 points). The formula (5-1 = 4; 4\/5 = 0.80) was used in determining the range coefficient of the scale. According to this the option ranges were determined as Fully disagree (1.00-1.79), Somewhat agree (1.80-2.59), Moderately agree (2.60-3.39), Mostly agree (3.40-4.19), and Fully agree (4.20-5.00). Whether or not there was a difference between the opinions of physical education teacher candidates based on class and gender was tested with the unrelated t test. Whether the opinions displayed differences based on the school variable, on the other hand, was tested with the unilateral variance analysis and the LSD test.<\/p>\n

A Physical Education Teacher must,<\/p>\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n
\n

\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0A Physical Education Teacher must,<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

C<\/span>1 \u2013 take the mental, emotional, and social developments of students into <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0consideration along with their physical skills while evaluating their success.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>2 \u2013 attach importance on education and health rather than being a champion or winning a <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0competition.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>3 \u2013 accept losing in competitions as natural as winning.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>4 \u2013 work in cooperation and solidarity with his\/her colleagues.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>5 \u2013 help those who are new in the profession gain professional knowledge and experience.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>6 \u2013 not display an action based on violence towards his\/her students.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>7 \u2013 approach the students who do not succeed in competitions with understanding.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>8 \u2013 take the necessary measures in conditions that might arise in students such as physical <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0discomfort, dehydration, or fatigue. <\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>9 \u2013 include activities by which all students take part in sports activities rather than providing a <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 group of students with the school\u2019s facilities. <\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>10 \u2013 ensure that all students benefit from the tools, equipment, and facilities of the school.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>11 \u2013 not use grades as an instrument of pressure. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>12 \u2013 prefer honesty over winning in sports. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>13 \u2013 prefer discipline over winning in sports. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>14 \u2013 act with tolerance towards his\/her students in their lessons. \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>15 \u2013 reward proper behavior of students. \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>16 \u2013 evaluate the success of students objectively. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>17 \u2013 take care to ensure that both s\/he and his\/her students conform to the lesson and training <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0hours.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>18 \u2013 attach more importance on the health and security of his\/her students than sportive <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0success. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>19 \u2013 not intervene with the transfers of athlete students by following his\/her own interest.<\/span><\/p>\n

C <\/span>20 \u2013 show special attention to disabled students in order to ensure their participation in the <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 lesson.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>21 \u2013 consider the course of physical education as an integral and complementary part of <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0general education.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>22 \u2013 value the opinions of students during the lesson.<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span>C23 \u2013 not talk in a way to humiliate his\/her athlete students.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>24 \u2013 not allow tests, measurements, or drug testing that would endanger the health of his\/her <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0athlete students.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>25 \u2013 keep confidential the private information concerning his\/her students. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>26 \u2013 keep confidential the religious, political, and ethnical matters discussed within the <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0classroom environment.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>27 \u2013 not conduct training exercises that would endanger the health of athlete students. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>28 \u2013 take the education and health of the athlete students into consideration during club <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0transfers.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>29 \u2013 avoid applications that would hold back other lessons of the students who will <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0participate in competitions.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>30 \u2013 not insult his\/her students. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>31 \u2013 not talk in a way to humiliate the athletes and coaches of the competitor school team.<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>32 \u2013 act aggressively and offensively in his\/her relationships with his\/her colleagues.<\/span><\/p>\n

Figure 1.<\/span> Professional Codes of Ethics for Physical Education Teachers<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Participants<\/h4>\n

The research covered the students, who were receiving education in the Departments of Physical Education and Sports in the Gazi University School of Physical Education and Sports, Hacettepe University, School of Sport Sciences and Technology, and Ankara University School of Physical Education and Sports during the 2005 \u2013 2006 academic year. There were 278 students in the freshman and senior classes of the three universities. The study aimed to reach the relevant segment of students fully. However, the data collection tool could only be applied to a study group consisting of 122 students. Twenty-five percent (n = 26), 53 percent (n = 64), and 26 percent (n = 32) of the students participating in the survey consisted of the students of Hacettepe University, Gazi University, and Ankara University, respectively. When the gender distribution was examined, 60 percent (n = 73) of the students were observed to be male and 40 percent (n = 49) female. 62 percent (n = 76) of the students participating in the survey were freshmen while 38 percent (n = 46) consisted of senior class students. Personal information regarding the study group of the survey has been provided in Chart 3.<\/p>\n

