Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED037391: The Effect of Mode of Feedback in Microteaching."

See other formats


DOCUMENT RESUME 



ED 037 391 


SP 003 606 


AUTHOR 
TITLE 
PUB DATE 
NOTE 


Shively, Joe E-. ; And Others 

The Effect of Mcde of Feedback in Microteaching. 

70 

13p. ; Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 
American Educational Research Association, 
Minneapolis, March 1970 


EDRS PRICE 
DESCRIPTORS 


EDRS Price MF-S0.25 HC-$0.75 

Educational Psychology, Education Majors, ^Feedback, 
♦Microteaching, ^Supervisory Methods, *Teacher 
Supervision ; 


AESTRACT 

A study examined the effects on teacher performance 
and attitudes of several manipulations of the conditions under which 
the microteaching' supervisor provides feedback: he bases his critigue 
on (1) a videotape of the microteaching lesson which he views with 
the microteaching teacher (VT group) ; (2) an audiotape instead (AT 



group) ; (3) his experience with the live lesson (LL group) ; or (4) 

the responses of the microteaching student to the Stanford Teacher 
Competence Appraisal Guide (STCAG) (SR group). All students in a basic 
educational psychology course (N=37) were randomly assigned to eight 
groups, two groups randomly assigned to each treatment. Data was 
obtained from STCAG scores and an attitude scale measuring attitudes 
toward various aspects of the microteaching experience. Analyses of 
covariance indicated significant differences in students' ratings of 
the performance of subjects within the four treatments on all 13 
variables. Major findings: The AT treatment appears to be the 
strongest, resulting in the greatest amount of change as measured by 
student ratings and also being highly valued by the microteaching 
teachers. The SR treatment effectively produced change in teacher 
performance but was not highly valued. The VT treatment appeared 
relatively weak in producing change yet was highly valued. The LL 
treatment appears least effective and tends to be lowly valued. (JS) 






r 





3 » 

* UJ 

« s 

s * 

£ ■ 
mt 
** 

& 



o 

KN 

l N - 

KN 



Nft 

O 

& 

o 

o 





The Effect of Mode of Feedback in Microteaching 
Joe E. Shively, Adrian P. Van Mondfrans, Cheryl L. Reed 

Purdue University 

Microteaching as a technique for teacher training is being adopted 
by more and more institutions. "Microteaching currently has the same 
promise and danger that newly devised research and training techniques 
have always had: the promise of opening entirely new avenues, perspectives, 

and alternatives to human exploration; the*danger of locking in too early 
on a first alternative which a£o se purely out of chance and convenience 
(Allen & Ryans, 1969, Preface)." 

Allen and Ryan ( 1969 ) describe microteaching as " a practice setting 
for instruction in which the normal complexities of the classroom are 
reduced and in which the teacher receives a great deal of feedback on 
performance (ppctl-2)." They state five essential propositions which are 
at the core of microteaching. First, microteaching is real teaching. 

Second, microteaching reduces the complexities of normal classroom teaching. 
For any one microteaching lesson class size, scope of content and time 
are all reduced. Third, microteaching focuses on training for the ac- 
complishment of specific tasks involving instructional skills, techniques 
of teaching, and mastery of curriculum materials. Fourth, microteaching 
allows for the increased control of practice. Fifth, microteaching 
involves a considerable amount of knowledge -of -results or feedback. 
Evaluation of the characteristics within this general model of microteaching 
is needed to determine their individual contributions . 

The sources of feedback which are present in the usual microteaching 
program include the microteaching supervisor, the students who are taught 
in the microteaching session, the teacher’s own reflections, and the 

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research 
Association, Minneapolis, March, 1970. 



I 



r 



2 



playback of video tape. The reflections of the micro teaching teacher 

are relatively difficult for an experimenter to control. Informal and 

spontaneous feedback from the students is also hard to control. The 

conditions under which the microteaching supervisor provides feedback 

to the teacher can be manipulated. Likewise the use of videotape is 

under the experimenter's control. Given that feedback is an essential 

aspect of microteaching, an assessment of the effects of manipulations 
* 

of feedback conditions is an important step in eventually increasing 
the effectiveness of microteaching. 

