“‘:.
in. .5!
x.xe

o In
5.1.5...»
5 1r: ..
a v. . ..
wanumr o .3 V.
s’huhxvliu L03

.$an>Lr

V xi):

1
...:...n;....
as:“

.5.

a .. ﬂamed!
h . {ﬁbmwniuu L.
. ‘ ‘ .memmm? uh. ,,

. r .hwaﬁ: .
i
392...? .

.: . .
i r .
n .% mark L55. .,
, .. .51}
Ja‘ﬁﬁxyﬂotll t. It I.

.3 ,... 3.1%». .

a

u M».
J33. tr:
>b$rm§
9:33. . 3.3.. L.
Autumn.» . ﬁnibwﬁﬁ

GALE-fr
ail
. 2.; an
.......:..M.hf.:..x:i
{Sletrxr

.. inﬁrm”
we...” haunksﬂ

:- .5. 1130.4

ct... 11.0,.- .

.s‘ \3‘ 1' u
35...}. t.

1.3.2.!

I 3 I. I:
7-.‘0?
.33-..

 

.. . , I;
11:5? a.

,. w. . 3v!

(“#4

 

. 3::

. . nayiilr

1 4|; .c
4.. i. . ; .
2“;

 

‘

uv’!‘

:xlr. r ‘
6:96.13... ..

1:131. 3 ‘1.

It?!) ..1a\

 

,......... .5...

. . Elaiﬂvu

nut. .3 I s. v
93.7..” a“ ,

I THESIS!

3 . LIBRARY
2cm Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE EFFECT OF STUDENT TEACHING ON TEACHER
EFFICACY AMONG PRESERVICE PHYSICAL EDUCATORS

presented by

Ivy Teresa Collins Tagger

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Kinesiology

 

 

M969”;

Major Professor’s dlgnature

0?“ ‘14- ﬂé

 

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

.-—-.—.—.-.—._-—--._.-.-._.--.-—-—o-.—o--o------n—.. --u----.—.-.-._._.-.

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

U

3”” 06010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

 

THE EFFECT OF STUDENT TEACHING ON TEACHER EFFICACY AMONG
PRESERVICE PHYSICAL EDUCATORS
By

Ivy Teresa Collins Tagger

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Kinesiology

2006

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECT OF STUDENT TEACHING ON TEACHER EFFICACY AMONG
PRESERVICE PHYSICAL EDUCATORS

By

Ivy Teresa Collins Tagger

The main purpose of this study was to examine preservice physical
educators’ (n = 31) teaching efﬁcacy levels in the areas of instructional
strategies, Classroom management, and student engagement skills during the 16
weeks of the student teaching experience. Exploration into how preservice
physical educators constructed their sense of teaching efﬁcacy and whether the
identiﬁed sources of efficacy coincided with Bandura’s (1997) self efﬁcacy
sources was investigated. This study further explored differences in how
cooperating teachers (n= 25) appraised teaching efficacy in comparison to their
preservice educators that they mentored during the student teaching process.
Data collection occurred in a three—phase series consisting of pre-testing, mid-
testing, and post-testing phases. The following assessments were employed:
(a) Ohio State Teacher Efﬁcacy Scale (OSTES); (b) Teacher Efﬁcacy Scale
(TES); (c) Student Teaching Experience Questionnaire (STEQ); and (d)
Demographic survey. Quantitative results indicated a Signiﬁcant difference in
pretest and post-test total teaching efﬁcacy scores. There were no Signiﬁcant
differences found between the subscales of instructional strategies, classroom
management, and student engagement techniques at the conclusion of the

student teaching internship. MANOVA analysis revealed that female preservice

teachers possessed signiﬁcantly higher levels of conﬁdence in the utilization of
instmctional strategies than male preservice teachers. Signiﬁcant increases in
Personal Teaching Efﬁcacy (PTE) were also evident throughout the student
teaching internship and a decrease trend in General Teaching Efﬁcacy (GTE)
occurred; however it did not reach a level of signiﬁcance. Comparisons of PTE
and GTE found that PTE was Signiﬁcantly higher throughout the student teaching
experience. And cooperating teachers rated their preservice educators
consistently lower in teaching efﬁcacy levels than the preservice physical
educators rated themselves. Qualitative results through the use of structured
interviews showed that preservice physical educators identiﬁed multiple sources
that contributed to their sense of teaching efﬁcacy. Bandura’s sources (1997) of
mastery experience, vicarious experience, and social persuasion emerged as
major themes, along with additional sources such as educational knowledge and
personal/social identiﬁcation. Demographic information is presented along with a

discussion towards future directions for research and application.

 

Copyright by
IVY TERESA COLLINS TAGGER
2006

 

DEDICATION

To God (my Rock and Foundation)
To Paul and Mariah
And

In Loving Memory of My Sister, Judy Maria Collins

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To My Darling Husband and Life Companion, Paul: I have asked more of you
than anyone should ever ask of a person. And you have given to me so
unselﬁshly, with little regard to your own needs. Thank you so much for you
patience and understanding. You have helped me and supported me through
the joys and sorrows of writing this dissertation. Thank you for having such BIG
shoulders for me to lean on. You have carried me more than you probably
realized; and it has been such a long road. You are truly my rock and my light. I
could not have accomplished this without you. Thank you for being my husband.
God has sent you to me and I will always love you endlessly.

To My Sweet Mariah: The world became a brighter place the day you were
born. I hope I will always be an encouragement to you to pursue all of your
lifelong dreams. But most of all, it is my prayer that you will pursue the wisdom
of God through HIS Word. By doing that, then all of the days of your life will be
long and pleasant, and you will ﬁnd favor within HlS grace which is sweeter than
any earthly possession or achievement.

To My Parents, Brothers, Sister, and Niece: Thank you for believing in me
and instilling a spirit of excellence in everything that I do. Each of you has been
such outstanding examples of success and ingenuity. You are such an
inspiration to me! Thank you for teaching me respect, determination, and love of

family and of God. I love you very much!!

vi

 

To My ln-Iaws: I could not have married into a more loving and kind family.
Thank you for loving me so much and encouraging me to complete my
education. And most importantly, thank you for entrusting me with your son. He
is truly remarkable, just like you.

To My Dissertation Committee: Thank you just doesn’t seem enough for this
dynamic group of professionals. Your wisdom, support, and encouragement
were simply priceless. Each of you, Marty Ewing, Lynnette Overby, Yevonne
Smith, and Crystal Branta has added so much to my life personally and
professionally. I am Simply blessed to have had the opportunity to learn so much
from you. Thank you for believing in me, seeing me through, and opening my
eyes to more possibilities than I could ever have imagined.

To Kinesiology Secretarial staff: (Verna, JoAnn, Jan, Darcie, Amy) Thank you!
Thank you! Thank you! So many aspects (too numerous to list) of my doctoral
program were made easier because of you. Thanks so much for all of your help.
Your sweet Spirits and kind hearts really made my time here at MSU remarkable.
To My friends: Cordell Overby, Dawn Lewis, Angela and Preston Watson,
Valerie Benjamin, Lorenzo Parker, Geoffrey Colon, Ray Allen, Rodney Wilson,
Kammy Roberts, Mona Osman, Christine Neros, Jonathon Livingston, and World
Harvest Church pastors and members: All of you did so many wonderful things
for me when I needed it the most. You may not have even realized how your
prayers, helping hands, encouraging words, beautiful cards, and even an
occasional kick in the butt provided strength for me to complete this task. I am

so blessed to have gotten to know each of you. Thank you!

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................ xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem ........................................................... 1
Student Teaching Psycho-Social Issues and Teaching Efﬁcacy.......... 3
Impact of Gender on Teaching Efﬁcacy ......................................... 7
Statement of the Purpose ........................................................... 8
Research Hypotheses ............................................................... 10
Qualitative Research Question .................................................... 11
Exploratory Research Questions ................................................. 11
Significance of the Study ........................................................... 11
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ..................................... 13
Operational Definitions .............................................................. 13
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................. 16
Introduction ............................................................................. 16
Theoretical Background in Teacher Efﬁcacy .................................. 17
Teachers’ Efﬁcacy Beliefs and Its Educational Impact ..................... 29
Preservice Teachers and Teaching Efﬁcacy .................................. 34
CHAPTER 3: METHOD ..................................................................... 39
Participants ............................................................................ 39
Survey Instruments .................................................................. 41
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................ 47
Data Analysis .......................................................................... 50
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .................................................................... 54
Quantitative Analysis ................................................................ 54
Qualitative Analysis .................................................................. 66
Exploratory Analysis ................................................................. 82
Summary ............................................................................... 88

viii

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ............................................................... 93

Teaching Efﬁcacy and the Student Teaching Experience ................. 93
General and Personal Teaching Efﬁcacy ...................................... 111
Sources of Teaching Efﬁcacy .................................................... 113
Recommendations .................................................................. 1 19

APPENDIX A: Recruitment Letters for Preservice Teachers, Cooperating
Teachers, and University Supervisors .............................. 124

APPENDIX B: Frequencies and Percentages of Demographic lnforrnation
for Preservice Teachers and Cooperating Teachers ............ 129

APPENDIX C: Demographic Information and Informed Consent Forms ...... 132

APPENDIX D: The Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran

& Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001) ................................................. 142
APPENDIX E: The Teacher Efﬁcacy Scale (Hoy 8 Woolfolk, 1993) ............ 150
APPENDIX F: Student Teaching Experience Questionnaire ..................... 153
APPENDIX G: Telephone Interview Guideline: Pilot and Study ................. 165
APPENDIX H: University Committee on Research Involving Human

Subjects Approval Form ................................................ 170
APPENDIX I: Tentative Schedule of Events .......................................... 172
APPENDIX J: Interview Transcription for Preservice Teachers .................. 176
REFERENCES ................................................................................ 214

 

 

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Total Teaching Efﬁcacy on the
OSTES ............................................................................... 56
Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations on the OSTES Subscales ............ 56

Table 3: The MANOVA Interaction, Means and Standard Deviations on the
OSTES Subscales for Gender and Pre-test/Post-test phases ......... 58

Table 4: The MANOVA Main Effect for Gender, Means and Standard
Deviations on the OSTES Subscales .......... , .............................. 59

Table 5: The MANOVA Main Effect for Pre-test and Post-test Phases,
Means and Standard Deviations on the OSTES Subscale ............. 60

 

Table 6: Means and Standard Deviations for the TES subscales PTE and
GTE ................................................................................... 62

Table 7: Means and Standard Deviations for Cooperating Teachers and
Preservice Teachers on the OSTES ......................................... 65

Table 8: Major and Minor Sources, Frequencies, and Percentages for
Instructional Strategies .......................................................... 71

Table 9: Major and Minor Sources, Frequencies, and Percentages for
Classroom Management ......................................................... 75

 

Table 10: Major and Minor Sources, Frequencies, and Percentages for
Student Engagement ............................................................ 81

Table 11: Rank Order, Frequencies, and Percentages of Environmental
Factors That Negatively Impacts Student Learning ..................... 84

Table 12: Rank Order, Frequencies, and Percentages of Teaching Tasks
That Preservice Teachers Felt Most Efﬁcacious Performing ......... 86

Table 13: Rank Order, Frequencies, and Percentages of Teaching Tasks
That Preservice Teachers Felt Least Efﬁcacious Performing ......... 87

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Dissemination of Surveys at Each Stage of the Research Project... 49

 

xi

 

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem

The student teaching internship is the capstone experience within the
teacher preparation program. It is by far the most important and challenging
aspect of the teacher preparation program because the preservice teacher is
now expected to demonstrate all of the cumulative knowledge and preparation
that has been gained by majoring in the ﬁeld of education. It is the ultimate task
for educators to put into practice the educational theories and academic
knowledge gained from extensive coursework acquired over many hard years of
study in education.

The student teaching experience often is considered the single most
important exercise that will shape a preservice teacher’s attitudes, values, and
beliefs toward education and Ieaming outcomes as well as toward the teaching
profession itself (Darden, Scott, Darden, & Westfall, 2001 ). Henry (1989) states
that student teachers may develop strong convictions during this time because
student teaching (a) gives novice teachers a chance to experience an “actual
teaching setting,” (b) provides “emotional involvement,” (c) offers “growth-
producingi' outcomes, and (d) affords the opportunities for “one-to-one teaching
encounters.” It is during this critical period that preservice teachers need a
positive Ieaming experience that will set the foundation for future successes in

teaching and promote teacher retention within the profession.

 

 

One aspect of this critical Ieaming experience involves the relationship of
the teaching triad. The teaching triad is a collaborative relationship consisting of
the preservice teacher, university supervisor, and cooperating teacher. A
substantial amount of research has been devoted to this triad relationship
because of its signiﬁcant impact on the student teaching experience (Kahn, 2001;
Knudson, 1998; McJunkin, Justen, Strickland, & Justen, 1998; Shantz & Brown,
1999; Wepner, 1999). With the guidance of the university supervisor and
cooperating teacher, the preservice teacher is expected to transform effectively
from the role of university student major to the independent professional teacher.
Ultimately, crossing this bridge can be ﬁlled with a mixture of pleasurable and
painful experiences. For example, Woods and Weasmer (2003) conducted a
qualitative study with 28 cooperating teachers from various subject areas to
assess their expectations of preservice teachers. The authors found that the
cooperating teachers held a multitude of expectations beyond simple classroom
practices that were not clearly made known to their preservice teachers. Some
of these expectations were to serve as role models, understand and care about
students, develop a love for teaching, and establish a positive rapport with
parents. The authors concluded that because the expectations were not clearly
known, preservice teachers could fall short of meeting these outcomes and have
a less than successful student teaching experience. Thus, the differences
between cooperating teachers and preservice teachers’ expectations may impact
preservice educators’ teaching attitudes and behaviors, and even perceptions of

their teaching conﬁdence during their student teaching experience.

 

 

Student Teaching Psycho—Social Issues and Teaching Efﬁcacy

Despite the clear importance placed on the student teaching experience,
some preservice teachers unfortunately do not have a positive experience, which
may increase feelings of teaching inadequacy and lack of teaching conﬁdence.
The culminating event can then be ﬁlled with a high degree of negativity and
work-related stress (Brissie, Hoover-Dempsey, & Bassler, 1988; Hollingsworth,
1990). Greer and Greer (1992) stated that the highest risk for stress and bum-
out can occur during the student teaching experience. The authors also found
that teachers” personality traits may predispose them to unrealistic expectations
and idealism which may further contribute to high levels of stress and feelings of
inadequacy during the student teaching experience. The research of Bowers,
Eicher, and Sacks (1983) indicated that preservice teachers are most concerned
about affective matters such as maintaining class control and developing
relationships with pupils, parents, and other teachers. Boggess, McBride, and
Griffey (1985) echoed similar results and discovered in their sample of sixty-nine
secondary preservice physical education teachers, that concerns about class
control steadily increased throughout the semester. In addition, preservice
physical education teachers also felt it was the most crucial concern as
evidenced by the high raw score of all items tested.

Student teaching research clearly indicates that maintaining class
discipline and control have continued to be high priorities for novice and
experienced teachers alike (Briscoe, 1972; Herbert & Worthy, 2001; McBride,

Boggess & Griffey, 1986; Swanke, 1980). However, maintaining class control is

 

 

not the only worry facing teachers; issues pertaining to instructional matters such
as student engagement, content knowledge, and instructional strategies have
also been identiﬁed as serious challenges. Veenman (1984) reviewed 83 studies
and also found that classroom discipline was considered the most serious
perceived problem; however, motivating students was ranked second and
planning lessons was ranked number eleven out of twenty-four identiﬁed
perceived problems. Because preservice teachers face a multitude of concerns

and insecurities coupled with minimal career experience their conﬁdence in

1]

teaching can be eroded. This stress can impede their ability to affect classroom
instruction, student engagement, and performance outcomes.

Conﬁdence in one’s teaching ability or teacher efﬁcacy is deﬁned as the
extent to which teachers believe they have the capabilities to bring about desired
outcomes of student engagement and Ieaming, even among those students who
may be difﬁcult or unmotivated (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Tschannen-Moran &
Hoy, 2001). Much of the teacher efﬁcacy research is based on Bandura’s social
cognitive theory of self-efﬁcacy (Bandura, 1977; 1986; 1989, 1995, 1997). Self-

efﬁcacy is a theory of one’s beliefs. It is a two dimensional construct of

 

expectancies: (a) “outcome expectancies“ are a person's estimate that a given
behavior will lead to a certain outcome, and (b) “efﬁcacy expectations” are a
person’s belief that one can successfully do something to produce a speciﬁc
outcome (Bandura, 1977). In addition, Bandura (1986, 1997) suggests four
sources of efﬁcacy expectation: (a) mastery experiences, (b) physiological and

emotional states of arousal, (c) vicarious experiences, and (d) social persuasion.

 

In brief, mastery experience is considered the most powerful source of efﬁcacy
information. It is described as successful past experiences that contribute to
one’s expectation of future proﬁciency. Physiological and emotional arousal
states of either anxiety or excitement contribute to one’s feeling of mastery or
incompetence. The degree an observer identiﬁes with a model who is
performing a desired skill is deﬁned as vicarious experience. The more the
observer identiﬁes with the model, the more the level of efﬁcacy is elevated. And
social persuasion entails feedback or a pep talk from a supervisor or colleague
concerning a speciﬁc performance.

When applying Bandura’s theory of self-efﬁcacy to the teaching
environment, “outcome expectation” or “general teacher efﬁcacy (GTE)" is the
belief that teachers can help even the most difﬁcult or unmotivated students,
despite environmental factors such as family background, IQ, or school
conditions (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). In this deﬁnition, GTE is expressed not for
oneself but for an abstract collective group of teachers (Coladarci, 1992). In
contrast, “efﬁcacy expectation” or “personal teacher efﬁcacy (PTE)” is the
teacher’s conﬁdence or belief that he or she can personally execute successful
teaching behaviors to produce desired outcomes (Coladarci, 1992; Gibson &
Dembo, 1984). These concepts are differentiated because individuals can
believe that certain behaviors will produce certain outcomes, but if they do not
believe that they can personally perform the necessary activities, they will not
initiate the relevant behaviors, or if they do, they will not persist (Bandura, 1977;

Gibson & Dembo, 1984).

Research suggests that teaching experiences affect personal and general
teaching efﬁcacy scores whereas personal teaching efﬁcacy tends to increase
and general teaching efﬁcacy decreases with experience (Ross, 1994). The
implications of these ﬁndings indicate that teachers personally tend to believe
that they can impact student Ieaming but are less conﬁdent about the impact of
teachers in general to impact student Ieaming over environmental factors such
as IQ, home environment, or family inﬂuences. These results are worthwhile to
explore because teachers are often faced with student problems that stem from
home and environmental dysfunctions.

Bandura (1997) states that teacher efﬁcacy beliefs are strong predictors of
teachers’ motivation and behaviors that can greatly contribute to student
Ieaming. Research has indicated that teacher efﬁcacy is related to signiﬁcant
variables in education such as academic achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986;
Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990), student
motivation, teachers’ adoption of innovative techniques (Guskey, 1988; Rose &
Medway, 1981; Smylie, 1988), parental involvement (Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler,
& Brissie, 1987), and classroom management strategies (Barﬁeld & Burlingame,
1974; Lin & Gorrell, 1998). Although many years of research have been
dedicated to understanding teacher efﬁcacy, few studies have looked at teacher
efﬁcacy and how it may change over time (Henson, 2001), particularly during the
student teaching experience. Furthermore, results from examining teacher
efﬁcacy during the student teaching experience are inconclusive (Paese &

Zinkgraf, 1991; Parker, Guarino, & Smith, 2002; Plourde, 2002). Unfortunately,

no studies could be found that speciﬁcally addressed changes over time in
teacher efﬁcacy among preservice and inservice physical education teachers.

Neglecting the content area of physical education in this line of research is
unfortunate because unlike subject areas such as reading, math, and science,
physical educators are often faced with unique teaching challenges that
classroom teachers may not have to address. Some of these teaching
challenges include large class sizes, limited instructional time, open classroom
environments, inadequate facilities and equipment, professional isolation,
minimal administrative support, and balancing teaching and coaching
responsibilities. Novice teachers often ﬁnd these obstacles quite ovenNhelming
and an added hindrance to their ability to learn to teach effectively. Thus, the
current literature suggests such studies may give insight into preservice teachers’
sense of teaching efﬁcacy, but it may not apply entirely to the experiences of all
physical educators.
Impact of Gender on Teaching Eﬁicacy

A second concern is that physical education, athletics, and sports are still
viewed as traditionally male. Although females have made great gains in
successfully participating in the area of physical education, athletics, and sports,
males are still hired more frequently to coach, are paid higher salaries, and are
provided with more playing opportunities in sports than females. These gender
biases could play a signiﬁcant role in how teachers in non-traditional areas
acquire, develop, and maintain their sense of efﬁcacy. Very few studies have

speciﬁcally addressed gender differences in teacher efﬁcacy with respect to

 

 

physical education majors. One study conducted by Paese and Zinkgraf (1991)
found in their sample of 35 physical education majors no signiﬁcant gender
differences in teaching efﬁcacy. Another study (Fortman & Pontius, 2000) with a
diverse group of preservice teachers also supported these ﬁndings and
concluded that no signiﬁcant changes occurred in teacher efﬁcacy based on
genden
Greenwood, Olejnik, and Parkay (1990), however, found in their sample of

full-time teachers that female elementary teachers were more likely than males to
believe that they personally could motivate students to achieve. Kiviet and Mji
(2003) could not support these ﬁndings in their study. These authors found that
male elementary science teachers had higher personal teaching efﬁcacy than
females. They concluded that female teachers are especially in need of support
of changing their self-efﬁcacy beliefs in regards to science. Much of the cited
research in teacher efﬁcacy with respect to gender is inconclusive and more
exploration is needed, particularly in the area of physical education (Cowley,
1999; Enochs, Riggs, 8. Ellis, 1993; Kiviet & Mji, 2003; Vollmer, 1986).
Statement of the Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine preservice physical educators’
teaching efﬁcacy ratings during their student teaching experience; and to identify
the sources they felt contributed to their current level of teaching efﬁcacy. The
direction of this study speciﬁcally focused on teaching efﬁcacy as it pertained to
instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement skills.

These areas are deemed as necessary components for teaching success

(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). This study further explored differences in how
cooperating teachers appraised their preservice physical educators’ sense of
teaching efﬁcacy in the areas of instmctional strategies, classroom management,
and student engagement skills during their student teaching experience.

The second purpose of this study was to identify how preservice physical
educators constructed their sense of teaching efﬁcacy, and if the identiﬁed
sources coincided with Bandura’s four sources (1997) or if new sources
emerged. Exploratory research questions regarding the student teaching
experience (e.g., factors that effect student Ieaming and performances of
teaching tasks) along with demographic information (e.g., gender, past
teaching/coaching experience, student teaching location) are presented. Thus,
the overarching research questions that guided this study were:

1. How did preservice physical educators’ perceive their sense of teaching

efﬁcacy?

2. Did teaching efﬁcacy scores change signiﬁcantly during the 16Aweeks of
the student teaching internship among preservice physical educators?

3. What were the identiﬁed sources that preservice physical educators
believed contributed to their current level of teaching efﬁcacy in
instructional strategies, classroom management, and student
engagement?

4. Did male and female preservice physical educators perceive their level of

teaching efﬁcacy differently?

5.

How did physical education cooperating teachers appraise their preservice
teachers’ teaching efﬁcacy? Did they rate teaching efﬁcacy differently

than their preservice teachers rated themselves?

Speciﬁcally, this study examined the following hypotheses and research

questions through quantitative and qualitative means:

Research Hypotheses

1.'

Preservice physical educators will have higher post-test total teaching
efﬁcacy scores than pre-test total teaching efﬁcacy scores.

Preservice physical educators will have higher post-test teaching efﬁcacy
scores in instructional strategies, classroom management, and student
engagement than pre-test teaching efﬁcacy scores.

Preservice physical educators will have higher post-test teaching efﬁcacy
scores in instructional strategies and student engagement than in
classroom management.

Male preservice physical educators will have higher pre and post teaching
efﬁcacy scores in instructional strategies, classroom management, and
student engagement than female preservice physical educators.
Preservice physical educators will have lower post-test general teaching
efﬁcacy scores than pre-test general teaching efﬁcacy scores.

Preservice physical educators will have higher post-test personal teaching

efﬁcacy scores than post-test general teaching efﬁcacy scores.

10

7. COOperating teachers will rate post-test total teaching efﬁcacy scores of
their preservice physical educators lower than the preservice physical
educators’ will rate themselves.

Qualitative Research Question

1. What are the identiﬁed sources given by preservice physical educators for
their level of teaching efﬁcacy in instructional strategies, classroom
management, and student engagement?

Exploratory Research Questions

1. What are the most pertinent environmental factors that negatively impact

_‘

student Ieaming during the student teaching experience for preservice
physical educators?

2. What teaching tasks do preservice physical educators perceive
themselves performing most and least efﬁcaciously?

Signiﬁcance of the Study

 

To date, researchers in the general areas of teaching have investigated
many perspectives of teacher efﬁcacy and its effects on teacher behavior and

student Ieaming. However, few studies have focused on teacher efﬁcacy,

 

physical education teachers (Martin & Kulinna, 2003), and gender differences
exclusively. Physical educators are often presented with unique teaching
situations that their colleagues in traditional academic subjects rarely have to
address. Thus, the current teacher efﬁcacy literature may not be representative
of preservice physical educators and their unique teaching situations. It is,

therefore, important to understand clearly the speciﬁc psychological and social

11

_

 

factors that impact teaching efﬁcacy of preservice teachers in order that
university personnel can effectively assist novice teachers in developing
necessary teaching competencies.