Table 2
\nPersonal Information Regarding the Study Group<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Personal Information<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sub categories<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

f<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 School <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Hacettepe <\/span>U. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Gazi <\/span>U.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

64<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ankara <\/span>U. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

122<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Class<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

62<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

S<\/span>enior<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

38<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

122<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Gender<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Male<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Female<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

49<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

122<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Results<\/h3>\n

Findings regarding the opinions of physical education teacher candidates about their agreement with the professional codes of ethics were interpreted based on gender, class, and school variables.<\/p>\n

The mean averages of the levels by which the physical education teacher candidates agreed with the professional codes of ethics based on gender, class, and school variables have been given in Table 3. As seen in Table 3, it was observed that the teacher candidates receiving education in three universities fully agreed with the professional codes of ethics [Hacettepe University ( = 4.66), Gazi University ( = 4.64), Ankara University ( = 4.66)]. The mean average of the levels by which the students in freshman and senior classes agreed with the professional codes of ethics [freshman ( = 4.63), senior ( = 4.69)] was realized as \u201cfull.\u201d The mean average of the levels by which the male and female students agreed with the professional codes of ethics, on the other hand [male ( = 4.62), female ( = 4.71)], was again realized as \u201cfull\u201d.<\/p>\n

Table 3
\nThe Mean averages of the Levels by which the Physical Education Teacher Candidates Agreed with the Professional Codes of Ethics based on Gender, Class, and School Variables<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

School<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Class<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gender<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Hacettepe U<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.63<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Male<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.62<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Gazi U<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

64<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.64<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Female<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

49<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ankara<\/span> U.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The averages of the opinions of physical education teacher candidates concerning the professional codes of ethics based on their genders have been provided in Table 4. As seen in Table 4, a noteworthy difference was observed in three items as a result of the unrelated t test conducted among the averages regarding the opinions of physical education teacher candidates based on their genders, while no significant differences were seen in other items.<\/p>\n

Male teacher candidates agreed at the level of ( = 4.61), and female teacher candidates at the level of ( = 4.87) with the principle stating \u201ca physical education teacher must value the opinions of students during the lesson\u201d (C22). There was a significant statistical difference between the averages of the opinions of male and female physical education teacher candidates [ t (120) = 2.15, p<.05]. More female teacher candidates agreed with the principle that a physical education teacher should value the opinions of students during the lesson compared to male teacher candidates.<\/p>\n

While male student candidates agreed with the principle stating \u201ca physical education teacher must not allow tests, measurements, or drug testing that would endanger the health of his\/her athlete students\u201d (C24) at a level of = 4.75, the level of agreement by female teacher candidates was = 4.93. There was a significant statistical difference between the averages of the opinions of male and female physical education teacher candidates [t (120) = 2.11, p < .05]. More female teacher candidates agreed with the principle that a physical education teacher should not allow tests, measurements, or drug testing that would endanger the health of his\/her athlete students, compared to male teacher candidates.<\/p>\n

While male teacher candidates agreed with the principle stating \u201ca physical education teacher must not insult his\/her students\u201d (C30) at a level of = 4.65, the level of agreement by female teacher candidates was = 4.85. There was a significant statistical difference between the averages of the opinions of male and female physical education teacher candidates [t (120) = 2.04, p < .05]. More female teacher candidates agreed with the principle that a physical education teacher should not insult his\/her students, compared to male teacher candidates.<\/p>\n

Table 4
\nDescriptive Statistics on the Opinions of Physical Education Teacher Candidates concerning the Professional Codes of Ethics based on their Genders<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Item<\/p>\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gender<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

s<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

t<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

p<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Item<\/p>\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gender<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n

s<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

t<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

P<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n

\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.79<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.525<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.231<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.817<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.650<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.342<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.733<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.486<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.391<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.24<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.909<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.255<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.799<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.47<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.818<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.48<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.141<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.889<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.67<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.625<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n

\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.49<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.04<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.198<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.767<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.738<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.462<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.24<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.03<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.630<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.664<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.847<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.399<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.761<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.368<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.714<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.421<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.63<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.782<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.547<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.631<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.529.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.642<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.915<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.362<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.527<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.79<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.676<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n

\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.588<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.266<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.61<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.810<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.033*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.83<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.624<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.87<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.525<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.61<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.637<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.521<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.603<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.676<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.117<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.55<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.737<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.83<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.472<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n