This study examines the effects on teacher performance and attitudes 
of several manipulations of the conditions under which the microteaching 
supervisor provides feedback. The conditions are: l) the supervisor 

bases his critique on a videotape of the microteaching lesson which he 
views with the microteaching teacher (the VT group) ; 2) the supervisor 
bases his critique on an-audiotape of the microteaching lesson to which 
he listens with the_ microteaching teacher (the AT group); 3 ) the supervisor 
bases his critique on his experience with the live lesson (the LL group); 
and 4) the supervisor bases his critique on the responses of the micro- 
teaching students to the Stanford Teacher Competence Appraisal Guide 
(STCAG; the SR group) . It should be noted that two of the other three 
sources of feedback which have been mentioned are still present for the 
teachers in all four groups, namely, student feedback and the teacher's 
own reflections. One experimental group only views videotape, the VT 
group. All of the experimental groups receive supervisor feedback, 
but the bases for this feedback changes across groups . 



3 



If the other sources of feedback are sufficient to provide the t.eacher 
with the needed feedback, then one could dispense with the videotape 
and/or supervisor altogether. This would effect a considerable savings 
in time. For this reason the SR group is included. Tuctaaan and 
Oliver (1968) present evidence to suggest that student feedback is used 
by teachers to effect positive changes (changes in the desired direction) 
while supervisor s ratings resulted in negative changes (changes opposite 
to the desired direction). When supervisor's ratings were used in con- 
junction with student ratings the overall effect was positive. In the 
Tuckman and Oliver study it was suggested that the reason for the 
negative changes caused by the supervisor's ratings was that teachers 
didn’t feel that the supervisor had enough information to rate them 
fairly, etc. Varying the basis for the microteaching supervisor’s 
critiques could result in different responses on the part of the teachers 
to these critiques . 

METHOD 

Subjects . All the students in a basic educational psychology course 
were randomly assigned to eight groups. Two groups were randomly 
assigned to each of the four treatments. Several students did not attend 
the first meeting of their group and were not included in the experiment. 

The number of subjects not included in the experiment differed greatly 
across groups. However, since the subjects had no way of knowing which 
treatment their group would receive until after the first microteaching 
session, attrition cannot be ascribed to treatments. The factors 
causing more students to drop out of some groups than others are not 
known to the authors. Thirty-seven students attended the first meetings 

I 

•\ 



k 



of their groups and were included in the experiment. There was no 
attrition within experimental groups once the treatment began. 

Procedures . Each of the experimental groups participated in a micro- 
teaching experience. Each subject in each experimental group taught a 
short lesson , had his performance critiqued by the supervisor, and then 
taught the lesson again. However, the basis for the supervisor's 
critiques varied . 

In the AT group (n = lj) the critique was based on an audiotape 
recording of the lesson. In this experimental group the supervisor 
listened to the audio tape recording of the lesson with the teacher and 
critiqued the teaching performance on the basis of the audiotape 
recording . 

In the LL group (n = 7) the supervisor was present during the 
actual presentation of the lesson and critiqued each teacher's performance 
on the basis of his direct observation of the teaching performance. 

In the SR group (n = 5) the critique was based on the students' 
ratings of the teacher's performance as measured on the STCAG. In this 
group the supervisor reviewed the students' ratings and critiqued the 
teaching performance o n t he basis .of these ratings. For example, if 
the students ' ratings showed that the teacher was weak in evaluation 
techniques , the supervisor asked the teacher to review the evaluation 
procedures used in the lesson and then the supervisor made general 
suggestions . 

In the VT group (n = 12) the critique was based on a videotape 
recording of the teaching performance. In this group the supervisor 
viewed the videotape recording with the teacher and based his critique 
of the teaching performance on this videotape recording. 