This study provides essential information speciﬁcally concerning
preservice physical educators’ pre and post levels of teaching efﬁcacy. High
levels of efﬁcacy have been associated with higher student Ieaming, effective
teaching, positive teaching behaviors, and teacher retention, all of which are
signiﬁcant issues to the physical education profession. In addition, it was the
hope of this study to extend the current research in this area by examining how
teacher efﬁcacy levels change during the 16 weeks of student teaching. Most
scholars agree that student teaching is the most signiﬁcant time of a teacher’s
career. Therefore, university teacher educators and cooperating teachers would
beneﬁt from this research since they are the key ﬁgures in the construction and
design of the teacher education programs. Also, these key ﬁgures in the
teaching triad are critical in helping preservice teachers maintain and increase
their sense of teaching efﬁcacy, which could result in more effective future
teachers in the K-12 physical education programs.

There is also the demand to utilize more qualitative research methods
when investigating the teacher efﬁcacy construct (Parker, Guarino, & Smith,
2002). Besides the examination of quantitative levels of teacher efﬁcacy and
how it changed over time, this study qualitatively explored identiﬁed sources of
teacher efﬁcacy among preservice physical education teachers. There were no

studies that speciﬁcally addressed the reasons why preservice physical

12

educators believed they were efﬁcacious in their teaching. The results from this
study would help teacher education professors better prepare preservice physical
education teachers before they entered into their student teaching experience
and ultimately into the profession.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
Delimitations to this investigation were that it was limited to four

universities in the upper Midwest geographic area In the United States. Out of
ninety-eight preservice teachers that were recruited for this study, only 31
preservice teachers agreed or were eligible to participate. This attrition was
partly due to participants not meeting the study’s requirement of teaching in a
physical education environment for the complete 16 weeks of student teaching.
In addition, the sample lacked diversity in that the population was predominately
Caucasian (n = 30) with only one multiracial participant. Thus, the results from
this study are limited to this population and can not be generalized to a larger
diverse population. Finally, this study utilized self-reports on the demographic
information, teaching efﬁcacy questionnaires, and interviews which can only be
assumed to be honest and accurate.
Operational Deﬁnitions
For the purpose of this study, the following terms have been deﬁned:

1. Classroom management: The use of various techniques and skills to

maintain control and order in an instructional setting.

13

. Cooperating teacher: A veteran teacher who has elected to mentor and
provide hands on teaching experience to a preservice teacher for a
designated time span during the student teaching experience.

. General teaching efﬁcacy (GTE): The belief that teachers can help even
the most difﬁcult or unmotivated students, despite environmental factors
such as family background, IQ, or school conditions (Gibson & Dembo,
1984). Gibson and Dembo assert that general teaching efﬁcacy
corresponds with Bandura’s outcome expectancy dimension. This
correlation has been extensively challenged throughout the literature

(T schannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).

. Inservice teacher: A teacher who is currently working in the school
system.

. Instructional strategies: Skills and techniques used to plan and execute
educational lessons and activities effectively.

. Personal teaching efﬁcacy (PTE): A teacher’s conﬁdence or belief that he
or she can personally execute successful teaching behaviors to produce
desired outcomes (Coladarci, 1992; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Gibson and
Dembo further assert that PTE corresponds with Bandura’s (1977) self-
efﬁcacy dimension. This correlation has been challenged extensively
throughout the literature (T schannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).

. Preservice teacher. An undergraduate major who is in the ﬁnal year of the
teacher education program and is completing the student teaching

internship.

14

8. Self-efﬁcacy: A theory of one’s beliefs with a two dimensional construct of
expectancies: (a) outcome expectancies and (b) efﬁcacy expectations
(Bandura, 1977).

9. Student engagement: The ability to ignite passion in students to learn and
participate in educational activities and lessons as well as to encourage
them to value the importance of a subject’s content area.

10. Student teaching experience: An intense 16 week internship for
preservice teachers to teach under the supervision of a cooperating
teachen

11.Teaching efﬁcacy: A concept that was inﬂuenced by Bandura’s (1977)
conceptualization of self-efﬁcacy. It is the extent to which teachers believe
they have the capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student
engagement and Ieaming, even among those students who may be
difﬁcult or unmotivated (Gibson 8 Dembo, 1984; Tschannen-Moran 8 Hoy,
2001)

12.Teaching triad: The professional and educational relationship that occurs
during the student teaching internship between the university supervisor,
cooperating teacher, and preservice teacher.

13. University supervisor: The professional who serves as a mentor as well
as a liaison between the cooperating teacher and preservice teacher

during the student teaching experience.

15

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

There is mounting evidence that teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to
educate students can greatly inﬂuence the Ieaming process (Ashton 8 Webb,
1986; Pajares, 1992). Conﬁdence in one’s teaching ability or teacher efﬁcacy is
deﬁned as the extent to which teachers believe they have the capabilities to bring
about desired outcomes of student engagement and Ieaming, even among those
students who may be difﬁcult or unmotivated (Gibson 8 Dembo, 1984;
Tschannen-Moran 8 Hoy, 2001). Teacher efﬁcacy ratings have been correlated
to student outcomes such as achievement (Ashton 8 Webb, 1986), motivation
(Midgley, Feldlaufer, 8 Eccles, 1989), and a student’s own sense of efﬁcacy
(Anderson, Greene, 8 Loewen, 1988). There is evidence indicating that teachers
with a high sense of efﬁcacy are more likely to be active within their school
setting and to collaborate with their colleagues (Poole 8 Okeafor, 1989). These
teachers tend to take more responsibility for students’ successes and failures
(Greenwood, Olejnik, 8 Parkay, 1990; Guskey, 1987), demonstrate good
teaching practices (Trentham, Silvem, 8 Brogdon, 1985), use more challenging
teaching techniques and innovative methodologies (Guskey, 1988), and exhibit
greater enthusiasm for teaching (Allinder, 1994; Guskey, 1984).

Teacher efﬁcacy levels tend to be higher in schools when factors such as
minimal stress, a joint commitment to Ieaming goals, and a satisﬁed teaching

staff are present in the school environment (Shahid 8 Thompson, 2001). And

16

even more importantly, this construct also has been associated with long-term
implications that include job satisfaction and job retention (Fritz, Miller-Heyl,
Kreutzer, 8 MacPhee, 1995; Glickman 8 Tamashiro, 1982; Trentham, Silvem, 8
Brogdon, 1985). Research ﬁndings consistently conclude that higher levels of
teaching efﬁcacy enhance student Ieaming and success, both socially and
psychologically (Guskey, 1988; Ross, 1992). Teacher efﬁcacy has signiﬁcant
implications and it is regarded as a powerful inﬂuence on the institution of
education.

The construct, teacher efﬁcacy, has evolved over the years from a
simplistic concept to a multidimensional model. Much of the recent teacher
efﬁcacy research is based on one of two theoretical strands: (1) Rotter’s social
Ieaming theory (1966) and (2) Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1997). The
following is a review of literature of the development of teacher efﬁcacy, as well
as the measures that are commonly used to assess this concept.

Theoretical Background in Teacher Eﬁicacy

The ﬁrst attempt to measure teacher efﬁcacy was simplistic and began

 

with just two items on a 5-point Likert scale. According to Armor et al. (1976), the
two items were part of an extensive questionnaire examining teacher
characteristics and student Ieaming by the Rand Corporation (as cited in
Tschannen-Moran 8 Hoy, 2001). With the theoretical base of Rotter’s social
Ieaming theory addressing locus-of-control, the Rand researchers conceived
teacher efﬁcacy as the degree that individuals accept personal responsibility or

control for what happens to them (internal) as opposed to attributing the

17

—

 

responsibility or control to outside forces or events beyond their own inﬂuence
(external) (Guskey 8 Passaro, 1994). Examples of the two Rand items are as
follows:

Rand item 1: “When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much
because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her
home environment” (as cited in Tschannen-Moran & Hay, 2001).

Rand item 2: “If! really try hard, I can get through to even the most difﬁcult or
unmotivated students” (as cited in Tschannen-Moran 8 Hay, 2001).

For example, teachers who believe that environmental factors overwhelm
the inﬂuence a teacher has on student Ieaming are considered “externally
controlled.” Strong agreement with the Rand #1 item indicates an externally
controlled teacher. Whereas teachers who believe they have the ability to teach
difﬁcult or unmotivated students and that their inﬂuence on student Ieaming is
within their power are labeled as “internally controlled.” Strong agreement with
the Rand #2 item indicates an internally controlled teacher.

The sum of the two Rand items was called teacher efﬁcacy (TE). The two
studies conducted by the Rand Corporation both reported positive relationships
between teachers’ efﬁcacy ratings and the dependent measures under
investigation. The study’s ﬁndings revealed: (1) improvement in student
performance, (2) achievement of educational goals, and (3) continued use of
innovative techniques by educators (Herbert, Lee, 8 Williamson, 1998). These
initial ﬁndings spurred a steady stream of research that attempted to expand and

reﬁne the teacher efﬁcacy concept (Gibson 8 Dembo, 1984; Guskey, 1981; Rose

18

 

8 Medway, 1981; Tschannen-Moran 8 Hoy, 2001). However, the research
literature continued to be laced with disagreements in the conceptualization of
teacher efﬁcacy along with problems related to the validity and reliability of its
measurements.

One of the ﬁrst concerns with the Rand measure was the reliability of a 2-
item scale; thus, attempts were made to create longer and more comprehensive
scales assessing teacher efﬁcacy. Guskey (1981) developed a 30-item
instrument assessing student achievement. The instrument was designed to
measure how much responsibility a teacher assumed for student outcomes.
Teacher responsibility was divided into two subscales consisting of how much
responsibility a teacher assumed in general and how much responsibility a
teacher assumed for students’ success and failure. Guskey’s ﬁndings (1981,
1988) revealed signiﬁcant positive correlations between the instrument’s two
subscales and the sum of the two Rand items assessing TE. The author also
found strong intercorrelations ranging from .72 to .81 between responsibility in
general and the responsibilities for student success and student failure subscales
(Guskey, 1981, 1988). Despite its ﬁndings, this measure was viewed as
cumbersome particularly in regards to the calculation of its scale. It did not
receive much acceptance from the research community (Tschannen-Moran 8
Hoy, 2001). While many researchers continued to examine this construct
utilizing the fundamental theory proposed by Rotter’s (1966) locus of control

construct, a new perspective regarding teaching efﬁcacy emerged.

19

A second strand of theory from Bandura’s social cognitive theory and his
construct of self-efﬁcacy gained wide acceptance in the research community. It
is a theory of one’s beliefs about the level of competence a person expects he or
she will perform. It is a future-oriented belief system and it is deﬁned as a
conviction in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course of action
required to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1977). According to Bandura,
behavior and behavioral changes are mediated primarily by expectations.
Efﬁcacy expectations determine whether a behavior will be initiated regarding a
given task, how much effort will be expended, or how long a behavior will be
sustained. Efﬁcacy expectations vary based on magnitude, strength, and
generality. Magnitude refers to the perceived difﬁculty of a task and whether an
individual feels capable of attempting it. Strength refers to the durability of one’s
expectations when the individual is faced with obstacles, barriers, or
disconﬁrrning information. It also relates to the perceived ease or difﬁculty in
which the task could be modiﬁed. And ﬁnally, generality refers to the degree to
which a person’s sense of efﬁcacy is transferable to different behavioral domains.
In regards to teaching, generality would relate to one’s ability to teach in a variety
of situations (Bandura, 1977; Gibson 8 Dembo, 1984; Hackett 8 Betz, 1981 ).

There are two dimensions of efﬁcacy expectancies: (a) “outcome
expectancies” are a person’s estimates that a given behavior will lead to a certain
outcome, and (b) “efﬁcacy expectations” are beliefs that one can successfully do
something to produce a speciﬁc outcome (Bandura, 1977, 1997). Outcome

expectations refer to the consequences of a behavior, whereas, efﬁcacy

20

expectations refer to the beliefs concerning the performance of a behavior.
These two expectancies are distinct because a person can believe that a course
of action will produce a certain outcome, but have doubts about whether he or
she can perform the necessary activity. That is, possessing speciﬁc skills or
knowledge, does not necessarily indicate that a person believes he or she can
personally put those skills into action.

When applying Bandura’s self-efﬁcacy theory to teachers, highly
efﬁcacious teachers tend to set high goals for themselves and persist in their
efforts until they succeed, despite obstacles they may face. Whereas teachers
who are inefﬁcacious are more likely to evade challenging tasks and even
abandon them when barriers arise. Bandura (1986, 1997) suggests four sources
of efﬁcacy expectation: (a) mastery experiences, (b) physiological and emotional
states of arousal, (c) vicarious experiences, and (d) social persuasion. Mastery
experience is considered the most powerful source of efﬁcacy information. It is
described as successful past experiences that contribute to one’s expectation of
future proﬁciency. Physiological and emotional arousal states of either anxiety or
excitement contribute to one’s feeling of mastery or incompetence. The degree
an observer identiﬁes with a model that is performing a desired skill is deﬁned as
vicarious experience. The more the observer Identiﬁes with the model, the more
the level of efﬁcacy is elevated. And social persuasion entails feedback or a pep
talk from a supervisor or colleague concerning speciﬁc performance.

Some researchers have drawn on the concepts from both Rotter's and

Bandura’s theories. For example, Gibson and Dembo (1984) devised a 30-item

21

scale measuring teacher efﬁcacy that draws upon both theoretical perspectives.
The responses to the items were on a 6-point Likert scale with anchors at
“strongly disagree (1 )” to “strongly agree (6).” Factor analyses of the responses
from 208 elementary teachers yielded a two-factor structure. The authors
asserted that Factor 1 accounted for 18.2% of the total variance and Factor 2
accounted for 10.6% of the total variance. Example items that loaded on each of
the two Factors were:

Factor 1: “When the grades of my students improve it is usually because I found
more effective teaching approaches.” (Gibson 8 Dembo, 1984)

Factor 1: “When a student is having difﬁculty with an assignment, I am usually
able to adjust it to his/her level. ” (Gibson & Dembo, 1984)

Factor 2: “A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a
student’s home environment is a large inﬂuence on his/her achievement.”
(Gibson 8 Dembo, 1984)

Factor 2: “The hours in my class have little inﬂuence on students compared to
the inﬂuence of their home environment. ” (Gibson 8 Dembo, 1984)

Gibson and Dembo (1984) labeled Factor 1 as “personal teaching efﬁcacy
(PTE)” and described it as the belief that one has the skills and abilities to bring
about student Ieaming. They further stated that PTE reﬂects the teacher’s sense
of personal responsibility in student Ieaming and/or behavior. Secondly, they
labeled Factor 2 as “teaching efﬁcacy (TE)” and described it as the belief that
teachers can bring about change despite negative external factors such as the

student’s home environment, family background, and IQ. The authors stated

22

further that TE reﬂects the teacher’s belief about the general relationship
between teaching and learning. It should be noted, that the “teaching efﬁcacy
(TE)" factor was renamed later in the literature as “general teaching efﬁcacy
(GTE)” (Hoy 8 Woolfolk, 1993; Tschannen-Moran 8 Hoy, 2001).

Gibson and Dembo (1984) proclaimed that the two factors clearly
conformed to Bandura’s conceptualization of self-efﬁcacy. They asserted that
PTE corresponded to Bandura’s self-efﬁcacy dimension, and when applied to the
ﬁeld of education it is described as a teacher's evaluation of their abilities to bring
about positive student change. They also argued that GTE corresponded to
Bandura’s outcome expectancy construct and stated that it is the degree to which
teachers believe the environment could be controlled or the extent to which
students can be taught despite factors such as family background, I.Q., and
school conditions. In addition, when looking at the Gibson and Dembo factors,
GTE usually loaded with the Rand 1 item and PTE usually loaded with the Rand
2 item (T schannen-Moran 8 Hoy, 2001). Gibson and Dembo are typically
credited with building upon the formulations of the Rand studies and bringing in
the conceptualization of Bandura’s social cognitive theory of self-efﬁcacy
(T schannen-Moran 8 Hoy, 2001). Several research studies conﬁrmed the
existence of the two factors established by Gibson and Dembo in their research
ﬁndings (Hoy 8 Woolfolk, 1993; Paese 8 Zinkgraf, 1991; Plourde, 2002),
however, inconsistencies in the two factors soon arose and were challenged.

Some of the criticisms of the Gibson and Dembo (1984) assessment of

teaching efﬁcacy are that PTE items are worded positively and use the word, “I”;

23

whereas, GTE items are worded negatively and use the word, “Teachers.”
Several modiﬁcations to the scale have been attempted. For example, Guskey
and Passaro (1994) attempted to balance the items so that both factors were
worded positively and negatively. Analyses of their revised survey items
conducted with 342 teachers surprisingly revealed a difference in the two factors.
Guskey and Passaro proposed that the factors were composed of “internal” and
“external” components rather than “personal” versus “general” distinctions.
According to the authors, the two subscales were independent factors and were
not the same as Rotter’s locus of control concept (Guskey, 1998). The internal
component measured the extent to which teachers believe they can have
personal inﬂuence on student Ieaming and the external component measured
teachers’ perceptions of the inﬂuence of factors outside the classroom and
beyond their immediate or direct control. As a ﬁnal note, the authors afﬁrmed
that the internal factor reﬂects a positive and optimistic perspective, while the
external factor tends to emphasize a negative impact.

To add even further dissension and complexity to the teaching efﬁcacy
construct, continued research on the Gibson and Dembo assessment began to
show inconsistencies with the loading of the PTE and GTE factors. Some
studies revealed that several survey items loaded on both PTE and GTE factors,
PTE items would load on the GTE factor, and that some survey items did not
have a strong enough loading on either factor (Soodak 8 Podell, 1993; Woolfolk
8 Hoy, 1990).

24

 

For example, Lin and Gorrell (1998) conducted a study with 298 teachers
in Taiwan using an abbreviated form of Gibson and Dembo’s survey measuring
the two dimensions of PTE and GTE. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a
four-factor structure that emerged. And, the four factors were different for

preservice teachers who were entering the teacher training program (F1:

 

Professional Knowledge; F2: Effective Teaching; F3: Guide Difﬁcult Children; F4:

.‘f

Home Environment) than for those who were at the end of their program (F1.
Providing For Success; F2: Effective Teaching; F3: Adapting To Students; F4:
Home Inﬂuences). (See Lin and Gorrell (1998) for a complete description of
each factor and item loading). The authors (1998) concluded that the results
from their study support the idea of a multidimensional teacher-efﬁcacy construct;
however, it is not consistent with the research of Gibson and Dembo (1984).

In another attempt to clarify the teaching efﬁcacy concept, Woolfolk and
Hoy (1990) created an even more abbreviated survey consisting of 16 of the
original 30 items from the Gibson and Dembo assessment. Utilizing 182 liberal
arts majors enrolled in a teacher preparation program, their results showed
strong alpha coefﬁcients of reliability for both the PTE (.77) and GTE (.72)
factors. In another Hoy and Woolfolk study (1993), the authors used only the
items with the highest loading from their earlier study which consisted of ﬁve
items representing PTE and ﬁve items representing GTE. Their ﬁndings
revealed that PTE was related to a healthy school climate, and that the
dependent variables institutional integrity and teacher morale were related to

GTE. They concluded that the ﬁndings from their study accentuated the

25

 

independence of personal and general teaching efﬁcacy. The authors stressed
that general teaching efﬁcacy is clearly different from personal teaching efﬁcacy;
moreover, factors that nurtured personal efﬁcacy seemed to have limited effects
on general teaching efﬁcacy and vice versa (Hoy 8 Woolfolk, 1993).

A ﬁnal concern that has arisen in the literature is the comparison of the
GTE construct to Bandura’s outcome expectancy construct. That is, many
previous research studies have treated the GTE construct and Bandura’s
outcome expectancy construct as equivalent. A closer review of Bandura’s
deﬁnition illustrates a clear and distinct difference. Bandura’s outcome
expectancy is a “judgment” of the likely consequence of a speciﬁc action;
whereas GTE questions whether teachers can override the negative effects of
environmental factors outside of their control.

Example GTE item: “A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve
because a student’s home environment is a large inﬂuence on his/her
achievement. ” (Gibson 8 Dembo, 1984)

It is apparent that GTE items measure the potential impact or performance
of teachers in general, not consequences as described by Bandura (1986), and
therefore, can not be considered an outcome expectancy (T schannen-Moran 8
Hoy, 2001; Woolfolk 8 Hoy, 1990). In addition, Bandura conceptualizes teacher
efﬁcacy as a situation-speciﬁc and content-speciﬁc construct, not a global
personality trait as it is often described in reference to the GTE construct
(Bandura, 1977, 1997; Tschannen-Moran 8 Hoy, 2001). In terms of education,

Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) explain that a teacher may feel very

26

 

 

competent working in one area of study or with a certain type of student, but feel
inadequate in another subject area or when interacting with a different type of
student they are not accustomed to teaching. Deciding the optimal level of
speciﬁcity in measurements has been challenging for researchers as well
(Pintrich 8 Schunk, 1996). For example, should researchers attempt to measure
teaching efﬁcacy in terms of teaching the content area of physical education in
general? Or is the appropriate level of speciﬁcity, measuring teacher efﬁcacy in
terms of teaching a unit of basketball, or even more speciﬁc in regards to
teaching certain skills such as dribbling or shooting?

In an attempt to limit the scope of teaching efﬁcacy, Tschannen-Moran
and Hoy (2001) created a 24-item survey called the Ohio State Teacher Efﬁcacy
Scale (OSTES). They attempted to follow Bandura’s (1997) recommendations to
include various levels of task demands in three areas that are deemed important
for successful teaching: (a) instructional strategies (8-items), (b) classroom
management strategies (8-items), and (c) student engagement strategies (8-
items). In addition, they allowed participants to respond to a broad range of
response items and indicate the strength of their efﬁcacy beliefs in light of a
variety of obstacles. Responses to the items on the measure is on a 9-point
Likert scale with anchors at 1 — “Nothing, ” 3 — “Very Little, ” 5 - “Some
Inﬂuence,” 7 — “Quite a Bit,” and 9 — “A Great Deal.” Sample questions include:
(a) To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies? (Instructional
strategies), (b) How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules?

(Classroom management strategies), and (c) How much can you do to get

27

students to do well in schoolwork (physical education) (Student engagement
strategies).

In Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2001) ﬁnal study with a sample size of
410 inservice and preservice teachers, their results seemed promising in regards
to a new direction for assessing teacher efﬁcacy for educators in a variety of
content areas that was speciﬁc to the utilization of instructional strategies,
classroom management techniques, and student engagement techniques.
Factor analysis revealed strong reliabilities for the three subscales. And
construct validity also showed strong correlations with the total score from the
OSTES and the two Rand items as well as Hoy and Woolfolk’s (1993) 10-item
Teacher Efﬁcacy Scale (see Chapter 3 for details on validity and reliability of
OSTES scale). The authors warned that the strongest correlations between the
OSTES and the other measures were with the PTE construct. The GTE
construct, as expected, yielded a lower correlation than the PTE construct which
suggests difﬁculty in the clarity and understanding of its true essence and
meaning.

As a ﬁnal note, a great majority of the research studies have followed the
traditions originally expressed by Rotter (1966) and then later by Gibson and
Dembo (1984). Many other studies have attempted to draw upon both Gibson
and Dembo’s(1984) research ﬁndings and Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive
theory either by attempting to reconcile the differences or ignoring the distinctions
between the two concepts. Despite the elusiveness of fully capturing the teacher

efﬁcacy concept, it is apparent that the judgments and beliefs of teachers have a

28

profound impact on their behaviors and attitudes as educators as well as the
performance of their students. The following section will examine the impact of
efﬁcacy beliefs on teachers’ behaviors and attitudes, and its potential effects on
the students they teach.

Teachers’ Efﬁcacy Beliefs and Its Educational Impact

Teacher efﬁcacy beliefs are linked closely to the behaviors and practices
that teachers demonstrate in their classrooms as well as to the Ieaming and
achievements associated with their students. The teaching practices and
techniques of efﬁcacious teachers are distinct from those who feel less conﬁdent
or inadequate to perform given tasks. That is, research ﬁndings have shown that
teachers’ convictions impact profoundly their daily teaching practices that involve
instructional techniques, classroom management strategies, and tactics used to
engage their students (Denham 8 Michael, 1981; Gordon, 2001; Raudenbush,
Rowan, 8 Cheong, 1992; Rimm-Kaufman 8 Sawyer, 2004).

Gibson and Dembo (1984) in their study involving elementary school
teachers found that efﬁcacious teachers differed in instructional practices
speciﬁcally relating to use of time, classroom organization, and feedback
practices. The authors explained that the use of games and other nonacademic
materials were more common among inefﬁcacious educators. In their study, they
found that on average, low efﬁcacious teachers spent 10 minutes of class time
engaging in nonacademic activities whereas high efﬁcacious teachers allotted
none (Gibson 8 Dembo, 1984). In addition, the authors explained that time spent

on transitional and off-task activities were more common in classes organized by

29

small groups or while students were working alone. They stated that teachers
who work with children in small groups or individually, do not provide adequate
supervision for the entire class. As a result, a large portion of students is less
engaged academically. Interestingly, the authors argue that the use of large
group settings or whole class instruction allowed for more teacher supervision,
which could result in higher rates of student engagement. In their study, results
revealed that high efﬁcacious teachers allocated an average of 124.8 minutes for
small group instruction, whereas low efﬁcacious teachers averaged 214.5
minutes. Additionally, their study found that high efﬁcacious teachers gave more
praise to students per correct answer and persisted with their students until they
responded correctly (Gibson 8 Dembo, 1984). In support of these ﬁndings,
Meyer, Wardrop, Hastings, and Linn (1993) (as cited in Rimm-Kaufman 8
Sawyer, 2004) also asserted that students demonstrated improved reading
scores when teachers persisted until students gave the correct answers and
used praise when they responded correctly.

