The purpose of the study was to assess the extent to which a data-based intervention influenced preservice teachers' reflective abilities during peer teaching.
Method
Participants included three intact cohorts of 51 preservice physical education teachers (PPETs) enrolled in a middle school physical education methods course at different times. Cohort 1 (n = 17) served as the control group and Cohort 2 (n = 18) and Cohort 3 (n = 16) served as the experimental groups. PPETs were required to plan and team-teach, in pairs or groups of threes, two lessons. All lessons were videotaped. Each pair or group of PPETs received two sets of instructor feedback. In addition, each PPET submitted two reflection papers. The two experimental groups watched and coded videotapes of their first lessons using the Instrument for Identifying Teaching Styles (IFITS) prior to writing their first reflection papers. Furthermore, Cohort 3 watched and coded videotapes of their second lessons prior to writing their second reflection papers.
Analysis/Results
PPETs' reflection papers were coded using an analytic scoring guide consistent with the guidelines for Outcomes 8.1 and 8.2 in the Standards for Initial Programs in Physical Education Teacher Education (NASPE, 2001). The scoring guide consisted of three indicators— Reflective Cycle, Future Teaching, and Use of Available Resources. The performance levels used for coding were Poor (1), Good (2) and Excellent (3). The scores for the three indicators were summed to provide an overall score for each reflection paper.
The coded data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics (alpha = .05). Results indicated that the overall mean scores for Cohort 2 and Cohort 3 increased from 5.50 to 6.00 and from 5.94 to 7.00 respectively. That of Cohort 1 (control group) increased from 4.76 to 5.06. Paired Samples t-Test analyses showed that the mean difference for Cohort 3 was statistically significant (p = .001), while those of Cohorts 1 and 2 were not. Also, the mean difference between pre- and post-intervention on all three indicators for Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 were not significant. However, the mean differences on Reflective Cycle (p = .001) and Future Teaching (p = .007) indicators for Cohort 3 were significant— that of Use of Available Resources (p = .432) was not.
Conclusions
Watching and coding their own teaching twice did improve (one did not improve) PPETs' scores on the reflective assignment. Providing continuous data-based interventions can improve PPETs' reflective abilities.