Effect of feedback on questioning of preservice teachers in SCIS microteaching

Abstract

Providing feedback to preservice teachers about their teaching style is an important component of most performance-based teacher education models. In these models it is assumed that if preservice teachers are provided a critique of their ability to perform a certain teaching behavior in a specific microteaching setting, then the teachers will be able to improve their ability to perform that behavior in subsequent teaching assignments. Interest has been shown by a number of researchers about whether the source of feedback criticism (i.e., feedback from self, peer, pupil, or supervisor) has an effect on the preservice teachers' ability to perform the teaching behavior of interest. Research results relative to this issue have been conflicting and no definitive conclusions about the effect of feedback source have been made. The present article explores whether the feedback source (i.e., self, peer, or supervisor) has any effect on the attitudes and on the ability of preservice teachers to employ three specific teacher behaviors.The source of feedback to the preservice teacher constituted the independent variable for the study. Subjects received feedback criticism about their lesson either from themselves, a peer, or a supervisor. A fourth group of subjects served as a control group and observed pupil behaviors which were not related to the teaching behaviors of interest.Five dependent variables were chosen as representative of important behaviors and attitudes of preservice teachers. The first variable was the proportion of high inquiry teacher questions to all teacher questions. This was considered important since Ladd and Andersen[ 13 and others[2, 31 had shown or claimed a relationship between frequency of high inquiry teacher questions and pupil performance. The second dependent variable was the proportion of teacher probing questions to all teacher questions. The value of asking probing questions, which cause students to clarify, extend, focus, justify, or apply their previous responses, has been claimed and included as a part of the inquiry teaching method by several authors (e.g., Renner et a1.[4]). The third dependent variable, wait time species two, is defined as the period of silence following a student's response and preceding a teacher's or another student's verbalization, and its value has been shown by Rowe [S] . The final dependent variables were the attitude of preservice teachers toward the way in which feedback was given to them and their attitude toward science teaching.Science Education 62(2): 209-214 (1978) (2):81-94 (1974).

The influence of wait‐time on classroom learning

“…As feedback was not provided to students, wait-time I was probably reduced by student talk. Esquivel et al (1978) reported that feedback on wait-time II did not lead to increased wait-time over a sequence of three science lessons. The results of a pilot study conducted by Swift!…”

The effect of a problem solving in‐service program on the classroom behaviors and attitudes of middle school science teachers

“…Although the body of research on in-service education and teacher change is quite large, there appears to be a scarcity of research that deals specifically with science teacher education programs (Evans, 1987). A number of studies present evidence that training that involves a questioning classification or strategy analysis system can be instrumental in changing the behavior of preservice teachers (Esquivel, Lashier, & Smith, 1978;Riley, 1978;Tobin, 1985;Yeany, 1977). In-sentice training in specific behaviors such as questioning (Bruce, 1971;Otto & Schuck, 1983) and wait time (Chewprecha, Gardner, & Sapianchai, 1980;Swift & Gooding, 1983) can also be effective in changing teacher behaviors.…”