\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.598<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.471<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.639<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.640<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.037*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.531<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.93<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.316<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.513<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.518<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.605<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.730<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.92<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.056<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.<\/span>751<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.85<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.408<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.82<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.419<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.299<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.766<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.848<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.219<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.79<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.539<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.642<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.958<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.43<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.128<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.583<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.052<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.959<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.683<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.510<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.972<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.93<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.055<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.797<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.113<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.638<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.586<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.796<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.861<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.391<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.851<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.203<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.680<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.693<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.728<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.673<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.502.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.671<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.04<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.<\/span>044*<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.609<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.85<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.408<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.701<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.097<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

31<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.589<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.295<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.769<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.574<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.604<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.67<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.727<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.36<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.173<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

M<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.671<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.045<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.964<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.441<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.586<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

df = 120 NMale = 73 NFemale = 49 N = 122 P* < .05<\/p>\n

The averages regarding the opinions of physical education teacher candidates concerning the professional codes of ethics based on their classes have been given in Table 5. As seen in Table 5, a noteworthy difference was observed in three items as a result of the unrelated t test conducted among the averages regarding the opinions of physical education teacher candidates based on their classes, while no significant differences were seen in other items.<\/p>\n

While freshman students agreed with the principle stating \u201ca physical education teacher must take in consideration the mental, emotional, and social developments of students into consideration along with their physical skills while evaluating their success\u201d (C1) at a level of ( = 4.73), the level of agreement by senior students was ( = 4.91). There was a significant statistical difference between the averages of the opinions of physical education teacher candidates in freshman and senior classes [t (120) = 2.09, p < .05]. More teacher candidates in senior classes agreed with the principle that a physical education teacher should take in consideration the mental, emotional, and social developments of students into consideration along with their physical skills while evaluating their success, compared to those in freshman classes.<\/p>\n

While freshman students agreed with the principle stating \u201ca physical education teacher must evaluate the success of students objectively\u201d (C16) at a level of ( = 4.64), the level of agreement by senior students was ( = 4.86). There was a significant statistical difference between the averages of the opinions of physical education teacher candidates in freshman and senior classes [ t (120) = 2.27, p < .05]. More teacher candidates in senior classes agreed with the principle that a physical education teacher should evaluate the success of students objectively, compared to those in freshman classes.<\/p>\n

While freshman students agreed with the principle stating \u201ca physical education teacher must attach more importance on the health and security of his\/her students than sportive success\u201d (C18) at a level of ( = 4.46), the level of agreement by senior students was ( = 4.71) There was a significant statistical difference between the averages of the opinions of physical education teacher candidates in freshman and senior classes [ t (120) = 2.09, p < .05]. More teacher candidates in senior classes agreed with the principle that a physical education teacher should attach more importance on the health and security of his\/her students than sportive success, compared to those in freshman classes.<\/p>\n

Table 5
\nDescriptive Statistics on the Opinions of Physical Education Teacher Candidates concerning the Professional Codes of Ethics based on their Classes<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Item<\/p>\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Class<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

s<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

t<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

p<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Item<\/p>\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Class<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Mean<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n

s<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

t<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

p<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n

\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.574<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.09<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.038*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.632<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.191<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.849<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.91<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.354<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.417<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.946<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.092<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.927<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.855<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.09<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.039*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.821<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.501<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n

\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.519<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.605<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.660<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.796<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.428<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.911<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.63<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.798<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.649<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.264<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.793<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.911<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.119<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.443<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.417<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.585<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.408<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.684<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.748<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.694<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.489<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.453<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.467<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n

\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.665<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.328<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.743<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.745<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.212<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.832<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.419<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.681<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.63<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.689<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.867<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.388<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.689<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.36<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.174<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.52<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.657<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.84<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.419<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n

\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.67<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.640<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.924<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.357<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.623<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.125<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.431<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.91<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.354<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.657<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.099<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.921<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.708<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.614<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.541<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.552<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.467<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.531<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.240<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.870<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.572<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.568<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.86<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.340<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.585<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.56<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.884<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.138<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.891<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.640<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.224<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.853<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.84<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.363<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.51<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.901<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.862<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.390<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.61<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.815<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.730<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.467<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.749<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.544<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.40<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.751<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.966<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.336<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.61<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.815<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.167<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.751<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.747<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.738<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.031<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.975<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.535<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.297<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.767<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.585<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.501<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.713<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.88<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.063<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