Moreover, a teacher’s methods of gaining class control and use of various
management techniques are also thought to be inﬂuenced by one’s sense of
teaching efﬁcacy. Teachers are often faced with disorderly, hyperactive, and
aggressive students. The potential to impact student Ieaming is more probable
with teachers who have strong convictions that they can handle challenging
students and manage difﬁcult classroom environments. Gordon (2001) in a
study that compared 96 high efﬁcacious teachers with 93 low efﬁcacious

teachers found distinct differences in their classroom management techniques

30

and discipline of at-risk students. The ﬁndings from the study revealed that high
efﬁcacious teachers were less likely to judge difﬁcult students or feel angry about
students misbehaving. Also, these teachers were more likely to expect students’
behavior to improve and were fonder of students that were labeled as “difﬁcult” er
“problematic” in their classes (Gordon, 2001). The implications of these results
suggested that high efﬁcacious teachers seemed to be more persistent with
students instead of rejecting them when challenges arose. High efﬁcacious
teachers seemed to possess the ability to engage their students more in class
lessons which increased the probability for the students to achieve positive
academic results. However, research ﬁndings have shown deterioration in
teaching efﬁcacy as educators perceive negative factors to overpower their
inﬂuence in their classroom setting.

Most often, this aspect of teaching efﬁcacy is referred to as general
teaching efﬁcacy (GTE) in the literature. It is common for teachers to be
challenged with external factors such as discipline problems, lack of student
motivation, and low I.Q. levels. But ifa teacher perceives these external factors
as negative and overshadowing their ability to impact student Ieaming these
teachers tend to experience lower levels in general teaching efﬁcacy. For
example, Parker, Guarino, and Smith (2002) examined the construct of GTE with
196 preservice and inservice teachers and found that GTE signiﬁcantly
decreased after the student teaching internship. Plourde (2002) concurred with
the previous research ﬁndings with a sample of 59 preservice science teachers

and also found that after the student teaching internship GTE scores or as it is

31

described in Plourde’s study “science teaching outcome expectancy” signiﬁcantly
deteriorated in time.

Suspected reasons for why GTE deteriorates for preservice teachers
could be the inadequacy of teacher preparation programs to prepare young
educators to handle a variety of educational and social issues. Ultimately, the
tendency for GTE to decrease overtime could lead to serious consequences for
the education profession. For example, some studies have found that mounting
educational and sociological stressors could result in job-related stress, career
dissatisfaction, and increase attrition rates for educators (Coladarci, 1992;
Herbert, Lee, 8 Williamson, 1998; Parker, Guarino, 8 Smith, 2002). However,
the ﬁndings in the literature concerning the GTE construct are not consistent and
the predictive power of this construct has undergone much scrutiny, particularly
in regards to its meaning and the clarity of what it is exactly assessing. A few
studies have refuted that GTE decreases over time. Some studies have shown
an increase in GTE scores or no signiﬁcant differences in GTE scores over time
(Ginns 8 Watters, 1990; Kiviet 8 Mji, 2003; Paese 8 Zinkgraf, 1991 ).
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conceive that external factors could have a
profound impact on teachers’ ability to effectively impact student Ieaming. Thus,
the GTE construct has continued to be a worthy construct to explore in the
literature in regards to its potential impact on teachers and the profession of
education in general.

Teachers’ efﬁcacy beliefs also can produce behavioral and attitudinal

changes in the students they teach. Research ﬁndings have shown that teachers

32

who feel highly efﬁcacious are more likely to have students that also report a high
sense of self-efﬁcacy (Anderson, Greene, 8 Loewen, 1988). Moreover, high
efﬁcacious teachers tend to have students that demonstrate high levels of
motivation (Midgley, Feldlaufer, 8 Eccles, 1989; Woolfolk, Rosoff, 8 Hoy, 1990),
and mastery of cognitive and affective goals (Armor et al. 1976; Ross, 1992). °
The relationship between teachers’ sense of efﬁcacy and their students’
performance is viewed as an imperative link in the educational chain that has
strong educational implications. As teachers feel more efﬁcacious, their
students’ performance heightens, and as students increase in their periorrnance
levels, teachers in turn feel more efﬁcacious (Ross, 1992).

For example, Midgley, Feldlaufer, and Eccles (1989) conducted a
longitudinal study of 1,329 students and the teachers they had for mathematics
before and after the transition to junior high school. The relationship between the
students' beliefs about mathematics and their teachers' sense of efﬁcacy was
strongly integrated. The authors found that students who moved from a high
efﬁcacious teacher to a low efﬁcacious teacher possessed lower expectancies
and perceptions of their math performance. In addition, these students had a
higher perception of the difﬁculty of the academic tasks that needed to be
performed. Interestingly, these students also had a signiﬁcantly lower sense of
efﬁcacy than students who remained with low efﬁcacious teachers for the
duration of the study. Furthermore, the differences in teachers’ sense of efﬁcacy
had a more profound effect on low-achieving students than high-achieving

students.

33

Anderson, Greene, and Loewen (1988) found similar results with their
sample of third and sixth grade elementary teachers (n = 24) and the students
(n= 584) they taught. Teachers completed an efﬁcacy scale at the beginning and
conclusion of the school year, and their students completed an achievement test.
The results indicated that teachers' personal efﬁcacy beliefs at the beginning of
the year signiﬁcantly affected student achievement and their students’ feelings of
efﬁcacy. Because teachers’ sense of efﬁcacy has such an impact on students’
performance, it is apparent that an emphasis on how to best maintain and
increase levels of personal teaching efﬁcacy should be clearly structured for
teachers within the school system. This training and support could be especially
beneﬁcial for novice teachers during the preservice years of training.

Preservice Teachers and Teaching Efficacy

The student teaching experience plays a primary role in shaping
preservice teachers’ attitudes, values, and beliefs toward students’ Ieaming
outcomes as well as toward the teaching profession itself (Darden, Scott,
Darden, 8 Westfall, 2001). It is the ultimate task for novice teachers to put into
practice the educational theories and academic knowledge gained from
extensive coursework acquired over many years of study in education. During
the student teaching experience, preservice teachers are faced with a multitude
of classroom issues that potentially impact their ability to effect student Ieaming.
These young teachers often possess less knowledge and teaching experience to
appropriately handle negative situations that may arise during their daily routine

which could drastically affect their sense of teaching efﬁcacy. The need to

34

address preservice teachers’ sense of teaching efﬁcacy is pertinent because of
the possible implications it has for student Ieaming and teachers’ own
professional success. Many studies have speciﬁcally addressed preservice
teachers’ sense of teaching efﬁcacy and its various implications during the
student teaching experience (Benz, Bradley, Alderman, 8 Flowers, 1992; Evans
8 Tribble, 1986; Housego, 1992; Sia, 1992).

Housego (1992), for example, investigated preservice teachers’
perceptions of their preparedness to teach as well as their sense of teaching
efﬁcacy. Results from this study showed a signiﬁcant increase in personal
teaching efﬁcacy during the student teaching internship. However, general
teaching efﬁcacy signiﬁcantly decreased as the student teaching experience
progressed. Plourde (2002) found slightly different results. This study examined
the impact of the student teaching internship on preservice elementary teachers’
personal efﬁcacy and outcome expectancy beliefs in science (similar to GTE).
Fifty-nine subjects participated in the study. Results indicated that the student
teaching experience did not inﬂuence these participants’ sense of personal
teaching efﬁcacy. However, a signiﬁcant change in outcome expectancy scores
did occur that suggested that external barriers deteriorated these preservice
teachers’ conﬁdence.

In support of the previous study, two other studies again showed no
signiﬁcant changes in personal teaching efﬁcacy at the conclusion of the student
teaching internship (Morrell 8 Carroll, 2003; Paese 8 Zinkgraf, 1991). Morrell

and Carroll (2003) found that their participants’ personal and outcome

35‘

 

 

expectancies did not signiﬁcantly change from pre-test to post-test phase. The
authors stated that these subjects may have reached a ceiling effect because
many of the preservice teachers already possessed a fairly high sense of
teaching efﬁcacy. Interestingly, the participants that were still in their methods
courses gained a signiﬁcant increase in personal teaching efﬁcacy, but no
differences were found in outcome expectancy (GTE). These results seem
sensible because student majors have not experienced real-life classroom
challenges. Inexperienced teachers may have an exaggerated sense of efﬁcacy
concerning their teaching potential (Benz, Bradley, Alderman, 8 Flowers, 1992).
These teachers may possess unrealistic expectations about their students’
academic potential and motivation. In addition, novice teachers are often na'ive
in regards to environmental challenges that students are confronted with that
often affect Ieaming and academic success. Although the research is not
conclusive, several studies investigating preservice teachers have shown a
plateau or slight increase in personal teaching efﬁcacy and a decrease in general
teaching efﬁcacy at the. conclusion of the student teaching internship (Ross,
1994). Largely, studies have shown that general teaching efﬁcacy is almost
always signiﬁcantly lower than personal teaching efﬁcacy (Parker, Guarino, 8
Smith, 2002). These results illustrate a need to further investigate the problems,
stressors, and environmental factors that teachers perceive hinder their work and
their sense of teaching efﬁcacy.

Environmental factors that contribute to job-related stress are quite

common among beginning teachers and have received a considerable amount of

36

attention in the literature (Behets, 1990; McBride, 1985; Wendt 8 Bain, 1989).
Job-related stress in the classroom tends to be associated with teachers’ ability
to educate effectively, which could also affect teaching efﬁcacy. Key concerns of
preservice teachers revolve around discipline and classroom management
issues (Evans 8 Tribble, 1986; McBride, Boggess, 8 Griffey, 1986). Evans and
Tribble (1986) found that their 179 preservice teachers ranked motivating
students, dealing with individual student problems, and handling classroom
discipline among the top 10 teaching problems that they faced. Similar concerns
about classroom management were echoed in the study conducted by Boggess,
McBride, and Griffey (1986). And Herbert, Lee, and Williamson (1998) also
found through open-ended survey responses several pertinent external factors
that affected teaching efﬁcacy. The authors stated that the primary categories
that preservice teachers expressed as factors that inﬂuenced their efﬁcacy
expectations were students’ home and family environment (48%) and students’
personal characteristics (19%). Students’ home environment issues revolved
around family problems, divorce, parental characteristics, and lack of parental
involvement. Students’ personal characteristics most notably included classroom
behavior and attitudinal problems.

High levels of stress have been associated with lower sense of teaching
efﬁcacy and job-dissatisfaction. Coladarci (1992) reported that roughly half of the
teachers who entered into the teaching profession left within the ﬁrst ﬁve years.
Moreover, approximately one-third of the teachers who discontinued teaching

cited work conditions as a major factor in their decision. Smyth (1995) concluded

37

in a study of 12 ﬁrst-year physical education teachers that schools simply do not
provide enough support for their beginning teachers. In other words, many ﬁrst
year teachers are “Ieaming the ropes” alone and without proper mentoring. As a
result, novice teachers experience a “reality shock” that spurs an attitude of
expecting less, accepting less, and doing less within the school context (Smyth,
1995). Teaching efﬁcacy is ultimately tied with negative experiences and stress
(Parkay, Greenwood, Olejnik, 8 Proller, 1988). Many of these stressors can be
signiﬁcant during the student teaching internship and, therefore, should be
explored further.

Finally, future research needs to continue to explore the relationships
between teaching efﬁcacy and factors such as efﬁcacy sources, identiﬁed
stressors, and teaching insecurities. Herbert, Lee, and Williamson (1998) assert
that in general, the teaching efﬁcacy literature lacks the voices of the teachers,
their perspectives, explanations for efﬁcacy beliefs, and the factors that they
perceive to impact their own sense of teaching effectiveness. To date, few
studies speciﬁcally have focused on teacher efﬁcacy and preservice physical
education teachers (Martin 8 Kulinna, 2003). The following study set out to
provide essential insights to the pre- and post-teaching efﬁcacy levels of
preservice physical educators. In addition, this study attempted to extend the
current research literature by capturing the voices of preservice teachers’ self-
expressed reasons for their current level of teaching efﬁcacy in the areas of
instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement

techniques.

38

CHAPTER 3
Method

Participants

There were 2 groups of participants in this study. The ﬁrst group
consisted of physical education preservice teachers. The second group was
comprised of those teachers who served as cooperating teachers to the
preservice teachers in this study. Each group will be described in detail.

Preservice physical educators. Ninety-eight preservice physical educators
at ﬁve mid-westem universities were contacted 1-4 weeks before or at the start of
their student teaching internship. Participants were contacted through an oral A
presentation in one of their preservice classes or via a written recruitment letter
(Appendix A). Only universities that required their preservice teachers to
complete one semester (approximately 16 weeks) of student teaching during the
spring semester were selected for this study. Fifty-ﬁve of the potential
participants were non-responsive to the recruitment letter or indicated no interest
in participating in the research study. Forty-three preservice physical educators
indicated a willingness to participate in the study out of the ninety-eight
preservice physical educators contacted. Eight of the participants were ineligible
to participate because a portion of their internship consisted of teaching in ﬁelds
outside of physical education, typically in their designated minor area of teaching.
And four participants were dropped from the study due to incomplete

questionnaires.

39

As a result, the sample size consisted of 31 male (n = 16) and female (n =
15) preservice physical educators from four mid-westem universities. All
participants identiﬁed themselves as Caucasian with the exception of one
multiracial participant. Ages ranged from 22 to 28 years (M = 23.03, SD = 1.53).
The majority of the sample indicated that they had experience teaching (n = 25)
or coaching (n = 23) prior to student teaching. Teaching experience ranged from
0 - 3 years (M = 1.19 years; SD = 1.086) and coaching experience ranged from
0 - 8 years (M = 2.05 years, SD = 2.28). At the start of the study, participants
had either not begun their student teaching experience (n = 11) or were at
various observational or instructional phases (n = 20). Preservice teachers were
dispersed according to the following teaching levels: (a) Only elementary
assignment (n = 4), (b) Only secondary assignment (n = 4), and (c) Both
elementary and secondary assignments (n = 23) (See Appendix B for detailed
demographic Information).

Cooperating teachers. At the onset of the study, ﬁfty-six cooperating
teachers’ names and school addresses were obtained from the demographic
information completed by the preservice physical educators. Twenty-ﬁve
cooperating teachers responded to a written letter inviting them to participate in
the study (Appendix A). A total of 31 surveys were returned at the end of the
study. Nineteen surveys were from cooperating teachers that either served
during the mid—testing or post-testing phases (mid-test = 12 teachers/ post-test =
7 teachers). Six of the cooperating teachers served as mentors during both the

mid-testing and post-testing phases for the same preservice teacher. All of the

40

participants were Caucasian (males = 12; females = 13) ranging from 30 to 58
years of age (M = 43.00; SD = 7.56). Teaching experience ranged from 3 years
to 31 years (M = 16.52 years; SD = 7.36). These teachers were dispersed
according to the following school locations: (a) suburban (n = 13), (b) urban (n =
6), and (0) rural areas (n = 6) (See Appendix B for demographic information).
Survey Instruments

Demographic Questionnaire. All participants were given a demographics
questionnaire along with an informed consent form (see Appendix C). The
participants were asked for the following information: (a) gender, (b) age, (c)
ethnic afﬁliation, (d) location where they grew up (preservice teachers only), (e)
parents’ occupations (preservice teachers only),(f) years of teaching and/or
coaching experience, (9) student teaching information (preservice teachers only),
(h) school name and location, and (i) personal contact information.

The Ohio State Teacher Efﬁcacy Scale (long version) (Tschannen-Moran
8 Hay, 2001). The Ohio State Teacher Efﬁcacy Scale (OSTES) is a 24-item
survey (see Appendix D) designed to assess teachers’ conﬁdence levels in three
areas that are deemed important for successful teaching: (a) instructional
strategies (8-items), (b) classroom management strategies (8-items), and (c)
student engagement strategies (8-items). Responses to the items are scored
using a 9-point Likert scale with anchors at 1 — “Nothing, ” 3 - “Very Little, ” 5 -
“Some Inﬂuence,” 7 - “Quite a Bit,” and 9 - “A Great Deal.“ Sample questions
include: (a) To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies?

(Instructional strategies), (b) How much can you do to get children to follow

41

classroom rules? (Classroom management techniques), and (c) How much can
you do to get students to do well in schoolwork (physical education) (Student
engagement strategies).

The OSTES has been tested with a diverse population with respect to
gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching experience. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy
(2001) reported a high reliability for the total score on the OSTES (or = 0.94).
Reliabilities were also good for the three subscales of instructional strategies (or =
0.91 ), classroom management techniques (a = 0.90), and student engagement
strategies (on = 0.87). lntercorrelations between the three subscales of
instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement
strategies were 0.60, 0.70, and 0.58 respectively (p < 0.001) (T schannen-Moran
8 Hoy, 2001). Factor structures for the OSTES were reported to be most
appropriate for inservice educators as opposed to preservice teachers. Results
from the principal-axis factor analysis with varimax rotation revealed three strong
factors that accounted for 54% of the variance with the inservice teacher
population (Tschannen-Moran 8 Hoy, 2001).

Because the factor structure for preservice teachers appeared to be less
distinct for this population, principal-axis factor analysis was conducted,
extracting one factor from the preservice teachers’ responses. The authors
reported factor loadings ranging from 0.60 to 0.85 which accounted for 57% of
the variance. In addition they concluded that the subscale scores may have little
meaning to inservice educators due to their limited teaching experiences and

responsibilities. For preservice teachers, the total score may be more accurate

42

in assessing teaching efﬁcacy than the individual subscales (Tschannen-Moran 8
Hoy, 2001).

Results from the second-order factor analysis using the entire inservice
and preservice sample data indicated that principal-axis factoring of the three
subscales revealed one strong factor accounting for 75% of the variance
(T schannen-Moran 8 Hoy, 2001). Again, the authors concluded that with the
emergence of the second-order factor and the moderate positive correlation of
the three subscales that the OSTES is a good instrument for measuring teaching
efﬁcacy and that a total score and three subscale scores could be calculated.

Construct validity is also strong for the OSTES. It was tested against the
RAND measure, which is a simple 2-item survey (Armor, Conroy-Oseguera, Cox,
King, McDonnell, Pascal, Pauly, 8 Zellman, 1976) and Hoy and Woolfolk’s 10-
item Teacher Efﬁcacy Scale (1993) that was adapted from Gibson and Dembo
(1984). It was reported that total scores on the OSTES were positively related to
both the RAND items (r = 0.18 and 0.53) as well as the Gibson and Dembo
measure for personal teaching efﬁcacy (r = 0.64) and general teaching efﬁcacy
(r = 0.16). The stronger correlation between the OSTES with personal teaching
efﬁcacy was expected. However, the general teaching efﬁcacy construct proved
to be weak in capturing the essence of teaching efﬁcacy with previous
researchers echoing similar concerns about the clarity of its meaning
(Tschannen-Moran 8 Hoy, 2001).

The Teacher Efficacy Scale (Hoy 8 Woolfolk, 1993). The Teacher

Efﬁcacy Scale (T ES) by Hoy and Woolfolk is a 10-item instrument that measures

43

general teaching efﬁcacy and personal teaching efﬁcacy (see Appendix E).
General teaching efﬁcacy (GTE) is the belief that teachers can help even the
most difﬁcult or unmotivated students, despite environmental factors such as
family background, IQ, or school conditions (Gibson 8 Dembo, 1984). Personal
teacher efﬁcacy (PTE) is the teacher's conﬁdence or belief that he or she can
personally execute successful teaching behaviors to produce desired outcomes
(Coladarci, 1992; Gibson 8 Dembo, 1984). This instrument is an adapted
version of the popularly used Gibson and Dembo Teacher Efﬁcacy scale (1984)
that was ﬁrst redesigned by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) in their study of 182
preservice educators. It was altered again by the same authors, to the current
short form, in their study of 179 elementary school teachers (Hoy 8 Woolfolk,
1993). The current measure consists of ﬁve general and ﬁve personal teaching
efﬁcacy items. These speciﬁc ten items were selected from Woolfolk and Hoy’s
earlier version (1990) because they had the highest factor loading in the study
(Hoy 8 Woolfolk, 1993).

Responses to the items are on a 6-point Likert scale with “1 ” indicating
“Strongly Agree” and “6” indicating “Strongly Disagree.” Example questions from
this instrument include: (a) The amount a student can learn is primarily related to
family background (General Teaching Efﬁcacy), and (b) When I really try, I can
get through to the most difﬁcult students (Personal Teaching Efﬁcacy). The
measure was tested on a diverse population, with the exception of ethnicity and
gender. Despite its lack of diversity in these two areas, it remains an appropriate

measure for inservice and preservice educators. The current measure was used

with a sample of 179 elementary teachers with a mean age of 42 years from
various socioeconomic levels and geographic locations in New Jersey. The
authors noted that the sample consisted of a more advantaged school district
and that there were mostly women participants (83%) in the study. The prior
Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) Teacher Efﬁcacy Scale from which the current measure
was adapted, sampled preservice teachers in the age range of 20 to 30 years.
The majority of the sample was Caucasian female students (157 females and 27
males) with only 10% of the sample comprised of non-Caucasian participants.
The authors reported alpha coefﬁcients of reliability for general and personal
teaching efﬁcacy at 0.72 and 0.77 respectively.

Student Teaching Experience Questionnaire (STE Q). A 14-item
questionnaire was designed by the primary researcher to explore further how
preservice teachers construct their sense of teaching efﬁcacy. This survey
investigated how preservice teachers perceived certain environmental problems
they encountered in their schools, their ability to perform essential teaching
tasks, and their relationship with their cooperating teacher. The questionnaire
was reviewed for content accuracy and relevance by two public school teachers
and the four members of her dissertation committee. It was then piloted on 30
undergraduate preservice physical education majors for understandability and
relevance. Minor language revisions were made to the questionnaire based on
the students’ feedback (Appendix F).

Participant responses on the survey included ﬁve “ﬁll-in” items and nine

items on a 6-point Likert scale with anchors at 1 - “Not at all” and 6 — “Very

45

Much.” It should be noted that the description at each anchor slightly differed
based on the context of the question. Example survey questions were: (a) To
what extent do environmental factors beyond your control negatively inﬂuence
your conﬁdence to impact student Ieaming? (Likert scale) and (b) Which
environmental factor negatively impacts student Ieaming the M in your
school environment? Please indicate one factor from the list above in the space
provided. (Fill-in).

Structured Telephone Interviews. Stmctured telephone interviews were
conducted with preservice physical educators to ascertain the sources they
identiﬁed as contributors to their sense of efﬁcacy in the areas of instructional
strategies, classroom management, and student engagement techniques. The
interview script was piloted with seven preservice physical education teachers
during the 2004 Fall semester for relevancy. Minor revisions were made
(Appendix G).

Participants were asked four questions each pertaining to instructional
strategies, classroom management, and student engagement techniques (N = 12
items). Example questions were: (a) When you think about your current level of
conﬁdence utilizing classroom management techniques, how would you rate
yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 = fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor, (b) Why
would you rate your conﬁdence as a _ in utilizing classroom management
techniques?, (c) Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?, and (d) How did

you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other words, how

46

was it developed or where did it come from? The same questions were asked of
instructional strategies and student engagement techniques. Telephone
interviews were approximately 30 minutes in duration.

Data Collection Procedures

Preparation Phase. Following the approval of the University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) data collection commenced
(Appendix H). A tentative schedule of events was created to direct a course of
actions for this research study (Appendix I).

Six university teaching supervisors were contacted prior to Spring
semester 2005 by letter (Appendix A). The letter described the main purposes of
the research study and requested access to their preservice physical education
teachers that were entering into their student teaching internship during the
Spring 2005 semester. Two university supervisors agreed to set a meeting date
with the primary researcher to explain the research study to the preservice
teachers and to invite them to participate. Three university supervisors agreed to
give the primary researcher the email addresses of the preservice teachers.
These prospective participants received an invitation letter explaining the
research study. One university teaching supervisor did not respond to the ﬁrst
invitation or any of the follow-up phone calls that were made. Preservice
teachers that were interested in participating in the study provided their name,
phone number, and email address for future contact.

Phase One (Pre-Test). Preservice teachers who agreed to be in the study

were mailed an informed consent form that included a demographic

47

questionnaire, the OSTES, and the TES. The completion of the questionnaire
took approximately 30-45 minutes. On the demographic questionnaire,
participants also were asked if they would participate in a 30-minute telephone
interview at the end of the study that focused on teaching efﬁcacy in the areas of
instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement
techniques.

Phase Two (Mid-Test). Approximately 8 weeks into the student teaching
experience, preservice physical educators were sent through the mail the same
surveys as in Phase One, with the exception of the informed consent form and
demographic information. In addition, they completed the Student Teaching
Experience Questionnaire (STEQ).

Cooperating teachers that were mentoring the preservice teachers during
the ﬁrst eight weeks were sent letters explaining the purpose of the research
study along with the informed consent form, demographic questionnaire, and the
OSTES. The informed consent form and surveys took approximately 20 minutes
to complete.

Phase Three (Post-Test). The ﬁnal stage of the research study was
conducted at the end of the student teaching experience, approximately the 16th
week of the Spring semester. Preservice physical educators completed the
same surveys as in phase two with the addition of a telephone interview for those
who consented. Telephone interviews were approximately 30 minutes in
duration. In addition, cooperating teachers who were mentoring the preservice

teachers during the last 8 weeks of the student teaching internship were asked to

48

complete the OSTES again as it pertained to the preservice teacher they were
observing. See Figure 1 for a detailed description of the survey distribution

during each phase.

