Video Feedback and Semistructured Interviews for Reflection Among Preservice Teachers

Many strategies have been employed to provide feedback to pre-service teachers about their own teaching. Semi-structured interviews following teaching sessions can serve as an opportunity for self-analysis of desired teaching behaviors.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore the use of video feedback and semi-structured interviews following teaching sessions for pre-service teachers. Participants taught two 15-minute lessons related to motor skills about 10 days apart; before teaching, they were reminded of the target behaviors on which they should focus: use of students' names and appropriate use of verbal feedback. In addition, participants were to maximize time spent on activity while limiting time spent on instruction, and minimizing management and waiting.

Methods

Participants were assigned to one of three feedback conditions: Immediate Video (IV), Immediate No Video (INV) and Delayed No Video (DNV). In the IV condition, participants viewed their teaching session as videotaped immediately after the lesson with a semi-structured interview directly afterwards. In the INV condition, participants did not view the video, but participated in the interview immediately after teaching. In the DNV condition, participants did not view video, and participated in the interview twenty-four hours after their session.

Analysis/Results

Use of student names was tabulated; verbal feedback statements were coded as general positive, specific positive, specific corrective, prescriptive, and descriptive; and total time of each lesson and time spent on activity were recorded. The purpose of the interviews was to obtain student perceptions of their strengths/weaknesses and perceived level of achievement on the target behaviors. The interviews were analyzed and coded to search for common themes that emerged from participant responses in relation to student perceptions of teaching and evidence of video treatment impact upon these perceptions. All participants increased the rate at which they provided positive feedback and used students' names from the first round of teaching to the second; time spent on activity increased for some participants. All of these changes were unrelated to treatment condition. Six themes emerged from the interview data analysis process (tentative application, increased confidence, challenge specific, self-analysis, positive perception and negative perception). Self-confidence and positive perceptions about their own teaching resulted for all participants, regardless of treatment condition.

Conclusions

Since the purpose of peer-teaching situations and follow-up analysis through interviews is to increase not only teaching performance, but teaching confidence as well, we are optimistic about the continued use of semi-structured interviews for self-analysis of teaching and improved teaching performance.