Instruments . The data for analysis were obtained from two sources. 



The STCAG measured students' perceptions of the teacher's aims, planning, 
performance, and evaluation of the teach and reteach phases of the 
microteaching experience. On this instrument each scale has seven 
stations ranging from weak to truly exceptional. The second instrument 
was an attitude scale measuring attitudes toward various aspects of 
the microteaching experience. A five-point scale ranging from extremely 
valuable to worthless was used. 

Analyses of the Data . Microteaching as a teacher training technique 
is based upon the procedure of teach-analyze-reteach. Through feedback 
in the analyze portion the teacher attempts to facilitate a positive 
change in her teaching behavior. To assess this change in behavior 
gain or difference scores or adjusting statistically for any initial 
differences in the teach scores can be used. Gain or difference scores, 
however, will not control for initial differences in the performance 
scores. Analysis of covariance is an indirect or statistical control 
which can be used as a means to periait valid treatment comparisons 
using observations on one variate (reteach performance scores) after 
removing the effect of a second variate (teach performance scores) . 

Thus, for the reasons listed above, analysis of covariance was used 
in this study. 

Analysis of covariance (Winer, 1962) was used to analyze the data 
obtained on each of the 13 items of the teaching performance scale 
(STCAG) . The scores from the first session (teach performance) were 

used as the covariate and the scores from the second session (reteach 

*>» *** 

per for -nance) were used as the criterion. If the analysis of covariance 




6 



showed that the groups differed,, comparisons of individual means were 
made . 

A one-way analysis of variance was used to analyze the data obtained 
on each of the 5& items on the attitude scale. If the obtained F-ratio 
was significant at the .05 level or beyond a Duncan's multiple range 

tests for ordered means was run. A .05 level of significance was used 

o 

for all statistical tests. The means and standard deviations of the scores 
used for the analysis are available from the first author upon request. 

RESULTS 

Performance . The analyses of covariance on the performance scale 
indicated significant differences in students' ratings of the performance 
of subjects (the microteaching teachers) within the four treatments on 
all thirteen items. These items are listed in Table I. 

In general the performance of subjects (the microteaching teachers) 
was most effected by the supervisor's critique as evidenced by students' 
ratings on the STCAG when the supervisor's critique was based on an 
audiotape of the microteaching lesson (the AT group) or students' ratings 
of the microteaching lesson (the SR group) . The performance of the 
microteaching teacher was least effected by the supervisor's critique when 
it was based on his actual observation of the lesson presentation 
(the LL group) . In general when the supervisor based his critique on 
a videotape of the microteaching lesson (the VT group) the performance 
of the microteaching teacher was effected more than in the LL group 
but less than in the AT and SR groups. 



Attitudes . The analyses of variance of the attitude data indicated that 



of the >6 items measuring attitudes toward the microteaching experience 
and other course characteristics, the ratings of the four groups differed 
significantly on 12. These i terns are listed in Table II. 

In general the attitudes of the AT and VT groups were significantly 
higher than the LL and SR groups toward the microteaching experience. 

When considering the potential value of the microteaching experience 
for them as future teachers, the AT group rated the microteaching 
experience significantly higher than the SR and VT groups. 

When considering the value of the 'microteaching experience with 
respect to the amount of course material learned, the ‘SR group rated 
microteaching lower than the AT, VT, and LL groups. 

When considering the value of the raicroteaching experience as a 
way of preparing them for course examinations, the VT group rated the 
microteaching experience higher than did the AT, SR, and LL groups. 

When considering the usefulness of the microteaching experience 
for assessing oneself as a teacher, the AT group rated the microteaching 
experience highest, the VT group next highest and the LL and SR groups 
lowest . 

When considering the percent of the total amount learned in the 
course attributable to the microteaching experience and the percent 
learned in the microteaching experience which will aid in future 
teaching, the AT group had higher ratings than the SR group. The 
.LL-and VT groups were not significantly different from either the AT 



or SR groups . 