Figure 1

Dissemination of Surveys at Each Stage of the Research Project

 

 

 

 

Pre-Test Mid-Test Post-Test
(0 Week) (8 Weeks) (16 Weeks)
Preservice -lnformed consent -OSTES -OSTES
Teachers form -TES -TES
Demographics -STEQ -STEQ
Survey -Structured
-OSTES Interviews
-TES
Cooperating -lnformed consent -OSTES
Teachers form
Demographics
Survey
-OSTES

 

 

 

 

 

 

It should be noted that participants in this study were informed that all
information collected would remain conﬁdential to the maximum extent allowable
bylaw. The data (i.e., informed consents, surveys, interviews) were stored in a
secure ﬁle cabinet and organized by the last four digits of the participant’s social
security number and ﬁrst letter of their last name. Postage was paid for by the
primary researcher and return dates for all data were stressed throughout each

phase of the research study.

49

Data Analysis
Quantitative Data Analysis

The statistical package, SPSS, was used to analyze the data at three
stages- Pre-test (0 Week), Mid-test (8 Weeks), and Post-test (16 Weeks). The
main focus of the data analyses was on the pre-test and post-test phases;
however, supplementary analyses were conducted on the mid-test phase. The
following statistical procedures were used to analyze the hypotheses for this
study.

Hypothesis 1. The total scores of the pre-test and the post-test were
averaged by summing all the scores and dividing the total by the number of items
(24-items) on the questionnaire (OSTES) for preservice educators. A t-test was
performed on the averaged total scores to test for signiﬁcant difference.

Hypothesis 2. The pre-test and post-test scores of each subscale
(Instructional Strategies, Classroom Management, Student Engagement) were
averaged by summing the scores separately and dividing the total by the number
of subscale items (8-items each) on the questionnaire (OSTES) for preservice
educators. A one-way MANOVA was performed on the averaged total pre-test
and post-test scores of each subscale to test for signiﬁcant differences.

Hypothesis 3. The post-test scores of each subscale (Instructional
Strategy, Classroom Management, Student Engagement) were averaged by
summing the scores separately and dividing the total by the number of subscale

items (8-items each) on the questionnaire (OSTES) for preservice educators. A

50

one-way ANOVA was performed on the averaged total post-test scores of each
subscale for signiﬁcant differences.

Hypothesis 4. The pre-test and post-test scores of each subscale
(Instructional Strategy, Classroom Management, Student Engagement) were
averaged by summing the scores separately and dividing the total by the number
of subscale items (8-items each) on the questionnaire (OSTES) for male and
female preservice educators. A 2 x 2 (Gender x Pre-test/Post-test) MANOVA
was performed on the averaged total pre-test and post-test subscale scores for
males and female preservice educators to test for signiﬁcant differences.

Hypothesis 5. The total pre-test and post-test scores on general teaching
efﬁcacy were averaged by summing the scores and dividing the total by the
number of general teaching efﬁcacy items (5-items) on the questionnaire (T ES)
for preservice educators. A t-test was performed on the averaged pre-test and
post-test scores to test for signiﬁcant differences.

Hypothesis 6. The total post-test scores on personal efﬁcacy and the total
post-test scores on general teaching efﬁcacy were averaged by summing the
scores and dividing the total by the number of items (5-items each) on the
questionnaire (T ES) for preservice educators. A t-test was performed on the
averaged post-test scores to test for signiﬁcant differences.

Hypothesis 7. The post-test scores of each subscale (Instructional
Strategy, Classroom Management, Student Engagement) were averaged by
summing the scores separately and dividing the total by the number of subscale

items (8-items each) on the questionnaire (OSTES) for preservice educators and

51

cooperating teachers. A one-way MANOVA was performed on the averaged
total scores of each subscale to test for differences.
Qualitative Data Analysis

The qualitative research question was answered by conducting one 30-
minute interview with selected preservice physical educators (n = 17) at the end
of their student teaching experience. Any participant that indicted a willingness
to take part in the interview on their demographic questionnaire was contacted.
Each interview session was recorded and transcribed by the primary researcher.
Participants were initially identiﬁed by the last 4-digits of their social security
number and the ﬁrst letter of their last name. Pseudonyms were later assigned.
All interview responses were organized and analyzed according to the
recommendations of Vaughn, Schumm, and Sinagub (1996). The primary
researcher read the participants’ responses, identiﬁed the “big ideas” and began
to identify dominant categories that emerged. Categories that reﬂected
Bandura’s (1986, 1997) four sources of efﬁcacy were established ﬁrst. Careful
attention was given to ensure that these dominant themes aligned to the
deﬁnitions established by Bandura. Other categories also emerged and
preliminary deﬁnitions were established. Participants’ responses were sorted
and coded individually according to the established categories. Responses were
reviewed several times with careful consideration for categorical deﬁnition and
overlap. Once the primary researcher tentatively categorized all responses, a
three panel group consisting of the primary researcher and two members of the

dissertation committee reviewed each established category and response

52

 

grouping. Modiﬁcations to the categories and response groupings were made
until a unanimous agreement was reached. As a ﬁnal step, the data were
triangulated using the relevant quantitative data from the questionnaires, the
themes from the qualitative interviews, and the scholarly literature concerning
teacher efﬁcacy.

Exploratory Data Analysis

Questions 1 and 2. In order to answer questions one and two, participants
were asked on the STEQ to identify one environmental factor that negatively
impacted their ability to inﬂuence student Ieaming and one teaching task that
they performed most and least efﬁcaciously during their student teaching
experience from a list of eighteen variables. Participants” responses from the
STEQ were coded by the primary researcher. Rank orders, frequencies, and
percentages were obtained by using the SPSS statistical program.

As a ﬁnal consideration, descriptive statistics (means and standard
deviations) and statistical differences were considered on the following
demographic characteristics: school location (urban, suburban, rural), teaching
level (elementary, secondary), perceived difﬁculty of school environment, past
teaching experience, class size, and class structure (co-ed, same-sex classes),
identiﬁcation with cooperating teacher, and perceived value of teacher

preparation program.

53

 

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Quantitative Analysis
The ﬁrst set of analyses was quantitative in nature. Differences in teacher

efﬁcacy were analyzed at the onset and culmination of the student teaching
experience. While the focus of the analyses consisted primarily of the pre-test (0
week) and post-test phases (16 weeks), mid-test (8 weeks) analyses were
conducted when applicable for further exploration.

Hypothesis 1. It was expected that preservice physical educators would have
a higher level of teaching efﬁcacy at the end of their student teaching experience
than at the beginning. Total teaching efﬁcacy was derived from the participants’
responses from the OSTES. Pre-test and post-test means were obtained and
the results from a paired t-test indicated a signiﬁcant increase in total teaching
efﬁcacy supporting the ﬁrst research hypothesis, t(30) = -2.71, p < .05 (see Table
1). It was evident by observing the mean scores that these participants steadily
increased in total teaching efﬁcacy during their 16 weeks of student teaching.
Thus, corollary t-test analyses revealed that there was also a signiﬁcant increase
in total teaching efﬁcacy during the Mid-testhost-test phase,
t(30) = -3.18, p < .01, but no signiﬁcant difference during the Pre-test/ Mid-test

phase, t(30) = -.29, p > .05.

54

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Total Teaching Efficacy

on the O§TE§ (n = 31)

 

Ens M 89
Pre-test (0 Week) 7.193 .70
Mid-test (8 Weeks) 7.22b .58
Post-test n6 Weeks) 7.583” .59

 

a=p<.05;b=p<.o1
Note: OSTES scoring 1 = Nothing/Not At All; 3 = Very Little;

5 = Some Inﬂuence; 7 = Quite. A Bit; 9 = A Great Deal

Hypothesis 2. It was predicted that preservice teachers would have higher post-
test than pre-test teaChing efﬁcacy means on the OSTES subscales of
instructional strategy, classroom management, and student engagement
techniques. Means for each subscale were obtained and a one-way MANOVA
was conducted to test for differences. Surprisingly, the Wilks’ Lambda revealed
that these preservice teachers’ conﬁdence did not signiﬁcantly differ in the
utilization of instructional strategies, classroom management, or student
engagement techniques from the pre-test to post-test phase, F(3, 58) = 2.55, p >
.05. Thus, hypothesis two was not supported. (See means and standard
deviations for pre- and post-test scores in Table 2). It should be noted that
although the results from the multivariate test did not reach the .05 level of

signiﬁcance (p = .064), the between subjects tests indicated that post-test scores

55'

(M = 7.71; SD = .68) in the utilization of instructional strategies was signiﬁcantly

higher than pretest scores (M = 7.23; SD = .80) (p = .013).

Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations for the OSTES Sgbscales 1n = 31)

 

Pre-test Mid-test Post-test
Male; M SD M 8L M SD_
Instruct 7.23 .80 7.2.8 .70 7.71 .68
Class 7.29 .70 7.42a .62 7.57 1.04
@ggge 7.07 .85 6.983 .75 7.31 .66

 

a = p < .05

These results indicated that these preservice teachers apparently felt
particularly conﬁdent in their ability to employ instructional strategies by the
conclusion of their student teaching experience. Further investigation into the
perceived conﬁdence level of instructional strategies would be worthwhile.
Determining a ﬁrmer conclusion about how instructional strategies may change
over time and how this skill improves during the student teaching experience
would be valuable for the preparation of future physical education teachers.

Hypothesis 3: A one-way ANOVA was performed to determine if preservice
physical education teachers by the culmination of their student teaching
internship would perceive themselves less efﬁcacious in classroom management
, (Class) than in the skills of instructional strategies (Instruct) and student

engagement techniques (Engage). Analysis revealed that there were no

56

signiﬁcant differences between the subscales of classroom management,
instructional strategies, and student engagement techniques at the end of the
student teaching experience, F(2, 90) = 1.91, p > .05. Thus, the predicted
hypothesis was refuted. (See Table 2 for means and standard deviations).
Further investigation into the subscales during the mid-testing phase exposed
that these participants felt signiﬁcantly less efﬁcacious in student engagement
techniques (M = 6.98) than in classroom management techniques (M = 7.42),
F(2, 90) = 3.21, p < .05. No signiﬁcant differences were found during the pre-
testing phase, F(2, 90) = .67, p > .05.

Hypothesis 4. It was expected that males would have higher teaching
efﬁcacy levels than females at the end of the student teaching experience.
A 2 (Gender) x 2 (Pre-testhost-test) MANOVA was performed. Wilks’ Lambda
results indicated that there was no signiﬁcant interaction between gender and the
pre-test and post-test phases, F(3, 56) = 1.06, p > .05 (see Table 3). However,
there was a signiﬁcant main effect for gender, F(3, 56) = 3.32, p < .05. The
between subjects test indicated that the subscale instructional strategies reached
the level of signiﬁcance, F(1, 58) = 9.02, p < .01. Female preservice teachers (M
= 7.75; SD = .67) scored signiﬁcantly higher than males (M = 7.22; SD = .78). All
other subscales were not signiﬁcantly different; however teaching efﬁcacy in
classroom management was strongly approaching the signiﬁcance level (p =
.059) with again females (M = 7.66; SD = .61) perceiving themselves to be more
efﬁcacious than males (M = 7.22; SD = 1.06). See Table 4 for means and

standard deviations.

57

Furthermore, an additional signiﬁcant main effect occurred in the pre-
test/post-test phase, F(3, 56) = 2.88, p < .05. The between subjects test
indicated that the subscale instructional strategies reached the level of
signiﬁcance, F(1, 58) = 7.22, p < .01. Results indicated that preservice teachers
felt signiﬁcantly more conﬁdent in utilizing instructional strategies at the end of
their student teaching internship (M = 7.71; SD = .68) than at the beginning (M =
7.23; SD = .80). See Table 5 for means and standard deviations. Thus,

hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Table 3
The MNOVA Interaction, Means and Standard Deviations on the OSTES

Subscales for Gender and Pre-test/Post-test phases

 

Pre-Test Post-Test

Momains M SD M SD
Instructional Strategy

M (n=16) 6.86 .68 7.58 .73

F (n=15) 7.63 .73. 7.86 .62
Student Engagement

M (n=16) 6.86 .88 7.18 .61

F (n=15) 7.29 .79 7.46 .71
Classroom Management

M (n=16) 7.10 .74 7.35 1.32

F (n=15) 7.50 .61 7.8_2__ .58

 

58

Table 4
The MANOVA Main _Effect for 69ml; Means and
Standard Deviations on the OSTES Subscales
S_ubdomains M SD
Instructional Strategy
Males 7.22a .78
Females 7.75a .67

Classroom Management

 

Males 7.22 1.06

Females 7.66 .61
Student Engagement

Males 7.02 .76

Females 7.37 .74
a = p < .01

59

Table 5
For the MANOVA Main Effect for Pre-test and Post-test Phases.
Means and Standard Deviations on the OSTES Subscale
gibdomains M SD
Instructional Strategy

Pretest 7.23a .80

Post-test 7.71 a .68

Classroom Management

 

Pretest 7.29 .70

Post-test 7.57 1 .04
Student Engagement

Pretest 7.07 .85

Post-test 7.31 .66
a = p < .01

Hypothesis 5. The Teaching Efﬁcacy scale was used to assess general
(GTE) and personal teaching efﬁcacy (PTE). It was expected that preservice
physical educators would have a lower sense of GTE at the end of the student
teaching internship. In other words, these participants would feel less conﬁdent
in their ability to help students achieve Ieaming goals if environmental factors
such as family background or societal conditions were negatively impacting their
students’ lives. Mean scores for GTE were averaged for each participant and

divided by the number of GTE items (5-items) on the questionnaire. A t-test

60

revealed that although post-test means (M = 3.69; SD = .72) were lower than
pre-test means (M = 3.84; SD = .76), it did not reach the required level of
signiﬁcance t(30) = 1.16, p > .05. Thus, the stated research hypothesis was not
supported. It should be noted that general teaching efﬁcacy steadily decreased
throughout the student teaching experience for these preservice teachers.
However, analyses conducted on the GTE subscale means revealed no
signiﬁcant differences during the pre-test/mid-test phase or the mid-testlpost-test
phase (see Table 6).

These results on the GTE subscale prompted secondary analyses on the
PTE subscale. The PTE subscale reﬂects the teacher’s sense of personal
responsibility and evaluation of his or her ability to impact student learning and
achievement. T-test analyses showed a signiﬁcant increase in preservice
physical educators” sense of personal responsibility and belief to impact student
Ieaming during the pre-test (M = 2.29; SD = .58) to post-test (M = 1.97; SD = .61)
phase, t(30) = 2.71, p < .05, and from the mid-test (M = 2.34; SD = .66) to post-
test (M = 1.97; SD = .61) phase, t(30) = 3.83, p < .01. It should be noted that a
low score on the PTE subscale denotes a higher sense of personal teaching
efﬁcacy (see Table 6).

Hypothesis 6: It was hypothesized that preservice teachers would have a
signiﬁcantly higher sense of PTE than GTE at the conclusion of their student
teaching experience. When comparing post-test GTE scores (M = 3.69; SD =
.72) to post-test PTE scores (M = 1.97; SD = .61), a t-test analysis revealed that

preservice physical educators maintained a signiﬁcantly higher sense of PTE

61

than GTE, t(30) = 11.28, p < .001 (see Table 6). Thus, the stated research
hypothesis was supported. Additional analyses, paralleled the previous ﬁndings
in which PTE scores were signiﬁcantly higher than GTE scores throughout the
other two phases of the student teaching experience (pre-test = t(30) = 8.25, p <
.001; mid-test = t(30) = 7.59, p < .001). These results indicated that participants
were cognizant of external factors that they felt hindered the Ieaming process for
their students. However, despite these external factors, they remained conﬁdent
about their own personal ability to achieve the desired educational outcomes that

were deemed necessary throughout their student teaching experience.

Table 6

Means and Standard Deviations for the TES subscales PTE and GTE (n = 31)

 

Pre-test Mid-test Post-test
§u_b_s_c_a_les M SD M SD M SD
PTE 2.29a .58 2.34” .66 1.97abc .61
GTE 3.84 .76 8g .74 369° .72

 

a=p<.05;b=p<.01;°=p<.001
Note. TES scoring 1 = Strongly Agree; 6 = Strongly Disagree. Lower score
on PTE signiﬁes a higher sense of personal teaching efﬁcacy. Higher score

on GTE denotes a stronger sense of general teaching efﬁcacy.

62

Hypothesis 7. Finally, it was hypothesized that cooperating teachers would
rate their preservice educators lower in teaching efﬁcacy than the preservice
educators would rate themselves. Cooperating teachers completed the OSTES
survey, in regards to the performance of the student teacher they mentored, at
mid-testing and again at the post-testing phases. The ﬁrst analysis conducted
was a t-test that examined differences in total teaching efﬁcacy scores. As
predicted, cooperating teachers evaluated their preservice physical educators as
signiﬁcantly less efﬁcacious than how the preservice teachers rated themselves,
at both the mid-test and post-test phases, t(17) = 3.10, p < .01; t(12) = 2.76, p <
.05, respectively. (See means and standard deviations in Table 7).

The second analysis conducted explored differences within the OSTES
subscales between the cooperating teachers and preservice teachers. The
Wilks’ Lambda results from the one-way MANOVA revealed signiﬁcant
differences between the cooperating teachers and preservice physical educators
during the mid-testing phase, F(3, 32) = 4.30, p < .05. The between subjects test
revealed that the cooperating teachers rated all three subscales lower than the
preservice teachers conﬁrming the proposed hypothesis (Instructional, F(1, 34) =
8.30, p < .01; Classroom, F(1, 34) = 7.23, p < .05; Engagement, F(1, 34) = 13.70,
p < .01) (see Table 7).

Analysis conducted on the post-test OSTES subscales, revealed similar
conclusions in the perceptions of teaching efﬁcacy between the cooperating
teachers and their student teachers. The Wilks’ Lambda results from the one-

way MANOVA revealed a signiﬁcant difference between the two groups of

63

teachers, F(3, 22) = 3.70, p < .05. The between subjects test indicated a
signiﬁcant difference in the subscales for instructional strategies, F(1, 24) = 8.27,
p < .01, and student engagement techniques, F(1, 24) = 10.62, p < .01, but no
signiﬁcant difference was found in classroom management techniques, F(1,24) =

1.53, p > .05 (see Table 7).

64

Table 7

Means and Standard Deviations for Cooperating Teachers aknd Preservice

 

 

T_eachers on the OSTES
Mid-test (8 Weeks) Post-test (16 Weeks)
n = 36 n = 26
ﬁaﬁicipants M SD M SD
OSTES
PreTeach 7.183 .60 7.41 e .58
CoopTeach 6.19a 1 .08 6.296 1 .18
OSTES Subdomains
Instruct
PreTeach 7.24b .74 7.83f .64
CoopTeach 8.40b .99 6.53f 1.22
Class
PreTeach 736° .66 7.12 1 .42
CoopTeach 634° 1 .46 6.42 1 .46
Engage
PreTeach 6.96“ .74 7.209 .66
CoooTeach 5.85d 1.04 5.929 1.26

 

a=p<.01;b=p<.01;°=p<.05;d=p<.01;°=p<.05;'=p<.01;
9=p<.01

Note: Preservice PE teacher (PreTeach); Cooperating Teacher (CoopTeach)

65

Qualitative Analysis

The second set of analyses was qualitative in nature. Structured
interviews were conducted at the end of the student teaching internship to
investigate the identiﬁed sources that preservice teachers felt contributed to their
levels of teaching efﬁcacy in the areas of instructional strategies, classroom
management, and student engagement (see Appendix J for interview transcript).
Twenty-two subjects indicated on their demographic questionnaire a willingness
to participate in the structured interviews. Seventeen subjects were contacted by
phone and participated in the interviews. Five subjects could not be reached to
participate in the interviews despite several phone call attempts and follow-up
messages. Transcribing of the interviews and coding were completed by the
primary researcher. Pseudonyms were used to preserve conﬁdentiality of the
participants. Qualitative data analysis was conducted according to the
recommendations of Vaughn, Schumm, and Sinagub (1996): (a) identify big
ideas, (b) unitize the data, (c) categorize the data, (d) negotiate categories, and
(e) triangulate the data. Major categories that reﬂected Bandura’s (1986, 1997)
four sources of efﬁcacy were established ﬁrst. Careful attention was given to
ensure that these dominant themes aligned to the deﬁnitions established by
Bandura. Additional dominant themes that emerged through the analyses of the
interview transcription were also established and deﬁned.
Teaching Efﬁcacy Sources

Instructional Strategies. From the seventeen interviews conducted, twenty

responses were related to sources that contributed to high levels of teaching

66

efﬁcacy in instructional strategies. Five major themes emerged: (a) Mastery
experience, (b) Vicarious experience, (c) Social persuasion, (d) Educational
knowledge, and (e) Integration of sources. See Table 8 (page 71) for a detailed
description of major and minor sources, frequencies, and percentages. The
themes mastery experience, vicarious experience, and social persuasion were
major sources that Bandura (1986, 1997) clearly identiﬁed in the literature as
common contributors to efﬁcacy. In this population, twenty-ﬁve percent of the
preservice teachers expressed that their sense of efﬁcacy was due to their past
experiences through venues such as their college courses that involved writing
lesson plans and organizing classes, as well as experiences during their student
teaching internship where they actually performed many of these skills. LeAnn
expressed her experience in this manner.

Well I’m pretty good at writing lessons and I had a lot of practice in college

and during my intern, so I feel pretty conﬁdent that I can do a good job

with it. (Mastery Experience)
Tiffany stated,

The more I taught (during my student teaching), the easier it became and

the less stressful it became. (Mastery Experience)
Past athletic experiences also seemed to play a role in boosting conﬁdence for
these participants. Ronald attributed his conﬁdence to past experience in
athletics. A

Just overall throughout the years, I’ve always played sports. My

conﬁdence is just very high with teaching sport skills. I can pick up a ball

67

and do whatever I want with it. It has always been that way. It doesn’t
matter if it is a new skill or not, I’m just good at playing sports. I can play
baseball and play golf all in the same day and be great at it. (Mastery

Expenence)

Both vicarious experiences and social persuasion were equal contributors
to teaching efﬁcacy in the area of instructional strategies, accounting for 5
percent of the responses. The cooperating teacher was identiﬁed as the main
ﬁgure that served as a role-model or gave feedback to these preservice teachers.
Nathan and Daniel expressed these feelings toward their cooperating teachers.

(Nathan) Well, I was with a mentor teacher that had great instructional

strategies and when I taught her class, I would do the same thing she

did because it worked well. (Vicarious Experience)

(Daniel) Well, I just had an exceptional cooperating teacher. And he
helped me become the conﬁdent person that I am now in teaching,
because he would give me the feedback I needed to become a more

effective teacher in terms of instructional strategies. (Social persuasion)

Two additional major themes emerged as contributing sources for
teaching efﬁcacy in the area of instructional strategies: (a) Educational
knowledge and (b) Integration of sources. Educational knowledge made up ten

percent of the responses. It was deﬁned as possessing an academic knowledge

68

base that is required in one’s professional teaching area. Participants felt that
having a ﬁrm knowledge base in sports and physical education concepts
contributed to high levels of teaching efﬁcacy inthe use of instructional
strategies. Here are two examples that illustrate the impact of this source.
(Marie) I think it was my general knowledge of the school physical
education curriculum. It is also about educating yourself on what you’re
teaching. And deﬁnitely the classes I took at my college helped me
develop lesson plans and a unit. But I really think it is about educating
yourself. The more you know the easier it gets and the more conﬁdence

you have. (Educational Knowledge)

(Keshia) Well it started with the background from the classes I’ve had.
And then in the ﬁrst couple of weeks (of student teaching) just getting a
feel of what the students already knew and where I needed to take them
from there. So being able to answer their questions really helped me feel

conﬁdent. (Educational Knowledge)

The ﬁnal theme that emerged was integration of sources which was
deﬁned as a fusion of several major sources that contributed to one’s sense of
teaching efﬁcacy in utilizing instructional strategies. Fifty-ﬁve percent of the
responses given indicated that there were many factors that contributed to the
preservice teachers’ sense of teaching efﬁcacy in this area. There were multiple

sources identiﬁed. The major theme was mastery experience (n = 11)which was

69

the most prevalent source that contributed to teaching efﬁcacy in the utilization of
instructional strategies. This was followed by educational knowledge (n = 9),
vicarious experience (n = 2), and social persuasion (n = 2). Mitch indicated how
he acquired his level of conﬁdence in the area of instructional strategies by
stating,
My college did a lot of work on lesson plans and organizing your classes.
So that was a big contribution. But my mentor teacher was also a big help
in re-structuring my lessons because there was always something that I
would forget or just didn’t think about. (Mastery Experiencel Educational
Knowledge/ Social Persuasion)
Leslie expressed her feelings in this manner.
Like writing lessons plans, I Ieamed deﬁnitely in my college classes.
When we ﬁrst started doing them, I thought it was stupid. It took me like 4
hours to write a 7 page lesson plan. I was like this is just dumb. The last
lesson plan I did took no time because I actually knew what I was doing. It
is like smashed in your head because you had to do it everyday. So like
in our classes they were constantly preparing us. (Mastery Experiencel
Educational Knowledge)
And ﬁnally, Mona indicated that,
(I gained conﬁdence).....with practice and observing the cooperating
teacher and how they structured their lesson plans. (Mastery Experiencel

Vicarious Experience)

70

Table 8

Major and Minor Sources, Frequencies, and Percentages for Instructional

Strategies

 

Major Sources and Frequency

Minor Sources

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Teaching Internship
0 Educational Knowledge (n = 9)

Speciﬁc College Courses

Academic Program

0 Vicarious Experience (n = 2)
Cooperating Teacher

0 Social Persuasion (n = 2)

Cooperating Teacher

 

(N = 20)
Mastery Experience (n = 5) Student Teaching lntemship 25%
Athletic Experience
Speciﬁc College Course(s)
Vicarious Experience (n = 1) Cooperating Teacher 5%
Social Persuasion (n = 1) Cooperating Teacher 5%
Educational Knowledge (n = 2) Speciﬁc College Course(s) 10%
Academic Program
General Education Knowledge
Self Education
Ability to answer questions correctly
Integration of Sources '(N = 11) o Mastery Experience (n = 11) 55%

 

71

 

Classroom Management. Twenty-four responses were related to sources
that contributed to high levels of teaching efﬁcacy in the area of utilizing
classroom management techniques. Three major themes emerged: (a) Mastery
experience, (b) Vicarious experience, and (0) Integration of sources. See Table
9 (page 75) for a detailed description of major and minor sources, frequencies,
and percentages. Forty-two percent of the preservice teachers expressed that
their sense of efﬁcacy was due to their past experiences, primarily through
venues such as their college courses, student teaching experience,
work/volunteer experiences, coaching, and substitute teaching. These
experiences apparently allowed these preservice teachers to feel that they could
control and manage groups of students during their internship with success.
These responses from Marie, Frederick, and Kevin were common among many
of the participants that were interviewed.