31<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.617<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.845<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.400<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.536<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.552<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.64<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.743<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.27<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.025*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Freshman<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.717<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.240<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.811<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.86<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.340<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Senior<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.480<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

df = 120 N Freshman = 76 N Senior = 46 N = 122 P* < .05<\/p>\n

The averages regarding the opinions of the physical education teacher candidates based on their schools have been given in Chart 7. As seen in Chart 7, a noteworthy difference was observed in two items as a result of the unilateral variance analysis conducted among the averages regarding the opinions of physical education teacher candidates based on their schools, while no significant differences were seen in other items.<\/p>\n

A difference of .05, which was worth noting, was found among the averages as a result of the variance analysis conducted on the averages of the points concerning agreement levels with the principle stating \u201ca physical education teacher must not display an action based on violence towards his\/her students\u201d (C6) [F (2, 119) = 3.11, p < .05]. As a result of the LSD test, which was applied in order to find the group that created the difference, a significant difference was observed between the opinions of Hacettepe University and Gazi University students. While the students of Hacettepe University agreed with the principle stating \u201ca physical education teacher must not display an action based on violence towards his\/her students\u201d (C6) at a level of = 4.96, those of Gazi University stated that they agreed with this principle at a level of = 4.64.<\/p>\n

A difference of .05, which was worth noting, was found among the averages as a result of the variance analysis conducted on the averages of the points concerning agreement levels with the principle stating \u201ca physical education teacher must reward proper behavior of students\u201d (C15) [F (2, 119) = 5.51, p < .05]. As a result of the LSD test, which was applied in order to find the group that created the difference, a significant difference was observed between the opinions of Ankara University students and Hacettepe University and Gazi University students. While the students of Ankara University agreed with the principle stating \u201ca physical education teacher must reward proper behavior of students\u201d (C15) at a level of ( = 4.15), those of Hacettepe university and Gazi University stated that they agreed with this principle at levels of ( = 4.61) and ( = 4.57), respectively.<\/p>\n

Table 6
\nDescriptive Statistics on the Opinions of Physical Education Teacher Candidates concerning the Professional Codes of Ethics based on their Schools<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Item<\/p>\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

School Averages<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

P<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Item<\/p>\n

No<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

School Averages<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

P<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>1<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.76<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.82<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.78<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.162<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.850<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>17<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.84<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.514<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.600<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>2<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.26<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.14<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.37<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.756<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.472<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>18<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.61<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.322<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.725<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>3<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.26<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.40<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.46<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.270<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.764<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>19<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.70<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.006<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.994<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>4<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.73<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.71<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.71<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.004<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.996<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>20<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.67<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.548<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.579<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>5<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.76<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.78<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.78<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.005<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.995<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>21<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.70<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.238<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.789<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>6<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.96<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.64<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.84<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.048*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>22<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.92<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.148<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>7<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.53<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.59<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.62<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.117<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.889<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>23<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.87<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.798<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.453<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>8<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.69<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.68<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.75<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.134<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.875<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>24<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.82<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.84<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.031<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.969<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>9<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.65<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.70<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.68<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.058<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.944<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>25<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.70<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.323<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.725<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>10<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.80<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.79<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.84<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.106<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.900<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>26<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.46<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.56<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.647<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.525<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>11<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.65<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.50<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.59<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.329<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.721<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>27<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.82<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.612<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>12<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.62<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.50<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.65<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.401<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.670<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>28<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.62<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.061<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.941<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>13<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.50<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.39<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.56<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.603<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.549<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>29<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.61<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.56<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.43<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.405<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.668<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>14<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.57<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.53<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.53<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.045<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.956<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>30<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.70<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.379<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.692<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/a>15<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.61<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.57<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>4.15<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.51<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.005*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>31<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.274<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.761<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.470<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.626<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

<\/a>32<\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.84<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.71<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.285<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

.753<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

df (Between groups: 2, Within groups: 119, Total: 121) P* < .05
\nN1 = 26 N2 = 64 N3 = 32 N = 122
\n1 = Hacettepe University 2 = Gazi University 3 = Ankara University.<\/p>\n

Discussion and Conclusion<\/h3>\n

According to the results of the survey, it was determined that physical education teacher candidates in different universities fully agreed with the professional codes of ethics for physical education teachers based on school, gender, and class averages. However, it was observed that they thought differently in some codes of ethics according to these variables.<\/p>\n

