Teacher preparation plays a paramount role in promoting pre-service teachers to learn and demonstrate characteristics of quality teaching. This study focused on designing and validating the Quality Teaching Assessment Rubrics (QTAR).
Method
The NASPE beginning teacher standards (2003, 2009) and teaching effectiveness and pedagogical content knowledge literature guided the development of the QTAR. After repeatedly revising and testing the instrument, we finalized the four essential dimensions: task design, instructions, management, and responses with an open-comment section on the QTAR. Task design included: appropriateness, maximum participation, and progression. Instructions included: clarity of instruction, linking to game situations, demonstration, learning cues, and checking for understanding. Management contained gaining attention, equipment distribution, grouping students, and transition. Responses included monitoring, adjusting/re-emphasizing the task, reflection, general feedback, and specific feedback. The performance indicator of each component was defined on a 3-point rating scale. Thirteen Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) students who enrolled in a selected team sports methods course voluntarily participated in this study. We videotaped as the pre-service teachers worked in pairs to teach a 30- to 50-minute intact lesson in soccer, basketball, and volleyball units, respectively. Then, two investigators independently coded 21 videotaped lessons with the QTAR following the coding protocols.
Analysis/Results
To determine the reliability and validity of the QTAR, the data was analyzed by means of inter-observer agreement, Cronbach alpha correlation coefficients, and the MANOVA methods. The average of inter-observer agreement reliability of coding soccer, basketball, and volleyball lessons was .95, .99, and .97, respectively. The internal consistency of the total scale on the QTAR during teaching soccer, basketball, and volleyball lessons was .78, .72, and .73. Analysis of the MANOVA results revealed significant differences on instructions, management, responses, and overall teaching (F=2.25, p=.05; F=6.0, p<.01; F=5.92, p<.01, and F=4.58, p<.01, respectively), except for task design (F=.66, p>.05) among the lessons in the soccer unit. For basketball lessons, the MANOVA indicated significant differences on all four essential teaching dimensions and overall teaching practice (F=1.89, p=.05; F=7.59, p<.01; F=31.12, p<.01; F=4.28, p<.01; and F=11.49, p<.01, respectively) among the lessons. Regarding volleyball teaching, the MANOVA yielded significant differences on instruction, responses, and overall teaching (F=2.37, p<.05; F=5.81, p<.01; and F=4.41, p<.01, respectively), but not on task design and management (F=1.65, p>.10; F=1.83, p>.05, respectively) between the lessons.
Conclusions
The QTAR was psychometrically supported measure that can be used to assess pre-service teachers' teaching practices across teaching various content areas.
See more of: Research Consortium