top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
open access

Published: 03 June 2022

Investigating the Relationship Between Physical Education Teachers' Perceptions, Technological Knowledge and Classroom Management Profiles

Bekir Çar, Volkan Sural, Hasan Güler

Bandırma Onyedi Eylul University (Turkey), Ministry of National Education (Turkey),

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf



Pages: 407-424

Keywords: Class Management Profile, Technological Pedagogical Field Information, Technosterss


Overcoming the technology barrier is critical to integrating technology and education. Emerging and changing technologies are rapidly impacting individuals' daily lives as well as their educational lives. The concept of technostress seems to be associated with technological pedagogical field knowledge and classroom management profiles. This study also aims to determine if there is a relationship between PE and physical education teachers' technostress levels, technological pedagogical knowledge, and classroom management profiles. 275 PE and physical education teachers working in Ankara province participated in the study. Data collection was done using the scale to determine teachers' technostres level, technological-pedagogical knowledge and class management profile. The levels of technostres and technological-pedagogical knowledge did not differ significantly by gender, educational status, sport type, place of graduation, age, professional seniority, and time of technology use of physical education teachers. When examining classroom management profiles, there were differences by gender, educational status, athletic department, and age group, but no significant differences between place of graduation, professional seniority, and time of technology use. When examining the class management profiles by gender variable, it was found that female teachers are on the peripatetic and ignorant profile compared to males, by educational level of graduates and in the scatter profile, those who are in the athletic department in the individual sports do not match those in the team sports department in the profile, and in the age group of 24-34 years old were highly rated by the class management profiles in the 35-44 years old category. As a result, it was found that there is an excellent level of significant relationship between the perception of technostars and class management profiles of physical education teachers, in a negative way, while there is a non-significant relationship between Tpba and technostars, with class management and Tpba being positive.


  1. Afacan, Ş. ve Cemil, M. (2017). Technological pedagogical content knowledge of music teacher candidates. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 1079-100. Retrieved from

  2. Akgün, F. (2019). Examination of the relationship between the acceptance of faculty members for information and communication technologies and perceptions of technostres. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi - Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 9(2), 40-66.

  3. Arnetz, B. B., & Berg, M. (1996). Melatonin and adrenocorticotropic hormone levels in video display unit workers during work and leisure. Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, 38, 1108–1110.

  4. Atanasoff, L. & Venable, M.A. (2017). Technostress: Implication for adults in the workforce. The Career Development Quarterly, 65(4), 326-338.

  5. Bakar, N.S.A., Maat, S.M., ve Rosli R. (2020) Mathematıcs teacher’s self-effıcacy of technol  ogy ıntehratıon and techbological pedagocical content knowledge. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(2), 259-276.

  6. Beyaztaş, D. İ. (2009). Determination of classroom management understandings of primary school teachers in terms of various variables. Yüksek Lisans Tezi Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Erzurum. Yök thesis was accessed on 11.02.2022..

  7. Bila, M. (2006). Comparison of classroom management approaches of private primary school teachers and public primary school teachers. (Unpublished Master's Thesis), Yeditepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.

  8. Bilici, S. ve Güler, Ç. (2016). Examination of TPAB levels of secondary teachers according to their use of teaching technologies. Elemantary Education Online , 15(3), 898-921. doi:

  9. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2014). Scientific research methods (17. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.

  10. Califf, C. B., Sarker, S., Sarker, S., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). The bright and dark sides of technostress: An empirical study of healthcare workers. In Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth, 1-12. DOI:10.25300/MISQ/2020/14818

  11. Can, A. (2020). Quantitative Data Analysis in Scientific Research Process with SPSS. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

  12. Celep, C. (2008). Theory and practice in classroom management. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

  13. Çar, B. ve Aydos, L. (2020). Examination of the competencies of physical education and sports teachers related to technological pedagogical content knowledge.Gazi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 25(4), 441-454. Retrieved from

  14. Çar, B. & Aydos, L. (2022). Examination of the technological pedagogical content knowledge competencies of physical education and sports teachers in terms of classroom management behaviors.Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi , 24 (1) , 1-9. Retrieved from

  15. Çelik, O.B. (2014). Examination of classroom management behaviors of physical education teachers with different leadership styles. Master's Thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. Yök thesis was accessed on 11.02.2022.