8 



DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY 

The treatment resulting in the greatest amount of change as measured 
by studenc ratings on the STCAG is the AT treatment. A possible 
explanation for this outcome is that most of the skills focused upon 
in the microteaching experience were verbal skills and the teaching 
method most often used was the lecture method. Thus the AT treatment 
resulted in the bulk of the critical information being reviewed by the 
microteaching teacher and the supervisor. The AT treatment was also 
valued highly by the microteaching teachers except in the area of pre- 
paring the»s: for course examinations . Within the limits of this study 
the AT treatment appears to be the strongest treatment . 

The SR treatment was also effective in producing a change in 

* 

teaching performance. Tuckman and Oliver (1968) have demonstrated the 
power of student ratings in effecting teacher behavior. The SR treatment 
induced the microteaching teachers to focus most of their attention 
on the student ratings, tnus increasing the likelihood of their causing 
changes. The supervisor's stress on teacher reflections \also increased 

V 

the likelihood of this source of feedback being used by the .microteaching 

teachers. It was surprising to note that even though the ,SR treatment 

■cr _ 

greatly effected teacher behavior, it was not highly valued by the- ’ 
microteaching teachers. 

The VT treatment appeared to be relatively weak in prodiffcing ch'al^ps 
in teaching performance. Since, as pointed out above, most of the 
critical imormation needed to critique the performance of the micro- 

c' * * * 

teaching teacher was verbal information, the addition of the video f * 

% •* \ . 

medium constituted irrelevant information. In this particular caae .* ' 



9 



the irrelevant information was very attention-getting. People are 
interested in seeing themselves . Much of their reaction to the video- 
tape appeared to be centered around how they looked rather than to the 
critical aspects of their teaching behavior. Thus the attention paid 
to the aural information was probably less. Also the feedback from 
student ratings and the teacher's own reflections was probably over- 
shadowed. It is interesting to note that the VT group valued the micro- 
teaching experience more highly than the other three groups as a means 
of preparing for course examinations . With respect to the other categories 
of responses (Potential value for future teachers, amount learned, etc.) 
the VT group also tended to value the microteaching experience highly 
though the differences between the VT and AT groups were not usually 
significant . 

The LL treatment appears, within the limits of this study, to be 
the least effective in producing changes in teaching performance . 

Tuckman and Oliver (1963) showed that supervisor's ratings tend to 
effect teachers' behaviors to a very slight (even negative) extent. 

Since in this treatment the focus was upon the supervisor's reflections 
of the treatment session, the force of the students' ratings and the 
teacher's own reflections was probably weakened. Not only did the 
LL treatment result in the least amount of desired change in performance 
but also the LL treatment tended to be lowly valued by microteaching 
teachers . 

/ 

The possibility exists that a single supervisor may have ‘introduced 
some bias into the results of the experiment by praising one form of 
feedback over another or by presenting the microteaching teachers with 



10 



different kinds of information in the critique sessions. Houever the 
supervisor consciously tried to control such possibilities by adhering 
to the task of providing feedback only on the microteaching teacher's 
performance as evidenced oy the various feedback conditions. 

Io thus becomes apparent that the less expensive audio method of 
feedback may be substituted for the more expensive video ’method for 
inducing positive behavioral changes in teaching performance. It may 
even be possible to dispense with both audio and videotape and focus 
attention upon the ratings of the students . 








t 



11 



Table I 

Student Ratings of Microteaching Teachers 1 Performonce 



Variable 


ANCOVA F- Ratio 




Ordered Means (p <.05) 


Clarity of purposes 


F(5,JO)-22.e5, 


p <.0001 


AT, SR >LL,VT * 


Difficulty and appropriateness 
of the aims 


F(5,J0)-14.79. 