(Marie) Because I have been a substitute teacher (I have conﬁdence).

And a lot of the conﬁdence and skills I’ve used that have worked for me I

was able to use them for my student teaching. I have had students listen

to me before and I didn’t have problems. I’ve taught all theway up to 12th

grade already. (Mastery Experience)

(Fredrick) I started out in my student teaching at the lower end, but by the
end I felt I got much more conﬁdent. I’m conﬁdent in front of the students.
I was able to respond more appropriately to students that misbehaved. I

would put them in the hallway for a few minutes and have a little talk with

72

them. Just being able to use different classroom management strategies,
I feel much more conﬁdent now. I deﬁnitely have more strategies now

than what I started out with. (Mastery Experience)

(Kevin) I would say just from teaching. You learn a lot from trial and error.
I may have done something and it didn’t work very well and I would use

that for the next (class) to improve upon it. (Mastery Experience)

Vicarious experience accounted for twelve percent of the responses. The
cooperating teacher and other signiﬁcant teachers were key ﬁgures in role-
modeling successful classroom management techniques that these preservice
teachers emulated. Ronald indicated that,

I have had great teachers to follow and I have Ieamed from them what to

do and what not to do. And obviously, I screwed up a lot. (Vicarious

Expenence)

And Mitch stated,

Mainly because I observed my cooperating teacher and how they had set

up things and I just continued with what they were doing. Most of the time

the students understood there was a clear punishment for misbehaving,

so it worked out well. (Vicarious Experience)

Finally, integration of sources again proved to be the most prevalent
source contributing to teacher efﬁcacy in the area of classroom management

techniques. It accounted for forty-six percent of the responses. The multiple

73

sources that were identiﬁed under this major theme were educational knowledge
(n = 9), mastery experience (n = 6), vicarious experience (n = 5), social
persuasion (n = 2), and personal confidence (n = 1). Personal conﬁdence which
was a new emerging theme was deﬁned as possessing a high level of self-
esteem in general, without making any reference to outside sources other than
oneself. Daniel expressed his conﬁdence in this manner.
Well, I’m always a pretty conﬁdent guy, so I was fairly conﬁdent going in
and just utilizing the skills that l Ieamed in college. I think that just helped
a ton. (High Self Conﬁdence/ Educational Knowledge)
Mitch attributed his level of conﬁdence to his cooperating teacher and
experiences. He stated,
(I gained conﬁdence) Mostly from watching my mentor teach, and then
trying it for myself. The more I was in the classroom, the better I got with
managing the kids. (Vicarious Experience/Mastery Experience)
Whereas, Keshia identiﬁed with the feedback from her students and her
educational knowledge base as the main sources for her conﬁdence level in
classroom management. She indicated,
Just realizing that students were respecting me and respecting what I was
doing with the class. That just boosted my conﬁdence and then having
other people compliment you on what you are doing really helped.
Classes that I had (in college) where they talked to us about different ways
to keep kids active and to group kids to keep them active and to basically

keep them moving helped. (Social Persuasionl Educational Knowledge)

74

Table 9

Major and Minor Sources, Frequencies, and Percentages for Classroom

 

 

 

Management

Major Sources and Frequency Minor Sources %

(N = 24)

Mastery Experience (n = 10) Past Work/Volunteer Experience 42%
Student Teaching lntemship
Substitute Teaching
Coaching

Vicarious Experience (n = 3) Cooperating Teacher 12%
Other Teachers

 

Integration of Sources (N = 11) o Educational Knowledge (n = 9) 46%

Speciﬁc College Courses
‘ Academic Program

- Mastery Experience (n = 6)
Student Teaching Internship
Parental Experience
Speciﬁc College Courses

0 Vicarious Experience (n = 5)
Cooperating Teacher

Other Teachers
0 Social Persuasion (n = 2)

Cooperating Teacher

Students

o Personal Conﬁdence (n = 1)

 

 

 

 

 

75

Student Engagement. Finally, twenty-one responses were related to
sources that contributed to levels of teaching efﬁcacy in student engagement
techniques. Four major themes were identiﬁed: (a) Mastery experience; (b)
Vicarious experience; and (c) Personal and social identiﬁcation; and d)
Integration of sources. See Table 10 (page 81) for a detailed description of
major and minor sources, frequencies, and percentages. Thirty-eight percent of
the preservice teachers expressed that their sense of efﬁcacy was due to past
experiences through venues such as working or volunteering with children, taking
college courses that provided hands-on practice, athletic participation, and their
student teaching internship. Many of the participants expressed that these
experiences gave them the conﬁdence and practice that was needed to motivate
students effectively. Here are three responses from Mitch, Ronald, and Daniel
that speciﬁcally addressed mastery experience through athletic participation.
Responses that emphasized the positive impact of athletics echoed throughout
many of the interviews:

(Mitch) Well, I played lots of sports and I know that you have to pump

people up because you could be tired or your mood could be bad so just a

little encouragement can make a difference. (Mastery Experience)

(Ronald) I think being an athlete (is how I acquired my conﬁdence). I ran
cross country and track for college and also was captain in high school
and being the best athlete in high school and then moving to college, I
wasn’t the best, but realizing what it takes to succeed rather than just

getting by on just talent. Dealing with athletes at such a high level, you

76

have to have conﬁdence (with kids). And that just translates over in life

and in what you do. (Mastery Experience)

(Daniel) Well, through coaching that is all you do. You are a motivator.
And I have been coaching since I was a junior in high school so I have
had a lot of practice at that. My sport is football, track, and basketball and
l coach all three. And in terms of looking at my students at the beginning
of my tenure (student teaching), they were not exactly excited about
physical education but once my student teaching was done these kids
would come up to me in the building and say, “Man, Mr. ****, I just played
basketball for fun last night because you taught me how to do it. (Mastery

Expenence)

Personal and social identiﬁcation and vicarious experience accounted for
nine percent and ﬁve percent of the responses respectively. Personal and social
identiﬁcation was a new emerging theme. It was deﬁned as one’s attitudes
toward sports, athletics, and physical education which could involve their
personality or socialization into sports. Chante explains how her love of physical
education is the main source for her level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement techniques.

I’m just a very energetic person. I have always loved physical education,

so I just naturally try to encourage people to get involved and I try to help

them like the different games and sports that l was teaching them.

(Personal and Social ID)

77

Angela expressed her level of conﬁdence in a similar fashion.
Because I know just how important it is. And I tried to get that across to
them. So because I know the importance of it, I would try to get them to

do it. So it was really my own personal interest. (Personal and Social ID)

Vicarious experience for one participant in this study was actually a
negative contributor to his sense of efﬁcacy in utilizing student engagement
techniques. The actions of Frederick’s cooperating teacher and other staff at his
student teaching location were apparently not what he wanted to role model as a
future professional. He rated himself as “fair" In regards to his ability to engage
his students. He consistently spoke about the difﬁculties he faced.

l was in middle school and it is kind of hard. A third of the students don’t

really want to be there, they don’t really care because it’s physical

education and that kind of thing. So, I think I need to do a better job trying
to relate to middle school students in the aspect of physical education.
Frederick further responds to how he acquired his level of conﬁdence by stating,

It didn’t come from my cooperating teacher that much. I don’t think I’m

that good at motivating people speciﬁcally for physical education, more

generally. I think some of the strategies I lack are motivation. It was the
most difﬁcult for me. Trying to think why this sport or activity is really
important. And how do you explain that to someone who wants to just sit
in the corner and read a book all day ......... I didn’t think the (PE) staff was
very strong. They were kind of the “throw-the-baIl-out” kind of program

and watch the kids play. (Vicarious experience)

78

Although this particular participant viewed the actions of his cooperating
teacher as negative in regards to utilizing student engagement techniques, this
illustrates that role models such as cooperating teachers are still significant
inﬂuences on one’s conﬁdence whether it is a positive or negative effect.

Finally, like the previous ﬁndings in this study, integration of sources
proved to be the most prevalent source for these participants. It accounted for
forty-eight percent of the responses. The multiple sources that emerged were
mastery experience (n = 6), educational knowledge (n = 4), vicarious experience
(n = 4), social persuasion (n = 2), and personal and social identiﬁcation (n = 1).
Marie attributed her level of conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement
techniques to her work experience and education. She expressed,

I’m a personal trainer and I know many ways to build a person’s

conﬁdence. I like to incorporate as much one-on-one in the classroom. It

is also the experience I have had. I know if a student can’t do one activity,
there is something else I can give him to do instead. And also research
and education are so important. (Mastery Experiencel Educational

Knowledge)

Jeremy echoed a similar response in regards to the impact past experience and
educational knowledge had in heightening his level of conﬁdence.
It developed through the college classes I took and through student
teaching. Going out there and ﬁnding out what works and what doesn’t

work. The university classes give you a lot of good ideas. What you ﬁnd

79

is that some of them work and some of them don’t. (Educational

Knowledge/ Mastery Experience)

Kevin also attributes his level of conﬁdence to mastery experience and
educational knowledge, but in addition he felt that his personality was equally
important. He states,

I guess I would say from my personality. I’m a playful guy and I always

want to have a good time and then I just Ieamed different ways to re-

enforce kids by coaching and through college classes and even through
student teaching. (Personal and Social Identiﬁcation/ Educational

Knowledge/ Mastery Experience)

And ﬁnally, LeAnn expresses how the impact of her athletic experience
and her cooperating teacher helped build her conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement techniques.

I would say from my own background in sport and competing in sport. I

love it. So I just come in to the classroom trying to share my value for

physical activity and try to encourage them to get involved. My mentor
was also a good example because there was not one day that I didn’t see
enthusiasm or energy when he taught a Iesson.......l think you have to
motivate the kids and my cooperating teacher would be very enthusiastic
and would say I needed to encourage the kids if you want to get them
involved. I had no problem doing that. (Mastery Experiencel Vicarious

Experience/Social Persuasion)

8O

Table 10

Major and Minor Sources, Frequencies, and Percentages for Student

 

 

 

 

 

Engagement
Major Sources and Frequency Minor Sources %
(N = 21)
Mastery Experience (n = 8) Past Work/ Volunteer Experience 38%
Student Teaching lntemship
Athletic Experience
Speciﬁc College Course(s)
Vicarious Experience (n = 1) Cooperating Teacher 5%
(Negative) Other Teachers
Personal and Social Personality 9%
Identiﬁcation (n = 2) Love of Athletics and Sports
Integration of Sources (N = 10) o Mastery Experience (n = 6) 48%

Past Work/ Volunteer Experience
Student Teaching Internship

Speciﬁc College Courses

0 Educational Knowledge (n = 4)
Speciﬁc College Courses

0 Vicarious Experience (n = 4)
Cooperating Teacher

0 Social Persuasion (n = 2)
Cooperating Teacher

0 Personal 8 Social ID (n = 1)
Personality

Love of athletics and sports

 

 

 

 

 

81

Exploratory Analysis

The ﬁnal set of analyses was conducted on two exploratory questions.
The ﬁrst question inquired about environmental factors that preservice teachers
felt impacted student Ieaming within their school setting. The second question
focused on teaching tasks the preservice teachers felt most and least efﬁcacious
performing during their student teaching experience. Means and standard
deviations were obtained from participants’ responses that were Likert scale
items. Qualitative responses were organized and coded by the primary
researcher. Rank order, frequencies, and percentages were obtained by using
the SPSS statistical program.

Participants were asked the extent that environmental factors beyond their
control negatively inﬂuenced their conﬁdence to impact student Ieaming during
their student teaching experience. The majority of this sample’s conﬁdence
remained very high throughout their 16 weeks of student teaching, and even
showed signs of a slight decrease in concern that their conﬁdence would be
negatively effected by environmental factors (MMidotest = 2.32, SD = 1.22; Mposuest
= 2.29, SD = 1.16).

When participants were asked, “which environmental factors negatively
impacted student Ieaming the most during their student teaching internship?”
These preservice physical educators consistently indicated that large class sizes
(Mid-test, 32%; Post-test, 12.9%), students’ home issues (Mid-test, 25.8%; Post-
test, 12.9%), and unmotivated students (Mid-test, 16.1%; Post-test, 16.1%) had

the most profound impact in their learning environment. See Table 11 for

82

complete details. Additional factors that also ranked as high concerns for these
preservice teachers at the conclusion of their student teaching were inadequate
school equipment (9.7%), class discipline (6.5%), teaching to individual
differences such as variations in learning and skill levels (6.5%), and “Other”
(12.9%).

Four participants responded to the survey choice “Other" with various
descriptions illustrating their speciﬁc situation. The descriptions that the
participants gave fell under two categories that were established by the primary
researcher: (a) school attendance issues and (b) classroom teacher issues.
Attendance issues were factors such as open campus attendance policies and
tmancy in physical education classes. Whereas, classroom teacher issues
consisted of teachers pulling students out of physical education class to ﬁnish
academic work or for tutoring purposes as well as teachers using the
gymnasiums for non-physical education related activities. One preservice
teacher stated on the survey,

“T he gym is like a revolving door for some of the teachers in this school.

They don’t respect the time that I need (to teach) and it breaks the

consistency that I’m trying to establish in my class.”

Another preservice teacher made this comment about attendance issues.

“I don’t think the open campus attendance policy helps students that are

not already disciplined about going to class. They are late and some

(students) don’t come back for class, especially PE.”

83

Table 11

Rank Order, Frequencies, and Percentages of Environmental Factors That

Negatively Impacts Student Learning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teaching Tasks Rank Freq % Teaching Tasks Rank Freq %
Mid-test (n = 31) Order Post-test (n = 29) Order
Large Class Sizes 1 10 32.3 Unmotivated Students 1 5 16.1
Home Issues 2 8 25.8 Home Issues 2 4 12.9
Unmotivated Students 3 5 16.1 Large Class Sizes 2 4 12.9
Inadequate Facility/ Other: Attendance and
space 4 3 9.7 Classroom Teacher
Issues ' 2 4 12.9
Class Discipline 5 2 6.5 Inadequate Equipment!
Supplies 3 3 9.7
Individual Differences Individual Differences
(Learning abilities/Skill (Learning abilities/Skill
Levels) 6 1 3.2 Levels) 4 2 6.5
Parental Issues 6 1 3.2 Class Discipline 4 2 6.5
Lack of Teaching Inadequate Facility/
Independence 6 1 3.2 Space 5 1 3.2
Heavy Teaching Loads 5 1 3.2
Lack of Teaching
Independence 5 1 3.2
Work With Non-English
Speaking Students 5 1 3.2
Relationship With Coop.
Teacher 5 1 3.2

 

 

84

The second exploratory question asked preservice teachers which
teaching tasks they felt most and least conﬁdent in performing during their
student teaching experience. The results indicated that motivating students (Mid-
test, 22.6%; Post-test, 16.1%) and maintaining classroom discipline (Mid-test,
16.1%; Post-test, 22.6%) were consistently ranked in the top three positions as
tasks they felt most conﬁdent in performing throughout the 16 weeks of student
teaching. Other teaching tasks that the participants indicated that they had a ﬁrm
handle in performing at the conclusion of their student teaching experience were
planning and organizing lessons (19.4%), understanding the physical education
content for themselves (9.7%), and having the ability to explain the physical
education content to their students with disabilities (6.5%) (see Table 12).

Tasks that preservice teachers indicated that they were least efﬁcacious in
performing during the 16 weeks of student teaching were working with non-
English speaking students (Mid-test, 32.3%; Post-test, 25.8%), and relating with
parents (Mid-test, 25.8%; Post-test, 32.3%). These tasks were consistently
ranked in the top two positions as tasks they had difﬁculty performing. Other
teaching tasks that were still challenging for these preservice teachers at the
conclusion of their internship were balancing heavy workloads (12.9%),
assessing students’ work (6.5%), and working with students with disabilities

(6.5%) (see Table 13).

85

Table 12

Rank Order, Frequencies, and Percentages of Teaching Tasks That Preservice

Teachers Felt Most Efﬁcacious Performing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teaching Tasks Rank Freq % Teaching Tasks Rank Freq %
Mid-test (n = 31) Order Post-test (n = 31) Order
Motivating Students 1 7 22.6 Maintaining Class
Discipline 1 7 22.6
Understand Subject Planning/Organize
Content For Self 2 6 19.4 Lessons 2 6 19.4
Explain Subject Content Motivating Students 3 5 16.1
To Students 2 6 19.4
Maintaining Class Understand PE Content
Discipline 3 5 16.1 For Self 4 3 9.7
Work With kid(s) Different Work With Disabled
Race 4 4 12.9 Students 5 2 6.5
Planning! organize Work With Kid(s)
lessons 5 2 6.5 Different Race 5 2 6.5
Dealing With Speciﬁc Able To Explain PE
Problems Of Individual Content To Students '5 2 6.5
Learners 6 1 3.2
Determine Learning
Levels of Students 6 1 3.2
Relate With School
Colleagues 6 1 3.2
Provide Lessons Based
on Individual
Differences 6 1 3.2
Heavy Work Load 6 1 3.2

 

 

86

Table 13

Rank Order, Frequencies, and Percentages of Teaching Tasks That Preservice

Teachers Felt Least Efﬁcacious Performing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teaching Tasks Rank Freq % Teaching Tasks Rank Freq %
Mid-test (n = 31) Order Post-test (n = 31) Order
Work With Non-English Relating With Parents 1 10 32.3
Speaking Student 1 10 32.3
Relating With Parents 2 8 25.8 Work With Non-

English Speaking

Students 2 8 25.8
Work With Disabled Heavy Work Load 3 4 12.9
Students 3 4 12.9
Provide Lessons Based Assessing Student
on Individual Learning Work 4 2 6.5
Levels 4 2 6.5
Using Different Teach Work With Disabled
Methods 4 2 6.5 Students 4 2 6.5
Maintaining Class Maintaining Class
Discipline 5 1 3.2 Discipline 5 1 3.2
Assessing Student Work 5 1 3.2 Determine Learning

Levels of Students 5 1 3.2
Motivating Students 5 1 3.2 Planning/Organize

Lessons 5 1 3.2
Plan/Organize Lessons 5 1 3.2 Using Different Teach

Methods 5 1 3.2
Heavy Teaching Load 5 1 3.2 Provide Lessons

Based on Individual

Differences 5 1 3.2

 

 

87

In addition, statistical differences were considered for the following
demographic characteristics and its effect on levels of teaching efﬁcacy: (a)
school location (urban, suburban, rural), (b) teaching levels (elementary,
secondary), (c) perceived difﬁculty of school environment, (d) past teaching
experience, (e) class size, (f) class structure (co-ed, same-sex classes), (9)
identiﬁcation with cooperating teacher, and (h) perceived value of teacher
preparation program. No signiﬁcant differences were found at the conclusion of
student teaching regarding teacher efﬁcacy and the variables school location
(urban, suburban, rural), F(2,28) = .788, p > .05 and teaching levels (elementary,
secondary), t(29) = -.30, p > .05. All other demographic variables did not have
sufﬁcient variation in participant responses to conduct meaningful statistical
analyses.

Summary

At the conclusion of the student teaching experience, preservice physical
educators were more conﬁdent in their overall teaching ability than when they
began their internship. -T-test analyses revealed that post-test total teaching
efﬁcacy scores were signiﬁcantly higher than pre-test total teaching efﬁcacy
scores on the OSTES. Signiﬁcant differences in total teaching efﬁcacy scores
were also evident during the mid-testing to post-testing phase. However, these
preservice teachers did not speciﬁcally show an increase in conﬁdence on the
three subscales of instructional strategies, classroom management, and student
engagement techniques from the pre-testing to post-testing phase. MANOVA

analysis revealed that post-test teaching efﬁcacy scores on the three subscales

88

did not reach a level of significance which refuted the study’s hypothesis.
Furthermore, it was predicted that at the conclusion of the student teaching
internship, preservice physical educators would feel less efﬁcacious in utilizing
classroom management techniques than implementing the skills of instructional
strategies and student engagement techniques with their students. ANOVA
analyses revealed no signiﬁcant differences in conﬁdence between the subscales
at the end of the student teaching internship. However, corollary analyses
revealed that during the mid-testing phase, these preservice teachers felt
signiﬁcantly less efﬁcacious in utilizing student engagement techniques than
classroom management techniques with their students. These results did not
support the study‘s proposed hypothesis.

It was also predicted that male preservice teachers would possess higher
levels of conﬁdence at the end of their student teaching internship in instructional
strategies, classroom management, and student engagement techniques than
female preservice teachers. Analyses revealed no signiﬁcant interaction
between gender and pre-testlpost-test phases with the three subscales.
However, there was a gender main effect that revealed that females actually
tested signiﬁcantly higher than males in the area of instructional strategies. It
should also be noted that the subscale of classroom management was
approaching the desired level of signiﬁcance (p = .059) with again female
preservice teachers possessing higher levels of conﬁdence. There was also
another signiﬁcant main effect in the pre-testlpost-test phase. Results indicated

that post-test scores were signiﬁcantly higher than pre-test scores on the

89

subscale of instructional strategies. These results did not support the proposed
hypothesis.

General and personal teaching efﬁcacies were also assessed in this
study. It was predicted that at the conclusion of the student teaching lntemship,
preservice physical educators would have a lower sense of general teaching
efﬁcacy. T-test analysis revealed that although the post-test means were lower
at the conclusion of the student teaching internship, it did not reach a level of
signiﬁcance. In other words, these preservice teachers remained positive in their
ability to impact student Ieaming despite negative external challenges or
difﬁculties that may impede the Ieaming process. Thus, the study’s hypothesis
was refuted. It was also predicted that at the end of the student teaching '
lntemship, preservice physical educators would possess a higher sense of
personal teaching efﬁcacy than general teaching efﬁcacy. T-test analysis
conﬁrmed the study’s hypothesis revealing that preservice teachers felt more
conﬁdent in their own personal abilities to impact student Ieaming than the
abilities of teachers in general when faced with negative environmental factors.

Finally, it was predicted that the cooperating teachers would rate their
preservice teachers lower in teaching efﬁcacy than the preservice teachers would
rate themselves. T-test analyses revealed that at both mid-test and post-test
phases, the cooperating teachers felt that their preservice educators were less
efﬁcacious in total teaching efﬁcacy than the preservice physical educators rated
themselves. MANOVA analyses revealed that cooperating teachers rated all

three subscales lower than the preservice teachers during the mid-testing phase.

90

During the post-testing phase, cooperating teachers rated preservice teachers
lower on the subscales instructional strategies and student engagement, but not
classroom management. These ﬁndings supported the study/s proposed
hypothesis.

Qualitative analyses revealed multiple sources that contributed to these
preservice teachers’ levels of teaching conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies, classroom management skills, and student engagement techniques.
Bandura’s (1997) sources of mastery experience, vicarious experience, and
social persuasion emerged as major contributors to these preservice teachers’
sense of teaching efﬁcacy. Educational knowledge and personal and social
identiﬁcation were additional sources that emerged as major contributors.
Overall, the sources that emerged that inﬂuenced these preservice teachers did
not act independently. Analyses revealed that it was more of an integration of
these identiﬁed sources acting together that made the most profound impact on
these preservice teachers’ sense of teaching efﬁcacy.

Finally, exploratory analyses revealed that large class sizes, students’
home issues, and unmotivated students were the most pertinent factors that
negatively impacted student Ieaming during the student teaching experience for
these preservice teachers. During the mid-testing phase, these preservice
teachers indicated that they felt most efﬁcacious in motivating students,
understanding the content area for themselves, explaining the content area to
their students, and maintaining class control. They felt least efﬁcacious in

working with non-English speaking students, relating to parents, and working with

91

disabled students. During the post-testing phase, these preservice teachers
Indicated that they felt most efﬁcacious in maintaining class control, planning and
organizing lessons, and motivating students. They felt least efﬁcacious in
relating to parents, working with non-English speaking students, and managing
their heavy workload. This study’s ﬁndings are quite insightful and it signiﬁcantly
contributes to the current literature in teaching efﬁcacy. The following section will
discuss the potential impact of these research ﬁndings as it relates to teacher

education programs and the preparation of preservice teachers.

