Fostering and encouraging reflective teaching among preservice teachers may lead to the development of teachers as autonomous models of intellectual independence. Reflectivity and changes in reflectivity can be assessed through written assignments, supervisory practice, and an emphasis on reflective teaching in the preservice program. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to examine and assess reflectivity levels among preservice physical education teachers using Van Manen’s three levels of reflection model. Level 1 is technical rationality (TR), level 2 is practical action (PA), and level 3 is critical reflection (CR). Four physical education students enrolled in a 14-week student teaching course served as voluntary participants. Student reflectivity was assessed using structured interviews after observed lessons and weekly written assignments. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and subjected to content analysis techniques. We selected five weekly assignments from our preservice program’s website for analysis using Van Manen’s model. Interrater reliability established an agreement level of .87 that was maintained during analysis. To attain trustworthiness, we followed Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) four criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Results provided documentation of Van Manen’s three reflectivity levels among participants. The written assignments displayed higher levels of reflectivity than the interview data. We observed more indicators of level 2 and 3 with the written assignments versus level 1 and 2 with the interviews. Issues such as time constraints and the ability to verbalize may be factors for some of the differences. We also noted increased levels of sophistication among the participants as the semester progressed and may be witnessing a developmental effect in teacher reflectivity similar to Fuller’s Concerns Theory. That is, as the students become more comfortable with their new role as teacher, they could focus less on technical rationality (Level 1) and reflect more on how their teaching impacted student learning (Level 3). The results support Pultorak’s (1993) assertion that students can increase reflective thinking when fostered and encouraged in preservice programs. Finally, future research on the topic should extend the population of preservice teachers and adopt a longitudinal approach that follows the preservice teacher into the inservice teaching ranks. This approach can document not only initial reflectivity levels, but ascertain if they can be maintained over time. Keyword(s): assessment, measurement/evaluation, professional preparation