  16. Çiçek, B., & Kılınç, E. (2020). The role of transformational leadership in the influence of technostress with the intention of presenteism and quitting. Business and Economics Research Journal, 11(2), 555-570. doi: 10.20409/berj.2020.267

  17. Çiftçi, A. S. ( 2015). The relationship between primary school teachers' views on classroom management styles and democratic values. Master’s Thesis, Çanakkale 18 Mart Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Çanakkale. Yök thesis was accessed on 13.03.2022.

  18. Çoklar, A. N., Efilti, E., Şahin, Y. L. & Akçay, A. (2016). Investigation of techno-stress levels of teachers who were included in technology integration processes. Online Submission, Turkish Online Journal Of Educational Technology Spec Iss., 1331-1339. adresinden 10.04.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

  19. Çoklar, A. N., Efilti, E. & Sahin, L. (2017). Defining teachers' technostress levels: A scale development. Online Submission, Journal of Education and Practice 8(21), 28-41. adresinden 12.04.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

  20. Demirezen, S. ve Keleş, H. (2020). Examination of the technical field knowledge proficiency of social studies teachers according to various variables. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilgilerde Yeni Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, 4(1), 131-150.

  21. Dereli, İ. (2017). Examination of the technical field knowledge qualifications and beliefs of social studies teacher candidates for technology. (Unpublished Master's Thesis), Kastamonu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kastamonu. Yök thesis was accessed on 13.04.2022.

  22. Ekici, G. (2004). Evaluation of classroom management profiles of elementary grade first teachers. Eğitim ve Bilim, 29(131), 50-60. adresinden 03.04.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

  23. Ekici, M. (2012). Impact of social networks and collaborative learning methods on access level in teaching principles and methods. Master’s Thesis, Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Sakarya. Yök thesis was accessed on 01.04.2022.

  24. Ekici, G., & Kurt, H. (2014). Analysis of teacher candidates' perceptions of discipline self-sufficiency according to classroom management profiles. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 13(4), 1137-1164.

  25. Ennis, Lisa A. (2005). “The evolution of technostress”. Computers in Libraries, 25(8): 10- 12. 02.04.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

  26. Erbaş, M.K. ve Ünlü, H. (2017, Nisan). Examination of techno-pedagogical education qualifications of physical education teacher candidates. 26. Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, Ulusal Eğitim Dernekleri Platformu ve Pegem Akademi/Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Antalya.

  27. Erdem, M. & Akkoyunlu, B. (2002). Examination of techno-pedagogical education qualifications of physical education teacher candidates. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 23 (23). Retrieved from

  28. Gökbulut, B. (2021). Examination of techno-pedagogical education qualifications of physical education teacher candidates. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1), 472-496. DOI: 10.29299/ kefad.929603

  29. Gökbulut, B. & Dindaş, S. (2022). Examination of teachers' levels of occupational burnout and technostres, International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences (IJOESS), 13(47), 42- 59.

  30. Hiçyılmaz, Y. (2018). Technological pedagogical content knowledge self-sufficiency of visual arts teacher candidates. Doctorate Thesis, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Samsun. Yök tezden 02.04.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

  31. Horzum, M.B., Akgün, Ö.E. ve Öztürk, E. (2014). The psychometric properties of the techonological pedagocical content knowledge scale. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(3), 544-557.

  32. Jang, S.J. ve Tsai, M.F. (2013). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanase Secondary School Science Teachers Using A New Contexyualized TPACK Model. Australasian Journal Of Educational Technology, 29(4), 566-580.

  33. Jena, R.K. (2015). Technostress in ICT enabled collaborative learning environment: An empirical among Indian academician. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1116-1123.

  34. Kaya, M. ve Yazıcı, H. (2019). Opinions of social studies teachers on technical education qualifications. Erzurum Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9, 105-136. erişildi.

  35. Karaman, S.Z. (2016). Relationship between teachers' classroom management competencies and professional professionalism (Bitlis Province- Ahlat District Example).Master’s Thesis, Yeditepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul. Yök tezden 01.04.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

  36. Keller, A., Litzelman, K., Wisk, L. E., Maddox, T., Cheng, E. R., Creswell, P. D., & Witt, W. P. (2012). “Does the perception that stress affects health matter? the association with health and mortality”. Health Psychology, 31(5): 677-684. doi: 10.1037/a0026743.