92

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Herbert, Lee, and Williamson (1998) expressed that what is generally
lacking in the teaching efﬁcacy literature today are the voices of the teachers,
their perspectives, explanations for efﬁcacy beliefs, and the factors they
perceived to impact their own sense of teaching effectiveness. This section is
dedicated to giving voice to the participants in this study by illustrating their
responses through the triangulation of the data (surveys, interviews, and
literature). In addition, the potential impact of these research ﬁndings will be
discussed as it relates to teacher education programs and the future preparation
of preservice teachers.
Teaching Efﬁcacy and the Student Teaching Experience

One of the purposes of this study was to examine preservice physical
educators’ teaching efﬁcacy levels during their student teaching experience. As
expected, the preservice physical educators in this study showed an increase in
levels of teaching efﬁcacy over the 16 weeks of their student teaching internship.
The more experience the preservice teachers received during their student
teaching lntemship, the higher their sense of teaching efﬁcacy. This was evident
In regards to the preservice physical educators’ mean scores throughout their
student teaching experience, (Mprte = 7.19; Mmid = 7.22; Mpost = 7.58). In addition,
participants stated that they felt more conﬁdent in their teaching abilities as the
student teaching experience progressed. Frederick stated,

I started out in my student teaching at the lower end, but by the end (of

93

student teaching) I felt I got much more conﬁdent. I’m conﬁdent in front of
the students. I was able to respond more appropriately to students that
misbehaved. I would put them in the hallway for a few minutes and have
a little talk with them. Just being able to use different classroom
management strategies, I feel much more conﬁdent now. I deﬁnitely have

more strategies now than what I started out.

These results seem plausible because the more practice opportunities
teachers have, the more likely they will perfect their teaching skills, thus, increase
their sense of teaching efﬁcacy. During the 16 weeks of student teaching,
preservice teachers often receive valuable feedback from their cooperating
teachers in regards to different ways they can improve their performance.
Preservice teachers have the valuable opportunity to observe the correct
methods and techniques for performing various teaching skills effectively from
their cooperative teachers. By the conclusion of the student teaching internship,
preservice teachers tend to feel more proﬁcient in their abilities to maneuver
within their teaching environment. For example, the participants in this study
often expressed starting out in their student teaching lntemship with a bit of
anxiety and doubt. However, by the completion of their student teaching
lntemship they expressed feelings of conﬁdence in performing various teaching
tasks with proﬁciency. Jeremey stated the following remarks about his growth in
conﬁdence in utilizing classroom management techniques.

I didn’t have a lot of conﬁdence. I didn’t have tons of it. But after I got into

94

it, I realized I did know what I was doing, so my conﬁdence was pretty
high. I was more nervous about the younger kids because I didn’t have
much experience working with them. But once I got into it, I realized I was
prepared for it.
Leslie stated her growth in conﬁdence in regards to classroom management
techniques in this manner.

In the very beginning, it was low just because I was scared because I

really didn’t know what I was doing. But as it went along, it just kept

getting higher and higher.
In response to these results, teacher education programs need to continue to
provide as much real-life practice time that focuses on various aspects of
teaching. It was evident with this study’s preservice teachers that the more
practice they received, the more confident they became.

This study hypothesized that the preservice teachers would score higher
on the OSTES subscales of instructional strategies, classroom management, and
student engagement techniques at the conclusion of their student teaching
experience. Interestingly, there were no signiﬁcant differences in levels of
teaching efﬁcacy on the OSTES subscales from the pre-testing to post-testing
phase. One possible cause for the lack of signiﬁcant increase in these teaching
areas is that the participants could have experienced a “ceiling effect.” These
participants began their student teaching experience relatively high in each
teaching area of instructional strategies (Mpre = 7.23; SD = .80), classroom

management (Mpre = 7.29; SD = .70), and student engagement techniques (Mpre

95

= 7.07; SD = .85). Therefore, observing signiﬁcant levels in teaching conﬁdence
in these three teaching skills could have been weakened simply because the
participants already possessed high levels of teaching efﬁcacy at the onset of the
study. Future research could explore this issue further by using a longer testing
duration than the 16 weeks employed by this study.

Another possible cause for the lack of signiﬁcant increase in these
teaching areas is that the authors of the OSTES indicated that typically
preservice teachers do not distinguish between the three subscale factors very
well as in comparison to inservice teachers (Tschannen-Moran 8 Hoy, 2001). It
would be expected that inexperienced teachers initially progress in more general
terms than in more speciﬁc areas and skills of teaching. As they master the
general skills of teaching, they would be able to distinguish more critically smaller
and reﬁned components. The inability to distinguish smaller teaching
components could mainly be due to the lack of experience they have in utilizing
strategies related to instruction, classroom management, and student
engagement techniques.

This study also hypothesized that preservice teachers would score lower
in classroom management skills than in utilizing instructional strategies and
student engagement techniques at the conclusion of the student teaching
experience. Surprisingly, this hypothesis was refuted as well. Previous research
has indicated that one of the most significant challenges facing young and
inexperienced teachers is the inability to maintain class control and manage

disruptive students (Evans 8 Tribble, 1986; McBride, Boggess, 8 Griffey, 1986).

96

The participants in this study did not agree with this perspective and consistently
indicated classroom management as a strong skill area in comparison to
Instmctional strategies and student engagement techniques.

Conﬁdence in the utilization of instructional strategies for these preservice
physical education teachers seemed to remain steady until the end of their
student teaching internship (Mpre = 7.23; Mmid = 7.28; Mpost = 7.71). At the
conclusion of the student teaching internship, there was a signiﬁcant increase in
conﬁdence in utilizing instructional strategies from the pre-test to post-test phase
(p = .013). Initially, employing instructional strategies may have been somewhat
difﬁcult for these preservice teachers because of the vast amount of academic
content and physical skill knowledge required to teach in the ﬁeld of physical
education. Preservice teachers are often expected to be competent in various
sports, games, recreational, dance, and ﬁtness activities. Previous research has
revealed that differences between the expectations of the cooperating teacher
and preservice teacher can arise in the areas of teaching styles, lesson
presentations, and structure of content that can cause confusion and fmstration
for the preservice teacher (Askins 8 lmwold, 1994; Croker 8 Wilder, 1999;
Woods 8 Weasmer, 2003). Many preservice teachers struggle with conﬂicting
views of “good teaching.” Examples and practices of innovative teaching styles
Ieamed during the undergraduate teacher preparation program could be in
conﬂict with the instructional methods used by the teachers at their student
teaching school locations (Croker 8 Wilder, 1999). For example, Leslie

Possessed a different teaching style and philosophy than her cooperating

97

 

teacher. She described her frustration with presenting instructional content in

this manner.
I just didn’t like her (my cooperating teacher’s) strategies or how she did
anything. Because I feel like in student teaching you are suppose to try
out what you know and that kind of thing. And they are supposed to let
you kind of teach and have full range of the classroom. Well, I never got
to that. I was never allowed to. And every time I went to try something
new or ask her if I could do this instead she’s like, “That’s not how we do
things.” So my lesson plans were like hers every single day and that

sucked. I didn’t like it.

Marie also had a different instructional style than her cooperating teacher during
her student teaching internship. Fortunately, her unique style of instruction was
supported by her cooperating teacher which seemed to be the norm for most
preservice teachers that participated in this study. Marie stated,
Whatever unit it would be I would always incorporate a really fun warm-up.
The original warm-up (presented by my cooperating teacher) was so
bad, they would just walk in the class and sit in their rows and just stretch
on their own. And then they would have to jog 2 laps. I sat back and I
said I have some ideas and luckily my mentor was open to them and what
I did was have 5 different cardiovascular things for them to do in groups,

sometimes I would use leaders, and sometimes I would lead.

98

Finally, teaching expectations can also be a learning process between the
cooperating teacher and preservice teacher that develops overtime. Lorenzo
describes his experience in this manner.
I just wasn’t aware of my expectations that my cooperating teacher had on
me. Going into it I didn’t know exactly what the expectations were. What I
was expected to do. So I got more comfortable as she let me know what
her expectations were for me. I think my cooperating teacher laid down
exactly her expectations. She got it all out on the line for me. I was able
to understand more of what she wanted and teach to her expectations.
Further investigation examining the development of the professional relationship
between preservice teachers and cooperating teachers and its effect on levels of
teaching efﬁcacy would be valuable in the preparation of preservice teachers and
their placement during the student teaching experience. Building trust, resolving
conﬂicts, and establishing clear expectations are critical issues that the teaching
triad must focus upon to ensure the success of these future teachers. However,
most importantly the teaching triad is a partnership in which each professional
has speciﬁc responsibilities and expectations. It is this partnership in which
speciﬁc planning, feedback, discussion, and the reevaluation of the student
teaching experience takes place and the clarity of roles, responsibilities, and
expectations are established. More qualitative research focusing on the
development of this partnership and communication process between the

teaching triad would help fulﬁll many existing goals of teacher preparation

99

programs. Moreover, it would further aid in the teaching success of the
preservice teachers.

In addition, the utilization of student engagement techniques seemed to be
another major challenge and concern for the preservice physical educators in this
study. Signiﬁcant differences between the three subscales of instructional
strategies, classroom management, and student engagement techniques were
found during the mid-testing phase (p = .039). These participants felt
signiﬁcantly less efﬁcacious in student engagement techniques (Mmid = 6.98, SD
= .75) than in classroom management techniques (Mmid = 7.42, SD = .62). It
seemed that many of the preservice teachers in this sample felt gifted at
engaging and motivating students, but they did not receive the kind of responses
they expected from their students. For example, the ability to motivate students
was ranked as number one during the mid-testing phase and number three
during the post-testing phase. Many of the participants expressed how they
loved physical education and that they were excited to introduce the subject
content to their students. However, participants also expressed a deep
disappointment in their students’ responses and attitudes towards physical
education. Frederick expressed his frustration in utilizing student engagement
techniques by stating,

I don’t think I’m that good at motivating people speciﬁcally for physical

education. I think some of the strategies I lack are motivation. It was the

‘ most difﬁcult for me. Trying to think why this sport or activity is really

important....And how do you explain that to someone who wants to just sit

100

in the comer and read a book all day.
Kevin, for example, spoke in terms of his strengths and weaknesses in utilizing
student engagement techniques.
I think I am good at positively re-enforcing students. And from coaching I
think I Ieamed a lot about how to motivate students and how to get them
“psyched-up” about working out. But there are some kids that are harder
to reach and I didn’t feel quite as conﬁdent with kids who aren’t athletic,
but I would like to work on this area a little more and try to help motivate
all students.
And ﬁnally, Daniel talked about his growth in utilizing student engagement
techniques. He stated,
In terms of looking at my students at the beginning of my tenure
(student teaching), they were not exactly excited about physical education.
But once my student teaching was done, these kids would come up to me
in the building and say, “Man, Mr. ****, I just played basketball for fun last

night because you taught me how to do it.”

Reduced conﬁdence levels in the area of student engagement techniques
could be due to the unpredictable nature and vagueness of this teaching skill. In
addition, the amount of time dedicated to enhancing this skill could be minimal in
comparison to other skills that are taught in teacher education programs. For
example, skills such as classroom management techniques and instructional
strategies are very concrete areas. These skills are commonly taught on a

regular basis through various courses in the teacher education program. There

101

are speciﬁc strategies, for example, to calm a disruptive or deﬁant child. There
are also numerous books and resources on how to design and structure lesson
plans and units. However, skills associated with student engagement techniques
can be vague and difﬁcult to teach and assess. Techniques used to motivate
one child to participate in a new activity could do the complete opposite for
another child. Moreover, Ieaming how to motivate students of different physical
capabilities or teaching students to value physical education that dislike the
subject matter are often not speciﬁcally taught in undergraduate teacher
education programs. Young teachers often assume they know how to motivate
all students and that their students will naturally enjoy being physically active. It
can be difﬁcult for inexperienced physical educators to deal with unmotivated
students because of the limited interaction they may have with students who lack
the desire to participate in physical activities and sports. Many preservice
physical educators engage in some type of physical activity or have previously
been competitive athletes. Their lives may have been surrounded by friends,
coaches, and parents who love and value sports and physical activities. Thus,
these preservice physical educators may not relate to students who do not like to
participate in physical education classes. Tiffany, for example, talks about the
challenges she faced with engaging non-athletic children.

You come out of college thinking everyone loves exercise just as much as

I do. And then you get the chubby kids who don’t want to be there

because they physically can’t do what you are asking them to do, so

therefore they hate it. See, you have those kids you have to deal with,

102

and then, you have the kids at the other end of the spectrum who love it
and wish they could be here all day. And you will not have any problems
with them. So you have to try and ﬁgure out how I’m going to get this kid
to be where that kid (athletic student) is now. So the more you do it and
the more you think, well if I were fat and I couldn’t bend down and touch
my toes, how hard would this be for me. And is there any way I can
change it (class activities) to make them want to do it. Are there things

that I can do for this kid that maybe the other kid doesn’t need?

It seems necessary for physical education teacher education programs to
assess the amount of time dedicated to the area of student engagement
techniques. Student engagement is a teaching skill that cleariy plays a
signiﬁcant role in the Ieaming process. Chapman (2003) states that engaged
children show sustained behavioral involvement in Ieaming activities. They
generally show positive emotions toward the activity, including enthusiasm,
optimism, and curiosity. On the contrary, disengaged students tend to not try
hard or will give up easily. They exhibit passive behavior, boredom, or anger
towards the given activity. Teacher education programs must consider if they are
truly having intellectual dialogs with preservice teachers about student
engagement issues. The following questions could be raised about this issue:
(a) How can preservice physical educators incite in all students a value for
physical education and a desire to participate in its activities? (b) In what ways
can teacher education programs better prepare preservice physical educators to

teach toward student individuality and to be sensitive to students’ lack of physical

103

abilities? (c) What innovative suggestions or solutions can preservice physical
educators initiate in schools regarding the devaluing of the physical education
curriculum in the school system? and (d) In what ways can preservice physical
educators become better advocates for the professional ﬁeld of physical
education?

This study also examined teaching efﬁcacy levels in regards to gender.
Male teachers were expected to be more efﬁcacious than female teachers in the
areas of instructional strategies, classroom management, and student
engagement techniques at the conclusion of the student teaching internship.
The 2 x 2 MANOVA analyses results indicated that there was no signiﬁcant
interaction between gender and pre-test/post-test phase (p = .371 ). Thus, the
proposed hypothesis was refuted. Further investigation illustrated that the main
effect in gender was signiﬁcant (p = .026). Female preservice physical educators
in this study were signiﬁcantly more efﬁcacious in utilizing instructional strategies
than male preservice physical educators (p = .004). Furthermore, females were
strongly approaching the level of signiﬁcance in their conﬁdence levels in utilizing
classroom management techniques over males (p = .059).

Previous research examining gender differences In teaching efﬁcacy have
yielded mixed results. In some studies, males tend to be more efﬁcacious than
females especially in the subject areas of math and science (Kiviet 8 Mji, 2003).
Females have shown higher levels of efﬁcacy in other areas of teaching
(Greenwood, Olejnik, 8 Parkay, 1990); and some studies have shown no

evidence of gender differences in teaching efﬁcacy at all (Paese 8 Zinkgraf,

104

1991). One possible explanation for why females may have a higher sense of
teaching efﬁcacy than males is because the ﬁeld of education is often considered
a common career path for females. The support system for females pursuing a
teaching career is often supported culturally. This support could have an impact
on females’ sense of efﬁcacy in this study. Greenwood, Olejnik, and Parkay,
(1990) asserted that because there are large numbers of female teachers in the
school system, it is difﬁcult to conclude if high levels of teaching efﬁcacy are due
to personality characteristics or from factors associated with the school
environment. In other words, factors such as female role-models, support, and
expectations could prove to have a very strong inﬂuence on teaching efﬁcacy
levels. More research should be done on gender and its relationship to teaching
efﬁcacy in order to arrive at more concrete conclusions.

Another interesting ﬁnding that occurred when conducting the 2 x 2
MANOVA was the main effect in the pre-testlpost-test phase (p = .044). Further
observation concluded that instructional strategy was signiﬁcantly higher during
the post-testing phase. From these results it seemed that these preservice
teachers felt particularly conﬁdent in utilizing instructional strategies at the
conclusion of their student teaching lntemship. Learning how to present and
organize instmction are key components to any teacher education program, thus
it is reasonable to think that these preservice teachers would have high teaching
efﬁcacy in the use of instructional strategies. When asked in which teaching
tasks preservice teachers felt they performed most efﬁcaciously, planning and

organizing lessons ranked number two out of eleven items. When participants

105

were asked about their conﬁdence in utilizing instructional strategies, the use of
repetition seemed to be a key factor in many of their responses in regards to
perfecting this skill. Jeremy rated his level of conﬁdence as “fair" as it pertained
to instructional strategies. He continued to explain in his interview how his ability
to implement instructional strategies improved.
It was my ﬁrst time teaching and everything in my student teaching (in
regards to lessons), I had never taught it before. So it was nothing that
really went exactly like I planned it or how I expected it. But after the ﬁrst
class I would teach the same lesson about three or four times. So by the
third or fourth time teaching that same lesson I would say it (the lesson)
went pretty good. It made vast improvements from the ﬁrst time.
Ronald stated,
Sometimes you just forget things, and by the end of the day you have
taught the lesson four times and you realize that you forgot a thing or two.
You may not have planned right (correctly) the night before. Sometimes
you leave out things in your lesson and you are driving home and you
think what the heck was I doing. I think that sometimes you just have to
get the system down, and I just don't have what a veteran teacher has.
Obviously repetition helps.
Mona reiterates how her conﬁdence in utilizing instructional strategies improved
through repetition.
Just getting out there and practicing more and more, I would become

better at it.

106

Interestingly, despite the clear improvement in conﬁdence that preservice
teachers achieved through their student teaching experience, their cooperating
teachers viewed their conﬁdence levels quite differently. The study hypothesized
that the cooperating teachers would rate their preservice teachers lower in
teaching efﬁcacy than the preservice teachers would rate themselves. As
expected, during the mid-testing and post-testing phases, the cooperating
teachers did rate their preservice teachers signiﬁcantly lower than the preservice
teachers rated themselves in total teaching efﬁcacy. In regards to the teaching
areas of instructional strategies, classroom management, and student
engagement techniques, during the mid-testing phase, cooperating teachers
again rated the preservice teachers signiﬁcantly lower in conﬁdence in all three
teaching areas. And during the post-testing phase, the cooperating teachers
rated the preservice teachers signiﬁcantly lower only in the areas of instructional
strategies and student engagement techniques.

These results are not surprising because preservice teachers are still very
new to the teaching environment. Cooperating teachers often provide a layer of
security and protection for preservice teachers to succeed during their student
teaching internship. Therefore, discipline policies, rules, class structure, and
even lesson plans could already be established for some preservice teachers.
This support could give preservice teacher a false sense of conﬁdence in their
actual teaching ability. Darden, Scott, Darden, and Westfall (2001) assert that
because preservice teachers tend to be conﬁned to the schedule set by their

university, many of the classroom rules and routines have already been

107

established. Preservice teachers often miss the opportunity to observe how the
cooperating teacher established many of these procedures for the school year.
Furthermore, the preservice physical educators in this study were deﬁnitely
aware that the classroom policies were clearly established before their arrival at
their assigned schools. For example, Mona stated in regards to her conﬁdence
in utilizing classroom management skills,
I feel I have good classroom management skills. Coming to a student
teaching classroom, you walk into a room that is already, you know...the
class rules have already been laid out.
Likewise, this comment from Mitch illustrates how classroom rules and discipline '
policies were already established by his cooperating teacher.
I observed my cooperating teacher and how they had set up things and I
just continued with what they were doing. Most of the time the students
understood there was a clear punishment for misbehaving, so it worked
out well.
LeAnn reiterates a similar situation in her teaching environment regarding
classroom management.
The rules were already set up when I got there so I just added a few
things that I thought was good and went with it. My mentor teacher gave
me a little advice with a few students that were problems or didn’t like
gym, but it went well.
Jeremy describes the differences between his two cooperating teachers. It is

Clear that one of his cooperating teachers is extremely supportive of him during

108

his entire student teaching experience. The choice of words he uses shows the
support and protection that was given by his cooperating teacher.
I had a really good experience with both cooperating teachers. They were
both completely different. The ﬁrst one was like you can watch me for two
weeks and then I did everything after that. The second one completely
“nursed” me through the whole thing. So I had two completely opposites
and it worked out just ﬁne. It might have something to do with the fact that
she was a female and my ﬁrst cooperating teacher was male.
Jeremy’s statement about being “nursed” through his student teaching
experience at one of his school placements illustrates the high level of protection
and support he received from his cooperating teacher. This protection could
have given him a false illusion of his teaching abilities. That is, Jeremy may
believe he is more capable of performing various teaching tasks that in reality he
may have never actually established on his own authority. This is not to say that
cooperating teachers should not provide a certain amount of protection and
needed support for preservice teachers. This simply offers a possible reason for
why the preservice teachers in this study may have possessed such high levels
of teaching efﬁcacy beliefs in comparison to the perspectives of their cooperating
teachers.
Cooperating and preservice teachers could also have conﬂicting images of
“good teaching skills.” Crocker and Wilder (1999) stated that preservice teachers
often struggle with meeting the standards of their cooperating teachers,

especially if those standards or “good teaching skills” are in conﬂict with what

109

they have Ieamed at the university. Good communication skills can help resolve
this lack of clarity between the cooperating teachers and preservice teachers.
Darden, Scott, Darden, and Westfall (2001) expressed that this type of
communication must be “risk-free”. They urge open communication early during
the student teaching experience that is honest and without negative
consequences if differences arise. Preservice teachers should feel comfortable
with their university supervisors and cooperating teachers to ask questions and
to discuss conﬂicts. In addition, preservice teachers should be encouraged to
express their own perspectives in regards to teaching issues. The authors
(2001) stated that cooperating teachers have the potential power to increase the
self-esteem and conﬁdence of student teachers simply by asking them their
opinions about instruction. Tiffany made this statement about sharing
instructional ideas with her cooperating teacher. '
So I would analyze things when I didn’t have to take control over the class;
Stuff (instructional ideas) that I thought I could do, and I would talk about it
with him (the cooperating teacher). And he would say, “Well, that was a
great idea. So you should try to do this with that kid.” And in turn he
changed some things that he did. The guy was really nice and very open
to anything and he was such a great guy. I was lucky to have that
placement.
As a result of these ﬁndings it is apparent that the teaching triad
relationship is a critical component. Communication must be open and honest.

Expectations of teaching tasks must be clearly understood and established.

110

Levels of expected proﬁciency should be discussed and even demonstrated so
that preservice teachers are clearly aware of the expected level of teaching
performance. Physical education teacher education programs should consider
workshops and discussion forums for cooperating teachers that bridge the
expectations of the university program with the public school system.

In addition, future research examining the teaching proﬁciency of
cooperating teachers also seems to be a needed component. Previous
statements from the participants in this study have shown that preservice
teachers may not always agree with the teaching techniques, strategies, or
philosophies of their cooperating teachers. Thus, interviewing and observing the
cooperating teachers in regards to their perceived conﬁdence levels in utilizing
instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement
techniques would provided a very interesting perspective to this issue.

General and Personal Teaching Efﬁcacy

In regards to examining GTE scores, participants in this study seemed to
acknowledge the impact of environmental factors on student Ieaming during their
student teaching experience. Although these preservice teachers showed a
decrease in their levels in GTE, it did not reach a level of signiﬁcance (Mpre =
3.84, SD = .76; Mm“, = 3.71, SD = .74; Mpost = 3.69; SD = .72). These results
were positive ﬁndings, even though the proposed research hypothesis was not
supported. These ﬁndings also did not concur with the ﬁndings of Parker,
Guarino, and Smith (2002) who found that GTE signiﬁcantly decreased at the

conclusion of the student teaching experience. This study's results indicated that

111

the preservice physical educators agreed that environmental factors affected
student Ieaming in their teaching situation. However, they were still quite positive
about their ability to make an impact with their students, despite negative
environmental factors within their teaching situation. Further examination into
their PTE levels during their student teaching internship also illustrates that these
participants felt very positive about their own ability to impact student
achievement, (Mpre = 2.29, SD = .58; Mmad = 2.34, SD = .66; Mpost = 1.97; SD =
.61).

To further support this assertion, preservice physical educators in this
study were asked if they felt that environmental factors negatively inﬂuenced their
conﬁdence to impact student Ieaming in their teaching environment. Very little
deterioration was evident in their conﬁdence levels as it was assessed on the
Student Teaching Experience Questionnaire. In fact, their concern about
environmental factors slightly decreased from mid-testing to post-testing phases,
(Mm = 2.32, SD = 1.22; Mm: = 2.29; SD = 1.16). When asked which
environmental factors negatively impacted student Ieaming the most, participants
indicated the following factors: (a) unmotivated students, (b) students’ home
issues, (c) large class sizes, (d) attendance and classroom teacher issues (post-
testing only), (e) inadequate equipment/supplies, and (f) classroom discipline. All
of these factors were ranked in the top ﬁve positions during the mid-testing and
post-testing phases, with the exception of attendance and classroom teacher
issues which only emerged as a negative factor during the post-testing phase.