More female teacher candidates agreed with the principles that a physical education teacher should value the opinions of students during the lesson and should not insult his\/her students, compared to male teacher candidates. Again, female teacher candidates agree with the principle that a physical education teacher should not allow tests, measurements, or drug testing that would endanger the health of his\/her athlete students, more than male teacher candidates. It may be said that the female teacher candidates approached their students with more tolerance and compassion. Training applications that would ensure that the male teacher candidates think as the female teacher candidates should be included during pre-service education.<\/p>\n

Teacher candidates in senior classes agreed with the principles that a physical education teacher should take the mental, emotional, and social developments of students into consideration along with their physical skills while evaluating their success, and that s\/he should evaluate the success of students objectively, more than those in freshman classes. In addition, more teacher candidates in senior classes agreed with the principle that a physical education teacher should attach more importance to the health and security of his\/her students than sportive success, compared to those in freshman classes. According to this result, it is possible to say that the physical education teacher training program has resulted in positive changes in the opinions of teacher candidates.<\/p>\n

The teacher candidates in Hacettepe University agreed with the principle that a physical education teacher should not display an action based on violence towards his\/her students, more than those in Gazi University. Applications of these findings would ensure that the teacher candidates in Gazi University become more sensitive with regard to application of violence towards students.<\/p>\n

The teacher candidates in Gazi and Hacettepe Universities agreed with the principle that a physical education teacher should reward proper behavior of students, more than those in Ankara University. Activities that would strengthen the knowledge of teacher candidates in Ankara University that rewards constitute an important and useful instrument in education.<\/p>\n

The fact that a difference exists among the opinions of physical education teacher candidates concerning some codes of ethics makes us think that training programs for physical education teachers are not effective enough in ensuring that students acquire behaviors related to professional codes of ethics. Physical education teacher candidates are expected to be more sensitive about the professional codes of ethics. Techniques such as case study analysis and role playing may be used in order to provide higher quality training on professional codes of ethics.<\/p>\n

It is known that theoretical and practical information concerning ethical dilemmas are increasing and solutions and recommendations for ethical problems are becoming more successful in the formal education received by teacher candidates (Bergem, 1993). Therefore, more efficient ethical training must be included in pre-service education (Fain & Gillespie, 1990; Priest, Krause & Becah, 1999). Some problems may be encountered in applying ethical principles. It is always possible for a teacher to find himself\/herself in an ethical dilemma and experience conflicts with the roles s\/he has undertaken. In this context, ethical behavior is a hard job. This difficulty will be alleviated if teachers acquire the characteristics that constitute ethical conduct, such as doing the right thing and being fair, honest, and helpful, during the pre-service education (Frank, 1996; Oser & Althof, 1993).<\/p>\n

References<\/h3>\n

Barcena, F.,<\/span> & G\u0131l, F. (1993). The Ethical dimension of teaching: A review and a proposal. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span>Journal of Moral Education.<\/span>3<\/span>(22), 241-253.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Bergem, T.(1993). Aspects of examining professional morality. <\/span>Journal Of Moral Education<\/span>, <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span>3<\/span>, 297-313.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Bilgen, N. (1994). <\/span>\u00c7a\u011fda\u015f ve Demokratik E\u011fitim<\/span>.[Contemporary and Democratic Education] \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Ankara: Milli E\u011f<\/span>itim Bas\u0131mevi.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

B\u00fcy\u00fck\u00f6zt\u00fcrk, \u015e.(2002). <\/span>Sosyal bilimler i\u00e7in veri analizi el kitab\u0131<\/span>. [Data analysis of manual <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0for social sciences] \u00a0Ankara: Pegema Yay\u0131nc\u0131l\u0131k.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Campbell, E.<\/span> (June, 2000). Professional Ethics in Teaching: Towards the Development of a Code of \u00a0Practice. <\/span>Cambridge Journal Of Education<\/span>, <\/span>2<\/span>(30), p.203-222. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Fain, G. S. (1992.) Ethics in health, physical education, recreation and dance. \u00a0<\/span>ERIC <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.<\/span><\/span> \u00a0<\/span><\/span>ED342775. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Fain, G. S., & Gillespie, K. A.<\/span> (1990). Professional ethics and intellectual property \u2013 a national study. <\/span>Journal of Physical Education Recreation, Dance<\/span>. \u00a0<\/span>61<\/span>(3), 88-95. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Frank, P. (1996). The <\/span>ethical principal and teacher no retention. <\/span>Journal of Personnel \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Evaluation in Education<\/span>. \u00a0<\/span>10<\/span>(1), 29-36. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