p <.0001 


AT,3R >LL, VT 


Organization of parts and 
whole of; lesson 


P(J,30)-24.6l, 


p <.0001 


SR, AT > VT >LL 


Appropriateness of content for 
aims, class level, and 
teaching method 


F(3,JO)-24.29, 


p <.0001 


SR, AT >VT >LL 


Evidence of relation between 
materials and content 


F(S.3°)- 8.00, 


p <.001 


AT,SR, VT >LL 


Tendenoy of pupils to come to 
attention and direct themselves 
to the task 


F(?,29)-i4.67, 


p <.0001 


AT > 3R» VT f LL 


Presentation of content under- 
standable using different points 
of view 


F(J,29)-27.29, 


p <.0001 


AT,3R^VT>LL 


Movement from topic to topic 
governed by class tempo 


F(3,2e) -12.64, 


p <,0001 


AT,SR, VT >LL ■ 


Attentive class and partici- 
pates when appropriate 


F(5,29)- 6 . 31 , 


p <.01 


AT > VT,LL 


Attempt to connect chance and 
planned events to immediate and 
long range aims 


F( 5,28)-1 1 .21 , 


p <.0001 


AT >VT >LL and 
SR > LL 


Teacher-pupil relationships 
harmonious 


H5.30)- 3.14, 


p • -05 


N.S.D. between 
individual means 


Use of a variety of procedures 
to evaluate progress 


f(5,29)-15-29. 


p <.0001 


AT>3R>VT and 
AT > LL 


Teacher and pupils review eval- 
uations for improvement purposes 


F(S.29)-15>07, 


p <.0001 


AT >VT,LL,SR 



but are rated significantly higher than groups LL and VT on the variable described. 
Groups LL and VT are also not different from each other. Similar notation will be 
used for all variables. 



me 



12 



Table II 

Attitudes Tovard the Microteaching 



Experience and othe 


r Course Characteristics 




Variable 


ANOVA F- Ratio 




Ordered Means (p <.C5) 


Potential value for future teacher 








Participation in teech-reteach- 
cycle 


« 3. 19) =3-94, 


p <-°5 


AT > 3 R,VT 


Amount Learned 








Participation in teech-reteach 
cycle 


F( 5,19) -4.49, 


p < 


AT, VT >SR 


Receiving feedback from supervisor 


F( 3, 28) -8. J4, 


p < .01 


VT, AT,LL > 5 R 


Acting as audience and observing 


F(3,28)-3.25, 


p < .05 


AT , VT > SR 


Preparation for course examination 








Receiving feedback from supervisor 
Receiving specific assignment for 


F(3,28)-4.74, 


*T1 

A 

• 

O 


VT > LL , AT , 3 R 


reteach session 


F(5,.2e)-3-46, 


p < -05 


VT > AT, SR 


Experience of re-presenting lesson 


F(?,2£)-3.49, 


p< *05 


VT > AT, LL, SR 


Usefulness in assessing as a teacher 








Participation in teach-reteach 
cycle 


F(3,l9)-3-33. 


p< .05 


AT >VT 


Receiving feedback from supervisor 
Receiving specific assignment for 


F(3,28)-9.09, 


P < .01 


AT,VT >LL, 3 R 


reteach session 


F( 3, 28) -3.22, 


p< .05 


AT, VT >LL 


Other course characteristics 








Percent of total learned in course 
attributable to KT experience 
Percent of amount learned in MT 


F( 3.29) -5- 16. 


p < .01 


AT > 3 R 


experience which will aid in 
future teaching 


F(3,29)-3.66, 


p < *05 


AT >oR 






13 



REFERENCES 

Allen, D., & Ryane, K. Microteaching . Reading, Mass: Addis on -Wes ley , 

1969. 

Tuc taaan , B. W., & Oliver, W. F. "Effectiveness of feedback to teachers 
as a function of source." Journal of Educational Psychology , 
59 ( 4 ), 1968 , 297 - 301 . 

Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design . New York: 
McGr aw-Hi 11 , 1962 .