As a result of the ﬁndings, these participants most likely possess an attitude

112

toward believing that most children can succeed despite environmental factors if
they are given the appropriate help. However, we can not ignore the fact that the
GTE scores steadily decreased throughout these participants’ student teaching
experience. This trend could show that in time these preservice teachers could
hold some limitations or judgments of students who are not academically
successful or are not from the best home or community environments. Teacher
education programs need to have straight discussions with preservice teachers
about their students and the impact of societal issues on their educational
success. Environmental factors that concerned preservice teachers and hinder
their ability to instruct must also be discussed openly. Modiﬁcations and
alternative methods to deal with teaching issues such as limited equipment, lack
of supplies, large class sizes, and truancy must be addressed along with real
solutions that can be practiced and applied in various teaching locations and
levels.
Sources of Teaching Efﬁcacy

Preservice teachers were asked to identify how they acquired their sense
of teaching efﬁcacy in the areas of instructional strategies, classroom
management, and student engagement techniques through structured interviews.
Currently, there is limited empirical research pertaining to the Identiﬁed sources
of teaching efﬁcacy in regards to preservice physical educators. Identifying the
sources of teaching efﬁcacy could ultimately better prepare preservice teachers

for successful teaching experiences and careers.

113

Analyses of the interview transcription revealed that three of Bandura’s
(1997) sources of efﬁcacy emerged as major themes: (a) mastery experience,
(b) vicarious experience, and (c) social persuasion. Furthermore, two additional
sources (educational knowledge and personal/social identiﬁcation) emerged as
major themes. Clearly the sources that emerged as major themes did not simply
impact teaching efﬁcacy independently for these preservice teachers. But the
sources of teaching efﬁcacy came from a multitude of information that equally
impacted how these preservice teachers’ perceived their teaching performance.
This conglomerate of sources proved to be a powerful impact for these
preservice teachers’ development and conﬁdence in the areas of instructional
strategies, classroom management, and student engagement techniques. It is
not surprising that these preservice teachers identiﬁed multiple sources that
contributed to their sense of teaching efﬁcacy. A major goal of teacher education
programs is to provide a range of opportunities for students to gain proﬁciency in
their teaching skills. Therefore, it is reasonable that these preservice teachers
would identify several sources as contributors to their sense of teaching efﬁcacy.

For example, practical experiences are required in many teacher
education programs before the student teaching internship begins. Mastery
experience proved to be the most powerful source of teaching efﬁcacy for all
three teaching areas assessed in this study. These opportunities to perform
pertinent teaching tasks were often through speciﬁc college courses, athletic
experiences, and through experiencing the student teaching internship. For

these participants, practice opportunities seemed to be a critical component for

114

elevating teaching efﬁcacy. However, mastery experience often did not stand
alone as a contributing source. This source often coupled with the sources of
social persuasion and vicarious experience.

In regards to social persuasion, the cooperating teacher tended to be the
key factor for this source. However, university supervisors, faculty members, and
even peers also proved to be vital contributors as well. Thus, if teaching efﬁcacy
is expected to increase throughout one’s professional teaching career, these
individuals must provide speciﬁc feedback in regards to the various teaching
tasks inexperienced teachers are performing. For example, Nathan described
the differences in mentoring styles between his two cooperating teachers. It was
apparent that Nathan gained more knowledge and conﬁdence in his teaching
ability from the cooperating teacher who watched his teaching performance and
provided him with feedback. Nathan stated,

The ﬁrst mentor teacher, she was a great person, she gave lots of

feedback. She would sit there in the classroom and basically watch me

teach every single lesson. She would never leave. There would never be

a time during that entire seven weeks where if I’m student teaching in

class she would walk out and go do something else. She would always

wait until the class was over. And after the class was over, she would give
me feedback like right on the spot. That was very helpful because she
was giving me more ideas. The second teacher was completely opposite.

He would leave me with a class of like 50 kids and say go outside and

play football.

115

Daniel made this statement about his cooperating teacher. His statement again,
illustrates the importance preservice teachers place on receiving feedback from
their cooperating teachers after performing a given teaching task.
Well, I just had an exceptional cooperating teacher. And he helped me
become the conﬁdent person that I am now in teaching, because he would
give me the feedback I needed to become a more effective teacher in
terms of instructional strategies. He was there all the time with me (in the

classroom).

Vicarious experience often coupled with mastery experience as a source
of teaching efﬁcacy as well. Again, it seems reasonable that as inexperienced
teachers begin to implement new teaching strategies and techniques, they would
also need to observe experienced teachers in their use of proven teaching
methodologies that are successful. Inexperienced teachers who observe role-
models that they strongly identify with will often mimic similar behaviors of the
role-model. For example, when Mitch was asked how he acquired his level of
conﬁdence in classroom management techniques. He stated that he ﬁrst
watched his mentor and then tried out the techniques for himself. Lorenzo
reiterates this point of view. He stated in regards to how he acquired conﬁdence
in student engagement techniques.

I would say just observation. Teachers I had observed in the past and

(during my) “mid-tier” experience. It (“mid-tier” experience) takes place

about yourjunior year. And so, it gets you class experience, it gets you

116

observation time, and it gives you a teaching experience, and it gets you
connections ....... So before you can get into the teaching program you had
to have 90 hours of observation time. So you would sit in on teachers
often. As often as you could, in order to observe strategies and kind of
develop your own (strategies). But obviously, not reinvent the wheel if

something works. Maybe steal it! There’s no patent on it!

Additionally, gaining a strong content knowledge base in pedagogy
through the teacher education program was also identiﬁed as a major source for
teaching efﬁcacy. This source also was tied to several other sources such as
mastery experience, social persuasion, or vicarious experience. As preservice
teachers Ieamed the knowledge base of the physical education content area,
there was a natural progression of needing to practice these skills to test for
proﬁciency. These preservice teachers in this study seemed to gain a lot of
teaching efﬁcacy from these two sources working together. Jeremy, for example,
often identiﬁed multiple sources in regards to how he acquired his level of
conﬁdence in utilizing various teaching skills. He attributed his college education
as a fundamental source. He asserted in regards to student engagement
techniques,

It developed through the college classes I took, and through student

teaching. Going out there and ﬁnding out what works and what doesn’t

work. The university classes give you a lot of good ideas. What you ﬁnd

is that some of them work and some of them don’t.

117

He made a similar claim in regards to how he developed his conﬁdence in
utilizing classroom management techniques.
I would say it started through the practicum at my college. After I got into
the classroom (student teaching internship) and actually started teaching
myself, it was different than just watching and thinking you can just do it.
But once you actually jump into it and do it; and then you realize it is not
that big of a deal and I can handle it.
In support of Jeremy’s claim, Leslie also felt that educational knowledge as well
as mastery experience, and vicarious experience contributed to her sense of
efﬁcacy in utilizing student engagement techniques. She stated,
I would say it (conﬁdence) was developed through college classes. But it
kept going as I was teaching (student teaching lntemship). You. just Ieam
different things as you go and you watch the other teachers and see their

ideas and you feed off of what they do.

Thus, as teacher educators, it seems most logical to consider ways that
preservice teachers can be provided with opportunities to experience as many
efﬁcacy sources throughout the teacher education program. Mastery experience,
social persuasion, vicarious experience, and educational knowledge all were vital
factors that were major contributors to teaching efﬁcacy levels. Experiencing
these sources can be achieved through teacher education classes that provide
academic knowledge as well as practical experiences. Mastery experience was

a vital source in increasing levels of teaching efﬁcacy, which is in agreement with

118

Bandura’s (1997) assertion. However, as illustrated in this study, the
collaboration of all of these sources acting together was most powerful for these
preservice physical educators, rather than the sources functioning independently.
ReCommendations

The student teaching experience had a signiﬁcant impact on teaching
efﬁcacy levels among preservice physical educators. However, there is still a
need for the teaching efﬁcacy concept to be explored further. Speciﬁcally, more
investigation with teaching efﬁcacy and physical education preservice and
inservice teachers are needed. There is currently limited research in this area of
study (Martin 8 Kulinna, 2003). In addition, longitudinal studies of physical
education preservice and inservice teachers would illustrate the changes in
teaching efﬁcacy over time. Understanding why teaching efﬁcacy changes over
time could help establish necessary support structures for teachers at the
university level and throughout their teaching careers. Teachers need to have
the opportunity to explain in their own voices the experiences they encounter that
effect levels of teaching efﬁcacy. Thus, employing more qualitative research
methodologies along with quantitative methodologies would advance the current
understanding of the teacher efﬁcacy construct greatly.

Instrumentation. More investigation is needed in understanding how to
measure teaching efﬁcacy appropriately in task-speciﬁc content areas, as
suggested by Bandura (1997). Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) attempted a
content speciﬁc measurement for general education teaching areas. However,

preservice teachers in this study found difﬁculties in discerning the reﬁned

119

aspects of each of the three teaching areas of instructional strategies, classroom
management, and student engagement techniques. In addition, instrumentation
that is content speciﬁc to the area of physical education would greatly extend the
teacher efﬁcacy research for physical education professionals. To date, only one
research study was located that assessed physical education teachers’ levels of
conﬁdence in actively engaging their students In vigorous physical activity
instruction (Martin 8 Kulinna, 2003). Further investigation is greatly needed.
And a ﬁnal consideration regarding instrumentation is the level of speciﬁcity in
measuring teacher efﬁcacy. Researchers have found that determining an
optimal level of speciﬁcity in measuring teacher efﬁcacy to be problematic
(Pintrich 8 Schunk, 1996). In other words, should the appropriate level of the
content-speciﬁc area focus on general teaching in physical education, a sport
unit, or a sport skill. Further investigation in constructing teacher efﬁcacy
measurement tools are greatly needed, particularly in the teaching area of
physical education.

Teacher Education Programs. Based on the ﬁndings of this study, teacher
education programs are providing excellent experiences in preparing preservice
teachers for the student teaching experience. Preservice teachers expressed
having a strong knowledge base particularly in the areas of instructional
strategies and classroom management techniques at the end of their student
teaching experience. In addition, the undergraduate program provided numerous
Opportunities for preservice teachers to observe and practice various teaching

skills. The preservice teachers in this study also were asked on the STEQ, how

120

well their undergraduate teacher education program prepared them for their
student teaching experience. The preservice teachers agreed that their
undergraduate teacher education program helped establish their teaching
conﬁdence during their student teaching internship, (Mmid = 4.61, SD = .98; Mpost
= 5.03, SD = 1.01).

However, teacher education programs need to take a closer look at the
attention they are giving to social, environmental, and psychological issues facing
physical education teachers that work in the school system. Research that
focuses on the potential impact of social, environmental, and psychological
issues could provide break-through strategies that could help the most
disadvantaged students in the school system. Results from the ﬁndings of these
types of studies could also provide needed work-shops and discussion forums
that could beneﬁt university supervisors, preservice and inservice teachers, and
school administrators. The continual examination of the GTE construct is an
additional focus that relates to social, environmental, and psychological issues.
Past studies have indicated a decline in the GTE construct overtime (Coladarci,
1992; Herbert, Lee, 8 Williamson, 1998; Parker, Guarino, 8 Smith, 2002).
Although the GTE levels of the preservice teachers in this study did not reach a
level of signiﬁcance, the declining pattern of the GTE construct was similar. This
pattern indicates that teachers are experiencing difﬁculties in handling
sociological and environmental issues associated with their students. More

research examining the social and environmental factors that physical education

121

teachers ﬁnd most challenging, and how to address these factors through
educational support systems, would be valuable.

Teacher Preferences. A ﬁnal area that future research should explore in
the area of teacher efﬁcacy is teacher preferences. Teachers’ preferences in
choosing a cooperating teacher, school location (urban, rural, suburban), and
teaching level (elementary versus secondary) could have a profound effect on
teacher efﬁcacy scores. The participants in this study apparently felt very
comfortable teaching in their various school environments. When the preservice
teachers were asked on the STEQ if their school placement was a good “ﬁt” for
them, they responded with high agreement to the question, (Mm = 5.45, SD =
.76; Mpost = 4.80, SD = 1.22). These preservice teachers also felt like they
identiﬁed professionally with their cooperating teachers, (Mmm = 4.74, SD = 1.18;
Mpost = 5.03, SD = 1.47) and they did not feel that it was difﬁcult to teach in their
school location, (Mm... = 2.74, SD = 1.03; Mpos. = 2.64, SD = 1.25). The current
study can not accurately examine or state a ﬁrm conclusion about the issue of
teacher preference and its effect on teacher efﬁcacy scores. However, it is very
likely that the teacher efﬁcacy ﬁndings from this study are highly inﬂuenced by
the work preferences of these participants. Many preservice teachers choose
their own student teaching location and opt to return to a familiar mentor teacher
that may have taught them in the past. Preservice teachers may also choose
school locations that are similar to the ones they grew up in, therefore providing
them with familiar surroundings. It is recommended that future research examine

the impact of teacher preferences as it relates to selecting mentor teachers,

122

school location, and grade levels and its potential effects on teacher efﬁcacy
scores. Teacher education programs may need to consider how preservice
teachers are placed during their student teaching internship to ensure diverse
teaching experiences in school location and teaching level. Selecting schools
and cooperating teachers that utilize different teaching philosophies that are
different than those of the preservice teachers could provide valuable Ieaming
experiences that strengthen professional growth and conﬁdence that is

necessary for the changing and challenging career of teaching.

123

APPENDIX A
Recruitment Letters for Preservice Teachers,

Cooperating Teachers, and University Supervisors

124

Preservice Teachers

Hi I!

My name is Ivy Tagger and I would like to invite you to participate in a research study that I am
conducting at Michigan State University!!! Prof. (Name) at _(N_ame of University/College gave
me your name as a possible candidate for participation. The study is about the conﬁdence levels
of student teachers during their student teaching internship. Your participation would not take
much time (approximately 15-20 minutes), but it would be a GREAT beneﬁt to the faculty at your
university as well as to future students who are pursuing a career in education.

What you would do is complete one survey packet during your holiday break and then two survey
packets during your student teaching experience during the Spring/Winter 2005 semester. All
responses are kept conﬁdential so you can respond to all questions honestly.

If you would like to participate, simply reply to this email with your mailing address and within a few
days, you will receive a survey packet in the mail for you to complete during your holiday break.
Again, the survey will not take longer than 15-20 minutes. Once you're done, just mail back the
survey in the self-addressed envelop that’s provided.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you will decide to participate in this study!!!
Have a GREAT holiday break and good luck with your ﬁnal examsllll Don't forget to reply to this
email with your address. If you have any questions, please feel free to call or email me.

Ivy Tagger
(517) 487-2434
Ivytagger@safe-mail.net

125

Cooperating Teachers

(Date)

Ivy Collins Tagger
422 South Butler Blvd
Lansing, MI 48915

(Address of Recipient)
Dear (Recipient’s Name)

My name is Ivy Tagger and I am a doctoral student in the Department of Kinesiology at
Michigan State University. I am writing to invite you to participate in my research study
about student teachers’ level of conﬁdence during their student teaching experience. It is
believed that the results of this study will greatly contribute to how student teachers are
prepared for their internship experience. In addition, it is expected that the information
learned from this study will provide signiﬁcant insights about the experiences of student
teachers during their internship and how these experiences can greatly affect levels of
teaching conﬁdence as well as impact student Ieaming. As a key ﬁgure in the
professional development of student teachers, your participation and honest responses to
the study’s questionnaire will be greatly valued.

If you decide to voluntarily participate in this research study, you will be asked to ﬁll out
a questionnaire about your student teacher’s conﬁdence during the internship experience.
The questionnaire takes approximately 15 minutes to complete and this would occur
twice during the student teaching internship (approximately week 8 and week 16). All
responses from your questionnaire will be kept conﬁdential. I invite you to review the
enclosed materials and complete it if you decide to participate in the study. I have
provided you with a return envelope with paid postage to return the materials to me. In
addition to your critical part in this study, I will also be surveying your assigned student
teacher.

I sincerely hope that you will consider participating in this study. If you have any
questions or concerns, feel free to contact me via phone (517) 483-1450 or. email:

iMagger@safe-mail.net. Again, your participation is greatly appreciated and would
prove to be an invaluable contribution to the understanding of teaching conﬁdence among

student educators during their internship experience.

Sincerely,

Ivy Collins Tagger
Doctoral Candidate, Michigan State University

126

University Supervisors

(Date)

Ivy Collins Tagger
422 South Butler Blvd
Lansing, MI 48915

(Address of Recipient)

Dear .

 

On Date , we spoke on the phone regarding a study I’m conducting about
physical education student teachers’ levels of conﬁdence during their student teaching
experience. I would like to invite the physical education student teachers to participate in
the study during one of your class sessions. I am also willing to send the surveys out to
the student teachers if that is more convenient. More importantly, I would like to recruit
them BEFORE they go out to their school assignments or very close to the beginning of
their student teaching internship before they have an opportunity to teach.

In addition to their participation, I will also be inviting their cooperating teachers to
participate in the study. I have attached the surveys that the student teachers and
cooperating teachers will be given. The student teachers would be asked to complete the
surveys three times (Approximately before student teaching, Week 7, and Week 14) and
to participate in a telephone interview. The cooperating teachers would be asked to
complete the surveys twice (approximately Week 8 and Week 14). I will make all copies
of the surveys and provide postage for their return during each testing phase for their
convenience.

I would greatly appreciate any help that you can offer. I will continue to try to contact
you to discuss my research project further. Please feel free to contact me via phone (517)
483-1450 or email: iMagger@safe-mail.net. Your help is greatly appreciated! Thank
you very much and I look forward to talk to you soon!

Sincerely,
Ivy Collins Tagger

Department of Kinesiology
Michigan State University

127

University Supervisors
Recruitment Checklist

University:
University Coordinator:
Ofﬁce Location:

Phone Number:

Email:

Department University Supervisor:
Ofﬁce Location: '
Phone Number:

Email:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions Comments

How long is the student teaching experience?

Is there a student teaching seminar class when all the student
teachers meet together before, during or after student teaching?
(If yes) When is the ﬁrst class meeting?

(Date)

(If yes) What day and time does the student teaching seminar
class meet during the semester?

(If yes) Does the class meet with all teacher education students
or only physical education majors?

(If no) How can I get access to the student teachers? May I
have the addresses of the student teachers and invite them to
participate in the study?

May I have the names and school addresses of the cooperating
teachers so I can invite them to participate in the study?

How many physical education student teachers will begin their
student teaching experience during the Fall 2004
semester/SprinLZOOS semester?

Is the student teaching experience on the same schedule as the
university or is it on the public school schedule?

When do the student teachers go out to their school
assignments? (Date)

00 the student teachers teach elementary and secondary during
the Fall semester or only one level?

How often does the university supervisor go out and observe the
student teacher?

Does the same university supervisor go out to observe the
student teacher every time?

Could I meet with you to further discuss my study and what I
hope to give back to you as a result of conducting this study?
(Date, Time, 8 Location)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

128

APPENDIX B

Frequencies and Percentages of Demographic Information for Preservice

Teachers and Cooperating Teachers

129

Table B1

Frequencies and Percentages of Demographic Information for Preservice Teachers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic Information Freq % DemograLhic Information Freq %
Teaching Experience Teach Level 71‘ School)
~Yes 25 81% ~Elementary 1 8 58%
~No 6 19% ~Secondary 13 42%
Coaching Experience Each Level (2nd School)
~Yes 23 74% ~Blementary 13 42%
~No 8 26% ~Secondary l 8 58%
Amount of Student Teach Class Size (1st School)
at Start of Study ~Under 20 1 3%
~Haven’t started ~21~30 students 23 74%
student teach 11 36% ~30~40 students 3 10%
~Observing only 2 6% ~Over 40 students 4 13%
~Taught a few skills 9 29% Qass Size (2“ School)
~Taught an entire -Under 20 1 3%
lesson (few classes) 7 23% ~21~30 students 20 65%
~Fully engaged 2 6% ~30-40 students 10 32%
Student Teaching Class Structure (1it School)
Responsibility ~Coed classes 29 94%
~Only Elementary 4 12% ~Both Coed/Same-sex 2 6%
~Only Secondary 4 12% Cl__ass Structure (lst School)
~Both 23 76% ~Coed classes 28 90%
-Both Coed/Sarne-sex 3 10%
Locgtion (1St School) Agg
~Rural 7 23% ~22 years 15 48%
~Urban 5 16% ~23 years 10 33%
~Suburban 19 61% ~24 years 2 7%
Location (2“d School) ~25 years 1 3%
~Rural 8 26% ~26 years 1 3%
~Urban 7 23% ~27 years 1 3%
~Suburban 16 51% ~28 years 1 3%
Gender Ethnicity
~Female 16 52% ~White 3O 97%
~Male 1 5 48% ~Multiracia1 1 3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

130

 

Table 82

Frequencies and Percentages of Demographic Information for Cooperating Teachers

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic Information Freq % Demographic Information Freq %
Gender Ethnicity
~Female 13 52% ~White 25 100%
~Male 12 48%
Age Teaching Experience
~30~35 years 4 16% ~3~7 years 3 12%
~36~40 years 8 32% ~8~12 years 3 12%
~41~45 years 3 12% ~13-17 years 9 36%
~46~50 years 5 20% ~18-22 years 5 20%
~51~55 years 4 16% ~23~27 years 3 12%
~56~60 years 1 4% ~28-32 years 2 8%
School Location
~Rural 6 24%
~Urban 6 24%
~Suburban 13 52%

 

 

 

 

 

 

131

 

APPENDIX C

Demographic Information and Informed Consent Forms

 

132

The effects of student teaching on teacher efﬁcacy among preservice physical educators

INFORMED CONSENT FORM
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF KINESIOLOGY
(Preservice Teachers-Pilot)

The main purposes of this study are to examine changes in preservice physical
educators teaching efﬁcacy (conﬁdence) scores during the student teaching experience and to
identify the sources that they believe contribute to their current level of teaching efﬁcacy. It is
believed that this research project will provide signiﬁcant information about the training of student
teachers and will have potential impact on teacher preparation programs.

As part of this study, you will be asked to complete one paper and pencil questionnaire
twice throughout the semester and to participate if selected in one telephone interview during the
2004 Fall semester. Completion of the questionnaire will take approximately 20—30 minutes as
well as the telephone interview. Potential risks in participating in this study are substantially small
and may include a minimal loss of your time and perhaps feelings of uneasiness as you think
about the normal variations in your level of teaching conﬁdence.

Your questionnaire and interview responses will remain conﬁdential, and your privacy will
be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The last four digits of your social security
number and the ﬁrst letter of your last name will be used to identify your survey and interview
responses. All information that identiﬁes you by name will be stored in a secure ﬁle cabinet. The
master list will be destroyed once data collection is completed.

Participation in the study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to participate at
all or to discontinue your participation at anytime without penalty. If you wish to discontinue your
participation from this study, you will be withdrawn immediately without any repercussions. Your
participation will not incur any academic or ﬁnancial beneﬁts.

Your willingness to participate in this study is greatly appreciated. Your honest
responses are valued and will possibly help the future preparation of student teachers. If you
have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact the Responsible Project
Investigator, Dr. Marty Ewing by phone (517) 353-4652, email: mewing@msu.edu, or regular
mail: 201 IM Sport circle, East Lansing, MI 48824; or the secondary investigator, Ivy Tagger by
phone (517) 483-1450 or email: ivﬁaggengafe-mailmet.

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study. you may contact — anonymously, if you wish
Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e~mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or
regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Having read the information provided, I voluntarily agree to participate in this study (ID#i020548).

 

 

 

Name (Print)
Signature .
D t_ UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR
a e. THIS project EXPIRES:
SEP 1 3 2005
SUBMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
ONE MONTH PRIOR TO
ABOVE DATE TO CONTINUE

133

Preservice Teachers-Pilot

All information recorded for this study will remain private to the maximum
extent allowable by law. Data obtained from all responses will be recorded
without reference to your name. The last four digits of your social security
number and ﬁrst letter of your last name will be used on the questionnaire
to identify and match your responses. After data collection, anything that
identifies you by name will be shredded and destroyed.

Demographic lnforrnation

 

 

 

1. Gender: (1)Male (2) Female
2. Age:
3. Ethnic Afﬁliation:
(1) African-American/Black (2) Asian
(3) Caucasian (4) Latino(a)
(5) Native American (6) Multiracial
__ (7) Other (Please Specify)

 

4. Location where you grew up:
(1) Suburban (2) Urban (3) Rural

5. Occupation of Mother:

 

6. Occupation of Father:

 

Student Teaching Information

7. Name of current cooperating teacher:

 

8. Name of school:

9. Location of school:
(1) Suburban (2) Urban (3) Rural

10. During your student teaching Fall Semester 2004 what level will you be
teaching?

(1) Elementary (2) Secondary

(3) Both Elementary and Secondary (4) Not sure

(5) I will not be doing student teaching at this time

134

11. During your student teaching Spring Semester 2005, what level will you be
teaching?

(1) Elementary (2) Secondary

(3) Both Elementary and Secondary (4) Not sure

(5) I will not be doing student teaching at this time

12. How long have you been participating in your student teaching experience?
Months Weeks

13. What grade(s) and subject(s) are you currently
teaching?

 

 

14. Have you had any type of teaching experience prior to student teaching?
(1) Yes (2) No

If yes, how many months or years of teaching experience? Years
Months

Brieﬂy describe your teaching
expenence:

 

 

15. Have you had any type of coaching experience prior to student teaching?
(1) Yes (2) No

If yes, how many months or years of coaching experience?
Years Months

Brieﬂy describe your coaching
expenence:

 

 

Personal Information

16. Last four digits of your social security number:

 

17. First letter of Last Name:

 

135

18.

Mailing address:

 

 

19.

Email Address:

 

20.

21.

22.

Telephone number (home):

Telephone number (work):

Can I contact you during the semester for a telephone interview? (No longer
than a 20-30 minutes conversation) Please check (f) “yes” or “no.”

Yes (1)

Cell Phone

 

 

No (2)

Would you like to participate in a future study?
Please check (1) “yes" or “no.”