G\u00f6z\u00fctok, D. (1999). \u00d6\u011fretmenlerin etik davran\u0131\u015f<\/span>lar\u0131 [Teachers\u2019 ethical behaviors] <\/span>Ankara <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span>\u00dcniversitesi <\/span>\u00a0<\/span>E\u011fitim Bilimleri Fak\u00fcltesi Dergisi<\/span>. <\/span>\u00a0 1-2 (32)<\/span>, 83-99<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span>Harrison, M. J., & Blake more, L. C. (1992). <\/span>Instructional strategies for secondary school \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0physical education<\/span>. Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publisher.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Haynes, F. (2002). <\/span>The ethical school<\/span>. (Routledge\/1998 edition, translated to Turkish by: <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Semra Kunt Akba\u015f). Istanbul: Ayr\u0131nt\u0131 Publishing.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Ku<\/span>\u00e7uradi, I. (1996). <\/span>Etik.<\/span> [Ethics] Ankara. Turkish Philosophy Association Publishing.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Kultgen, J. (1988). <\/span>Ethics and professionalism<\/span>. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Oser F., & Althof W. (1993). Trust in advance: On the professional morality of teachers. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span>Journal of Moral Education<\/span>, <\/span>3<\/span>(22), 253-275. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u00d6<\/span>zbek, O. (2003). <\/span>Beden e\u011fitimi \u00f6\u011fretmenlerinin mesleki \u00a0etik ilkeleri ve bu ilkelere uyma <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0d\u00fczeyleri. \u00a0Doktora tezi.<\/span> [The levels of compliance of physical education teachers with \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0professional ethics codes. Doctorate thesis.] Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences.<\/span><\/p>\n

Pallant, J. (2005).<\/span> Spss Survival Manual (2<\/span>nd<\/span> ed.). A step by step guide data analysis <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 using spss for windows. New York: Open University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Priest, F. R., Krause, J. V., & Becah, J. (1999). Four-year changes in college athletes\u2019 ethical<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0value choices in sports situations. \u00a0<\/span>Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport<\/span>,<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span>2<\/span>(70), 170-178. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Pieper, A. (1999). <\/span>Einf\u00fchrung in die ethik<\/span>. (Francke Verlag\/1994, 3. edition, translated into \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Turkish by: Veysel, Atayman. G\u00f6n\u00fcl, Sezer.) Istanbul: Ayr\u0131nt\u0131 Publishing.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Resick, C. M., Seidel, L. B., & Mason, G. J. (1975). <\/span>Modern administrative practices in \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0physical education and athletics<\/span>. Philippines: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Sockett, H. (1990). Accountability, Trust, and Ethical Codes of \u00a0Practice. In Goodlad, I., J., \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Soder, S.& Sirotnik, A. K. (Eds.) <\/span>The Moral Dimensions \u00a0of Teaching<\/span>. (p.225-250).San <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Tepe, H. (2000)<\/span>. <\/span>Etik ve Meslek Etikleri.<\/span> [Ethics and Professional Ethics]. Ankara. Turkish \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Philosophy Association Publishing.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Tirri K. (<\/span>March, 1999). Teachers\u2019 perceptions of moral dilemmas at school. <\/span>Journal of Moral <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Education<\/span>, <\/span>28<\/span>(1),31-47. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Wiley, C. (2000). Ethical standards for human resource management professionals: A \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0comparative analysis of five major codes. \u00a0<\/span>Journal of Business Ethics<\/span>. \u00a0<\/span>25<\/span>(2), 93-114. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Y\u00d6<\/span>K, (2007). Higher Education Council. <\/span>E\u011fitim Fak\u00fcltelerinde Uygulanacak Yeni Programla<\/span>r<\/span> Hakk\u0131nda A\u00e7\u0131klama.<\/span> [Statement on New Programs to be taught in Faculties of Education] Web:http:\/\/www.yok.gov.tr\/egitim\/ogretmen\/programlar_aciklama.doc<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span>Author\u2019s note:<\/span><\/p>\n

Correspondence for this article can be sent by email to <\/span>oozbek@sports.ankara.edu.tr<\/span><\/span><\/a>, by telephone at: +90-312- 221-16-01 or by fax: +90-312-212-29-86; <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