  37. Koehler, M.J. ve Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? .Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (1), 60-70. adresinden 05.0.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

  38. Komis, V., Ergazaki, M., & Zogza, V. (2007). Comparing computer-supported dynamic modeling and ‘paper & pencil’concept mapping technique in students’ collaborative activity. Computers & Education, 49(4), 991-1017. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.12.07

  39. Kopuz, K., & Aydın, G. (2020). Technostres in healthcare workers: an example of a private hospital. Ekonomi İşletme Ve Maliye Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 249-264.

  40. Koşar, E., Yüksel, S., Özkılıç, R., Avcı, U., Alyaz, Y., & Çiğdem, H. (2003). Teaching technologies and material development. Ankara: Pegem.

  41. Kris, B. (1996). Teacher Talks “ What İs Your Classroommanagement Profile ?”. Http://Education.İndiana.Edu /Cas/Tt/V1i2/What. Adresinden 05.04.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

  42. La Torre, G., Esposito, A., Sciarra, I., & Chiappetta, M. (2019). Definition, symptoms and risk of techno-stress: a systematic review. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 92(1), 13-35. doi: 10.1007/s00420-018-1352-1.

  43. Longman, S. M. D. (2013). A comparison of the perceptions of technostress experienced by teachers versus technology used by teachers in elementary education in a southeastern school district. Doctoral Dissertation, Southeastern Louisiana University.

  44. Marchiori, D. M., Mainardes, E. W., & Rodrigues, R. G. (2018). Do individual characteristics influence the types of technostress reported by workers? International Journal of Human– Computer Interaction, 35(3), 218-230.

  45. Merey, Z. ve Taşkın, Z. (2018). A study of the classroom management profiles of social studies teachers. Vankulu Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1, 103-112. adresinden 01.04.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

  46. Mishra, P. ve Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework For Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017.

  47. Niess, M.L., Suharwoto, G., Lee, K. ve Sadri, P. (2006). Guiding Inservice Mathematics Teachers in Developing TPCK. Paper Presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Conference, San Fransisco, CA.

  48. Özçakır, S. (2007). Physical education teachers' understanding of classroom management: Example of Duzce province. Master’s Thesis, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bolu. Yök tezden 30.03.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

  49. Paliç, G. & Keleş, E. (2011). Teacher Opinions on Classroom Management. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi , 2 (2) , 199-220 . Retrieved from

  50. Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417-433.

  51. Sabo, K. ve Archambault, L. (2012). Tessellations in TPACK: Comparing technological pedagogical content knowledge levels among K-12 online and traditional teachers. In Society For Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 1, 4751-4756.

  52. Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., Thompson A.D., Koehler, M.J., Misra, P. ve Shin, T. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149. adresinden 15.04.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

  53. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13-35.

  54. Shepherd, S.S.G. (2004). Relationship between computer skills and technostress: How does this affect me?.Proceeding of the 2004 ASCUE Conference (225-231). Myrtle Beach, South Caroline.

  55. Tams, S., Thatcher, J. B., & Grover, V. (2018). Concentration, competence, confidence, and capture: An experimental study of age, interruption-based technostress, and task performance. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(9), 857-908. DOI: 10.17705/1JAIS.00511

  56. Tarafdar M, Ragu-Nathan TS, Ragu-Nathan B, Tu Q. (2007). “The impact of technostress on productivity”. Journal of Management Information Systems Summer; 24 (1): 301-328. Doi: 10.7439/ijbr.v8i6.4176

  57. Turgut, T. (2017). Technological pedagogical content knowledge qualifications of social studies teachers: Example of Karabuk Province. Master’s Thesis. Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Karabük. Yök thesis was accessed on 04.04.2022.

  58. Türen, U., Erdem, H., & Kalkın, G. (2015). Techno-Stress Scale at Work: A Study in the Aerospace and Banking Sector. Çalışma İlişkileri Dergisi, 6(1), 1-19. Retrieved from adresinden 05.04.2022 tarihinde erişimiştir.

  59. Uçar, M.B., Demir, C. ve Hiğde, E. (2014). Exploring the Self-Confidence of Preservice Science and Physics Teachers towards Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3381-3384.

  60. Weil M, ve Rosen L. (1997). Technostress: Coping with technology @ work @ home @ play. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

  61. Yao, N. & Wang, Q. (2022). Technostress from smartphone use and ıts impact on university students’ sleep quality and academic performance. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(1), 92-100.

  62. Yarar, G. (2019). Examination of the technological pedagogical field knowledge proficiency of English instructors in terms of class management profiles. Doctoral Thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. Yök thesis was accessed on 25.03.2022.

bottom of page