Learning to teach: Changes in teaching skills and decision making processes related to the content development of preservice teachers across two methods courses and field experiences.

摘要

This study described the changes in planning and instructional skills including decision-making processes of preservice teachers across two methods courses and field experiences. The study used the following quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques and sources: (1) evaluation of lesson plans using standardized scoring criteria, (2) systematic observation of teaching lessons using videotape, and (3) stimulated recall interviews with participants using audio and videotape. Repeated Measures ANOVAs were used to analyze changes across time in the lesson plan and teaching evaluations. The dependent variables were the total and individual item scores for the lesson plan, teaching evaluations, and Qualitative Measures of Teaching Performance Scale (QMTPS). Time was the independent variable. Descriptive statistics were also calculated. Data were analyzed five times across the two methods courses and field experiences. An alpha level of .05 was used for all inferential statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using constant comparison and analytic induction. Group analyses by attrition, degree, placement, and content area being taught were conducted to describe any variation in scores. The results of the analyses revealed a steady increase in overall lesson plan, QMTPS, and teaching evaluation scores across time. Different patterns of development were discovered for specific planning and teaching skills. Participants' task presentations were characterized as effective by the end of the experience (Gusthart, Kelly, & Graham, 1997). Qualitative shifts in decision-making and thought processes from less to more sophisticated patterns were also observed and were characteristic of experienced teachers by the end of the experience. Group differences were also discovered by attrition, degree, placement, and content area taught. These differences were mostly in favor of participants who (a) continued in the program versus those who did not, (b) were seeking a Master's of Arts in Teaching versus a Bachelor of Science degree, (c) were placed at a site with an extra university supervisor, and (d) taught educational gymnastics at later times in the semester. Participants' scores seemed to be influenced by what they were held accountable for on their evaluations, changes in context during the field experiences, and gaining experience (among other things).