O\u011fuz \u00d6zbek, Ankara University, School of Physical Education and Sports, Ankara, Turkey<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

The purpose of this study was to determine the levels by which the students in Departments of Physical Education agree with the professional codes of ethics for physical education teachers. One hundred twenty-two students receiving education in Departments of Physical Education and Sports in three universities participated in the research. A questionnaire consisting of 32 items was used as the data collection tool. Physical education teacher candidates studying in different universities stated that they fully agreed with the professional codes of ethics for physical education teachers. However, they were observed to have different opinions regarding some ethics codes depending on gender, class, and school variables.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[291,296],"tags":[131,127,25],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-5K","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":327,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-new-scale-measuring-coaches-unethical-behaviors\/","url_meta":{"origin":356,"position":0},"title":"A New Scale Measuring Coaches\u2019 Unethical Behaviors for Comparison by Gender, Age, and Education Level of Coach","date":"January 8, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Semiyha Dola\u015fir Tuncel - Ankara University Abstract An effort to develop a scale measuring coaches\u2019 unethical behaviors included two phases. In the first, factor and reliability analyses were made of potential survey items meant to gather data from athletes describing coaches\u2019 behavior. In the second, select items were\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5179,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/development-process-of-adapted-physical-activities-and-reviewing-attitudinal-levels-of-turkish-sports-education-administrators-towards-sports-activities-for-individuals-with-mental-disabilities\/","url_meta":{"origin":356,"position":1},"title":"Development Process of Adapted Physical Activities and Reviewing Attitudinal Levels of Turkish Sports Education Administrators towards Sports Activities for Individuals with Mental Disabilities","date":"July 6, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Huseyin KIRIMOGLU * (1), Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Turkey. Corresponding Author: Huseyin KIRIMOGLU, Assoc. Dr. Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Sports Sciences Kotekli\/Mugla, 48000 hkirim2005@gmail.com 002522111951 (1) Huseyin KIRIMOGLU is an Associate Professor in Sports Exercise Science at the Mugla Sitki Kocman University studying\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Commentary"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":388,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-place-and-role-of-olympism-in-higher-education\/","url_meta":{"origin":356,"position":2},"title":"The Place and Role of Olympism in Higher Education","date":"August 5, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Anton\u00edn Rychteck\u00fd, Charles University, Czech Olympic Academy, Prague, Czech Republic ### Introduction Interpreting the place and role of Olympism in higher education is a necessary and pertinent issue. The close relationship between the Olympic Movement and universities dates back as far as 1894. The fact that the IOC was established\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":223,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/are-physical-education-and-sports-teachers-in-turkey-trained-appropriately-a-study-of-basic-education-institutions\/","url_meta":{"origin":356,"position":3},"title":"Are Physical Education and Sports Teachers in Turkey Trained Appropriately? : A Study of Basic Education Institutions","date":"January 5, 2006","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Hakan Sunay, Ph.D. and Surhat Muniroglu, Ph.D. Abstract Teaching physical education and sports activities are among the indispensable occupations of our time. Sports, apart from being an occupation of entertainment and free time, have also a function that develop health and contributes joy and happiness to the participants\u2019\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":423,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/interdisciplinary-approach-of-the-teaching-of-olympic-principles-to-the-students\/","url_meta":{"origin":356,"position":4},"title":"Interdisciplinary Approach of the Teaching of Olympic Principles to the Students","date":"June 30, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Dr. A M. Najeeb, National Institute of Technology associate professor and head of Physical Education, Calicut, India ### Introduction Illustrious Celebrities on the dias, in the august gathering, ladies and gentlemen committed to the noble Olympic movement, Greetings from India. I am Dr. A.M. Najeeb, a physical education professor in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2322,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/teaching-coaching-the-challenges-and-conflicts-of-dual-roles\/","url_meta":{"origin":356,"position":5},"title":"Teaching & Coaching: The Challenges and Conflicts of Dual Roles","date":"March 10, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by Dr. Christopher Saffici* 1* Department of Education, Florida Memorial University, Miami Gardens, Florida 33054 Dr. Saffici is an Associate Professor at Florida Memorial University in the field of Education, with a specialization in Physical Education. He serves as President Elect of the Faculty Senate. He has served as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sport Education"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/356"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=356"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/356\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":754,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/356\/revisions\/754"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}