Yes (1)

No (2)

136

 

The effects of student teaching on teacher efﬁcacy among preservice physical educators

INFORMED CONSENT FORM
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF KINESIOLOGY
(Preservice Teachers- Study)

The main purposes of this study are to examine changes in preservice physical
educators teaching efﬁcacy (conﬁdence) scores during the student teaching experience and to
identify the sources that they believe contribute to their current level of teaching efﬁcacy. It is
believed that this research project will provide signiﬁcant information about the training of student
teachers and will have potential impact on teacher preparation programs.

As part of this study, you will be asked to complete three paper and pencil questionnaires
three times and to participate if selected in a telephone interview twice during the 2004 Fall
semester and 2005 Spring semester. During the Fall semester you will complete the
questionnaires one time and participate in the telephone interview once. During the Spring
semester you will complete the questionnaires twice and again participate in the telephone
interview once. Completion of the questionnaires will take approximately 45 minutes and the
telephone interviews will take approximately 20—30 minutes. Your university teaching supervisor
and cooperating teacher will also be invited to participate in the study. Their participation will
involve completing one survey twice throughout your student teaching experience pertaining to
your level of teaching conﬁdence. Potential risks in participating in this study are substantially
small and may include a minimal loss of your time and perhaps feelings of uneasiness as you
think about the normal variations in level of teaching conﬁdence.

Your questionnaire and interview responses will remain conﬁdential, and your privacy will
be protected to the maximum extent allowable bylaw. The last four digits of your social security
number and the ﬁrst letter of your last name will be used to identify your survey and optional
interview responses. All information that identiﬁes you by name will be stored in a secure ﬁle
cabinet. The master list will be destroyed once data collection is completed.

Participation in the study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to participate at
all or to discontinue your participation at anytime without penalty. If you wish to discontinue your
participation from this study, you will be withdrawn immediately without any repercussions. Your
participation will not incur any academic or ﬁnancial beneﬁts.

Your willingness to participate in this study is greatly appreciated. Your honest
responses are valued and will possibly help the future preparation of student teachers. If you
have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact the Responsible Project
Investigator, Dr. Marty Ewing by phone (517) 353-4652, email: mewing@msu.edu, or regular
mail: 201 IM Sport circle, East Lansing, MI 48824; or the secondary investigator, Ivy Tagger by
phone (517)483-1450 or email: lvﬂaggeﬂsafe-mallmet.

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish
Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e~mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or
regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Having read the information provided, I voluntarily agree to participate in this study (ID#i020548).

Name (Print)

UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR
Signature THIS pfOJ'GCI EXPIRES:

Date‘ SEP 1 3 2005

SUBMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
ONE MONTH PRIOR TO
ABOVE DATE TO CONTINUE

 

 

137

Preservice Teaches-Study
All information recorded for this study will remain private to the maximum extent allowable
by law. Data obtained from all responses will be recorded without reference to your name.
The last four digits of your social security number and ﬁrst letter of your last name will be
used to identify and match your responses. After data collection, anything that Identlﬁes
you by name will be shredded and destroyed.

Demograghic Information

 

 

1. Gender: (1) Male (2) Female
2. Age:

3. Ethnic Afﬁliation:

__(1)African~American/Black __(2) Asian ____(3) Caucasian
__ (4) Latino(a) __ (5) Native American __ (6) Multiracial
______ (7) Other (Please Specify)

 

4. Location where you grew up:
(1) Suburban (2) Urban (3) Rural

5. Occupation of Mother:

 

6. Occupation of Father:

 

Student Teaching Information

7. During your student teaching SpringIWinter Semester 2005, what level will you be
teaching?
(1) Elementary (2) Secondary
(3) Both Elementary and Secondary (4) Not sure
(5) I will NOT be doing student teaching at this time
8. Have you had any type of teaching experience prior to student teaching?
__ (1) Yes __ (2) No

If yes, how many months or years of teaching experience? Years Months

Brieﬂy describe your teaching experience:

 

 

138

9. Have you had any type of coaching experience prior to student teaching?
( 1) Yes (2) No
If yes, how many months or years of coaching experience? Years Months

Brieﬂy describe your coaching experience:

 

 

Personal Information

10. Last four digits of your social security number:

 

11 First letter of Last Name:

 

12. Local address (school):

 

 

13. Permanent Address:

 

 

14. Email Address:

 

15. Telephone number (home): Cell Phone

 

Telephone number (work):

16. Can I contact you during the semester for a telephone interview? (No longer than a
20-30 minutes conversation) Please check (f) “yes” or “no.”

Yes (1) NO (2) __
17. Would you like to participate in a future study? Please check (f) “yes” or “no.”
Yes ( 1) No (2)

18. Would you like a summary of the results from this study?
Please check (I) “yes” or “no.”

Yes (1) N0 (2) __

139

The effects of student teaching on teacher efﬁcacy among preservice physical educators

INFORMED CONSENT FORM
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF KINESIOLOGY
(Cooperating Teachers)

The main purposes of this study are to examine changes in preservice physical
educators teaching efﬁcacy (conﬁdence) scores during the student teaching experience
and to identify the sources that they believe contribute to their current level of teaching
efﬁcacy. It is believed that this research project will provide signiﬁcant information about
the training of student teachers and will have potential impact on teacher preparation
programs.

As part of this study, you will be asked to complete one paper and pencil
questionnaire during the 2005 semester. Completion of the questionnaire will take
approximately 15 minutes. Potential risks in participating in this study are substantially
small and may include a minimal loss of your time.

Your questionnaire responses will remain conﬁdential and your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable bylaw. The last four digits of your social
security number and the ﬁrst letter of your last name will be used to identify your survey
responses. All information that identiﬁes you by name will be stored in a secure ﬁle
cabinet. The master list will be destroyed once data collection is completed.

Participation in the study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to
participate at all or to discontinue your participation at anytime without penalty. If you
wish to discontinue your participation from this study, you will be withdrawn immediately
without any repercussions. Your participation will not incur any academic or ﬁnancial
beneﬁts.

Your willingness to participate in this study is greatly appreciated. Your honest
responses are valued and will possibly help the future preparation of student teachers. If
you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact the Responsible
Project Investigator, Dr. Marty Ewing by phone (517) 353-4652, email:
mewing@msu.edu, or regular mail: 201 IM Sport circle, East Lansing, MI 48824; or the
secondary investigator, Ivy Tagger by phone (517) 483-1450 or email:
iyﬂggerQsafe-mailmet.

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or
are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact -
anonymously, if you wish -Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517)355-2180, fax: (517)
432-4503, e~mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI
48824.

Having read the information provided, I voluntarily agree to participate in this study
(|D#i020548).

UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR

 

 

 

Name (Print) THIS project EXPIRES:
Signature I SEP 1 3 2005
Date: .
SUBMIT RENEWAL APPUCAnON
ONE MONTH PRIOR TO
ABOVE DATE To CONTINUE

140

Cooperating Teachers

All Information recorded for this study will remain private to the maximum extent
allowable by law. Data obtained from all responses will be recorded without
reference to your name. The last four digits of your social security number and
ﬁrst letter of your last name will be used to identify and match your responses.
After data collection, anything that identiﬁes you by name will be shredded and

destroyed.

Demographic Information
1. Gender: (1) Male

 

(2) Female

 

2. Age:

3. Ethnic Afﬁliation:

(l) African-American/Black (2) Asian (3) Caucasian
__ (4) Latino(a) (5) Native American (6) Multiracial
_ (7) Other (Please Specify)

 

4. Name of school:

 

5. Location of school: (1) Suburban (2) Urban

6. Grade level(s) that you teach:

(3) Rural

 

7. Years of teaching experience:

 

Personal Information
8. Last four digits of your social security number:

 

9. First letter of Last Name:

 

10 Mailing address:

 

11. Email Address:

 

12. Telephone number (home): Cell Phone

 

Telephone munber (work):

 

 

13. Would you like a summary of the results from this research study?

____(1) Yes _(2)No

14. Can I contact you to participate in a future research study?_ (1) Yes_ (2) No

141

APPENDIX D
The Ohio State Teacher Efﬁcacy Scale (Longer Version)

Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001

142

Ohio State Teacher Efﬁcacy Scale (OSTES)
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001)

9-point scale
Scale
Nothing Very Some Quite A Great
Little Inﬂuence A Bit Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Factor 1: Efﬁcacy for Instructional Strategies

To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies?*

To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example
when students are confused?*

To what extent can you craft good questions for your students?*

How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom?*
How well can you respond to difﬁcult questions from your students?
How much can you do to adjust your lessons to the proper level for
individual students?

To what extent can you gauge student comprehension of what you have
taught?

How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable
students?

9" .“ 9.01:5.“ Nr‘

Factor 2: Efﬁcacy for Classroom Management

9. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the (physical
education) classroom?*

10. How much can you do to get children to follow classroom ruleS?*

11.How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy?*

12. How well can you establish a classroom management system with each
group of students?*

13. How well can you keep a few problem students from ruining an entire
lesson?

14. How well can you respond to deﬁant students?

15.To what extent can you make your expectation clear about student
behavior?

16. How well can you establish routines to keep activities running smoothly?

Factor 3: Efﬁcacy for Student Engagement
17. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in
schoolwork (physical education)?*
18. How much can you do to help your students value Ieaming (in physical
education)?*
19. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in
schoolwork (physical education)?*

143

20. How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in
school (physical education)?*

21 . How much can you do to improve the understanding of a student who is
failing (in physical education)?

22. How much can you do to help your students think critically (in physical
education)?

23. How much can you do to foster student creativity (in physical education)?

24. How much can you do to get through to the most difﬁcult students?

Note: Physical education was added to statements for clarity. Asterisk “*”
denotes items that are on the 12-item scale

144

Preservice Teachers

 

Teacher Beliefs-OSTES "W much can you do?

 

This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of the
kinds of things that create challenges for teachers in their school activities.

Directions: Please indicate your opinion about each of the questions below
by marking one of the nine responses in the columns on the right side. The
scale of responses ranges from “None at all” (1) to “A Great Deal” (9), with

 

“Some Degree” (5) representing the mid-point between these low and high :-
extremes. You may choose M of the nine possible responses, since each 0
represents a degree on the continuum. Your answers are conﬁdential. 5 3 g E
2 o O .
Please respond to each of the questions by considering the in E 8 ‘2 3;
combination of your current ablllty, resources, and opportunity to do 3 P 3 2
o-n E. E '- 0
each of the following In your present position. 0 o o =
Z > to <
1. How much can you do to get through to the most difﬁcult (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

students?

 

2. How much can you do to help your students think critically in (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
physical education?

 

3. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
physical education classroom?

 

4. How much can you do to motivate students who show low (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
interest in physical education schoolwork?

 

5. To what extent can you make your expectations clear about (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
student behaviof?

 

6. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
well in physical education?

 

7. How well can you respond to difﬁcult questionsfromyour (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
students?

 

8. How well can you establish routines to keep activities running (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
smoothly?

 

9. How much can you do to help your students value Ieaming in (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
physical education?

 

10. How much can you gauge student comprehension of what you (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
have taught?

 

11. To what extent can you craft good questions for you (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
students? .

 

12. How much can you dotofoster student creativity in physical (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
education?

 

 

 

13. How much can youdotogetchildrentofollow classroom (i) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
rules?
14. How much can you do to improve the understanding ofa (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

student who is failing in physical education?

 

145

 

15.

How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or
noisy?

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

16.

How well can you establish a classroom management system
with each group of students?

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

17.

How much can you do to adjust your lessons to the proper
level for individual students?

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

18.

How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies?

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

19.

How well can you keep a few problem students form ruining an
entire lesson?

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

20.

To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or
example when students are confused?

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

21.

How well can you respond to deﬁant students?

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

. How much can you assist families in helping their children do

well in physical education?

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

23.

How well can you implement alternative strategies in your
classroom?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

 

24.

 

How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very
capable students?

 

(1)

 

(2)

 

(3)

 

(4)

 

(5)

 

(6)

 

(7)

 

(8)

 

(9)

 

25. What teaching phase have you begun in your student teaching experience?.

If you have NOT begun your student teaching assignment, please check (V) the

response below.

I have not begun my student teaching assignment

If you have begun your student teaching assignment, please check (/) one response

that best describes your current teaching phase.

I have not taught at all, observing only

I have taught a few lessons or skills in one or some class sessions (not

the entire class)

I have taught entire lessons in a few (not all) class sessions

I am fully engaged, teaching entire lessons in all classes

Other (Please Explain):

 

146

 

Elementagy Teaching Assignment:

25. Name of cooperating teacher:

 

26. Name of school:

 

27. Location of school:
(1) Suburban (2) Urban (3) Rural

28. What grades(s) and subject(s) are you teaching?

 

 

29. Name(s) of university teaching supervisor(s) who observe you during your student
teaching experience:

 

Secondagy Teaching Assignment:

30. Name of cooperating teacher:

 

31. Name of school:

 

32. Location of school:
(1) Suburban (2) Urban (3) Rural

33. What grades(s) and subject(s) are you teaching?

 

 

34. Name(s) of university teaching supervisor(s) who observe you during your student
teaching experience: ~

 

147

Cooperating Teacher

 

Teacher Beliefs-OSTES ”m" much can you do?

 

This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better
understanding of the kinds of things that create challenges for
teachers in their school activities.

Directions: Please indicate your Opinion about each of the
questions below by circling gm of the ten responses in the
columns on the right side. The scale of responses ranges
from “None at all” (1) to “A Great Deal” (9), with “Some
Degree” (5) representing the mid-point between these low and
high extremes. If you are unable to assess the ability of the
preservice teacher you are observing, circle the “?" which
represents “Unable to Assess.” Your answers are conﬁdential.

 

 

 

3
Please respond to each of the questions in § E 8 _
regards to the STUDENT TEACHER you are § 2 w a g
observing. 1; in § § < jg
E El P. § r; as
D Z > to O (
1. How much can helshe do to get through to the most ? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
difﬁcult students?
2. How much can helshe do to help his/her students think 7 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
critically in physical education?
?

3. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
physical education classroom?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?
4. How much can helshedoto motivate students who show (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
low interest in physical education schoolwork?
?
5. To what extent can helshe make his/her expectations (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
clear about student behavior?
?
6. How much can helshedoto get studentstobelieve they (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
can do well in physical education?
?
7. How well can helshe respondtodifficult questions from (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
his/her students?
?
8. How well can helshe establish routines to keep activities (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
running smoothly?
?
9. How much can helshedoto help his/her students value (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Ieaming in physical education?
?
10. How much can helshe gauge student comprehension of (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
what helshe has taught?
?

11. To what extent can helshecraftgood questions for his/her (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
students?

 

12. How much can helshedotofoster student creativity in (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
physical education?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

148

 

13.

How much can helshe do to get children to follow
classroom rules?

(I)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

14.

How much can helshe do to improve the understanding of
a student who is failing in physical education?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

15.

How much can helshe do to calm a student who is
disruptive or noisy?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(3)

(9)

 

16.

How well can helshe establish a classroom management
system with each group of students?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

17.

How much can helshe do to adjust his/her lessons to the
proper level for individual students?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

18.

How much can helshe use a variety of assessment
strategies?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

19.

How well can helshe keep a few problem students form
ruining an entire lesson?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

20.

To what extent can helshe provide an alternative
explanation or example when students are confused?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

21.

How well can helshe respond to deﬁant students?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

. How much can helshe assist families in helping their

children do well in physical education?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

 

23.

How well can helshe implement alternative strategies in
his/her classroom?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(3)

(9)

 

 

24.

 

How well can helshe provide appropriate challenges for
very capable students?

 

 

(1)

 

(2)

 

(3)

 

(4)

 

(5)

 

(6)

 

(7)

 

(8)

 

(9)

 

149

 

APPENDIX E

The Teacher Efﬁcacy Scale (Short Form)

 

Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993

150

The Teacher Efﬁcacy Scale (Short-Form)

Hoy and Woolfolk (1993)
6-point Scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree

Personal Teaching Efﬁcacy:

1.
2.

3.

4.

5.

When I really try, I can get through to most difﬁcult students.

If a student did not remember information I gave in a pervious lesson, I
would know how to increase his or her retention in the next lesson.

When a student gets a better grade than he or She usually gets, it is
usually because I found a better way.

If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I
know some techniques to redirect him or her quickly.

If I try hard, I can get through to even the most difﬁcult or unmotivated
students.

General Teaching Efﬁcacy:

1.
2.

The amount a student can Ieam is primarily related to family background.
A teacher is very limited in what he or she can achieve because a
student’s home environment is a large inﬂuence on his or her
achievement.

. When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because

most of a student’s home environment is a large inﬂuence on his or her
achievement.

If students are not disciplined at home, they aren’t likely to accept any
discipline.

If parents would do more for their children, I could do more.

151

Preservice Teachers

 

 

position.

H M h D Y
Teacher Efﬁcacy Scale- ”w 1;" ° °“
gree
TES (Short Form)
This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better
understanding of the kinds of things that create challenges for
teachers in their school activities.
Directions: Please indicate the degree to which you agree or
disagree with each statement below by circling the appropriate
numeral to the side of each statement. The responses range from
“Strongly Agree” (1) to “Strongly Disagree" (6). You may choose
o_ng of the six possible responses, since each represents a degree 3
on the continuum. Your answers are conﬁdential. g at
O) .-
Please respond to each of the questions by considering the i O
combination of your current ablllty, resources, and 2": 3
opportunity to do each of the following in your present g E
<0 6

 

1. The amount a student can Ieam is primarily related to family
background.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

A
O)
v

 

2. If students are not disciplined at home, they aren't likely to
accept any discipline.

A
O)
v

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

 

3. If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel
assured that I know some techniques to redirect him or her
quickly.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

 

4. If a student did not remember information I gave in a pervious
lesson, I would know how to increase his or her retention in
the next lesson. .

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

 

5. When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much
because most of a student’s home environment is a large
inﬂuence on his or her achievement.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

 

6' If parents would do more for their children, I could do more.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

 

7' When I really try, I can get through to most difﬁcult students.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

 

8' When a student gets a better grade than he or she usually
ets, it is usually because I found a better way.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (5)

 

9. A teacher is very limited in what he or she can achieve
because a student’s home environment is a large inﬂuence on
his or her achievement

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

 

 

 

10 If I try hard, I can get through to even the most difﬁcult or
. unmotivated students.

 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

152

APPENDIX F

Student Teaching Experience Questionnaire

153

Preservice Teachers-Pilot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

° ' H M h D Y A
Student Teachlng Expenence °" “° ° °“ gm
Questlonnalre
This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better
understanding of the kinds of things that create challenges for
student teachers during their student teaching experience.
Directions: Please indicate the degree to which you agree or
disagree with each statement below by circling the appropriate
numeral to the side of each statement. You may choose m
of the six possible responses, since each represents a degree
on the continuum. Your answers are conﬁdential.
:3;
s a?
2 a
2 E
2 §’
‘6 .‘=
z w
1. To what degree do you identify yourself professionally with your (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
COOperating teaching?
2. According to the descriptors below, how would you describe your
relationship with your cooperating teacher? 5
'2' a
.. 2
< a
‘6 o
z >
0 Helpful (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
- Provides Constructive Feedback (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
. Supportive (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
. Comm (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
. Encourages self expression (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
o Warm/Friendly (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
o Encourages Independence (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
3. How much do the following external or environmental factors
impact student Ieaming for you in your current school = 5
environment? 5 g
<
'5 5‘
z >
0 Classroom Discipline (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (5)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 é
.. 2
< a
'5 o
2 >
o Unmotivated Students (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Dealing with Individual Differences (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Parental Issues (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (5)
0 Home Environment Issues (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
o Inadequate school equipment and supplies (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
o Inadequate Facility or Space (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Large Class Sizes (Number of students) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
a Dangerous School Environment (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Heavy Teaching Loads (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Lack of Teaching Independence (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Working with Children of Different Race/Ethnic (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Backgrounds
0 Working with Non-English Speaking Children (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
. Inclusion of Disabled or Special Needs Students (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
. Your Relationship with your Cooperating Teacher (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Your Relationship with your University Teaching (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Supervisor
2 §
.. 2
< a
‘6 a:
Z >
To what extent do external or environmental factors beyond your (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
control influence your confidence to impact student Ieaming?
(i.e. Classroom size. School environment. Student's home
environment).

 

 

 

Which external or environmental factor impacts student Ieaming
the MOST in your school environment? Please indicate on;
faggr from the list above in the space provided. '

 

Other: (Please Specify)

 

 

 

155

 

 

 

During your student teaching experience, how confident do you
feel in performing the following teaching responsibilities and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ta k ., = 6
S S . S g
<
'5 E
Z 2
o Maintaining Classroom Discipline (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Assessing students’ work (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Determining Ieaming levels of students ( 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
- Motivating Students (1) (2) (31 (4) (5) (6)
o Explaining subject matter to students (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Understanding subject matter for myself (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
. Planning Lessons (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (5)
. Providing Lessons based on Individual Learning Levels (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
- Relating with Parents (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
o Relating with School Colleagues (teachers, principal, (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
etc.)
. Organizing Class Work (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
o Balancing Heavy Work Loads (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (5)
0 Working with Children of Different Race/Ethnic (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Backgrounds
0 Working with NonoEninsh Speaking Children (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Working with Disabled or Special Needs Students ( 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Dealing with Speciﬁc Problems of Individual Learners (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Using Different Teaching Methods Effectively (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

 

 

 

 

Which teaching responsibility or task do you feel MOST conﬁdent
in performing? Please indicate one task from the list above in
the space provided.

 

Other. (Please Specify)

 

 

156

 

 

Which teaching responsibility or task do you feel LEAST
conﬁdent in performing? Please indicate ong task from the list
above in the space provided.

 

 

Other

(Please Specify)

 

 

Not At All Difﬁcult

Very Difficult

 

How would you describe the degree of difﬁculty that exists in
your current teaching environment?

A

1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

10.

During your student teaching experience, how much do the
following factors contribute to a difﬁcult teaching environment?

Not At All

 

Classroom Discipline

A

1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

Unmotivated Students

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

Dealing with Individual Differences

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

Parental Issues

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

Home Environment Issues

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

Inadequate School Equipment and Supplies

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

Inadequate Facility or Space

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

Dangerous School Environment

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

Large Class Size (Number of students)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

Heavy Teaching Loads

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

Lack of Teaching Independence

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

Working with Children of Different Races/Ethnic
Backgrounds

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

 

Working with Non-English Speaking Children

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

 

Working with Disabled or Special Needs Students

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

 

Your Relationship with your Cooperating Teacher

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

 

 

 

Your Relationship with your University Teaching
Supervisor

 

(1)

 

(2)

 

(3)

 

(4)

 

(5)

 

(6)

 

157

 

 

 

 

11.

During your student teaching experience, which factor
contributes the MOST to a difficult teaching environment?
Please indicate one factor from the list above in the space
provided.

 

 

 

Other: (Please Specify)

 

ﬂditimil Demomphic Questions:

What best describes your typical class size? Please circle one answer.

A) Under 20 students B) 21-30 students C) 31-40 students D) Over 40 students

What type of class structure do you have?

A) Co-educational classes B) Same-sex classes

Do you have any additional comments you would like to make in regards to your student
teaching experience?

Do you have any comments or suggestions to improve this survey? Any suggestions
would be very helpful. You may use the space below or write directly on the survey.

Thanks You For Participatingllll

158

 

Preservice Teachers - Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' ° H M h D Y A
Student Teachmg Expenence °" “° ° °“ 3""
Questlonnalre
This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better
understanding of the kinds of things that create challenges
for student teachers during their student teaching
expeﬁence.
Directions: Please indicate the degree to which you agree 3% g
or disagree with each statement below by circling the g 5
appropriate numeral to the side of each statement. You may ; 2
choose m of the six possible responses, since each i .3
represents a degree on the continuum. Your answers are S g
conﬁdential. O J:
z a)
1. To what degree do you identify yourself professionally with (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
your cooperating teaching?
2. According to the descriptors below, how would you describe _ .1:
your relationship with your cooperating teacher? 2 g
z 2
*5 5
.Z >
. Helpful (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
0 Provides Constructive Feedback (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
o Supportive (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
. Controlling (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
. Encourages self expression (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (5)
. Warm/Friendly (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
o Encourages Independence (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
3. How much do the following environmental factors negatively
impact student Ieaming in your current school environment? a
o.
< .:
ve-o = O
o
2 f, g
3 E a
O 0 CD
0 L >
0 Classroom Discipline "/3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

159

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2
o.
a.
< .c
'H = 0
O
z E g
m <
o .. 2‘
O O 0)
CD 2 >
/
. Unmotivated Students ”3 (1) (2) (3) (4) <5) (6)
l
0 Dealing with Individual Differences (i.e. Learning na (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
ability, Skill Level)
n/
. Parental Issues a (1) <2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
nl
a Home Environment Issues a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
nl
. inadequate school equipment and supplies a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/
. Inadequate Facility or Space a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
/
. Large Class Sizes (Number of students) "a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/
0 Dangerous/ Violent School Environment a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
I
. Illegal Drug Usage in Environment "3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/
. Heavy Teaching Loads a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/
0 Lack of Teaching Independence a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
/
. Working with Children of Different Race/Ethnic " a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Backgrounds
n/
0 Working with Non-English Speaking Children a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/
0 Inclusion of Disabled or Special Needs Students a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/ .
0 Your Relationship with your Cooperating Teacher a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/
0 Your Relationship with your University Teaching a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Supervisor
= 5
s a
<
*5 E
Z >
Overall, to what extent do environmental factors beyond your (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
control negatively inﬂuence your conﬁdence to impact
student Ieaming? (i.e. Classroom size, School environment,
Student's home environment).

 

160

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which environmental factor negatively impacts student
Ieaming the MOST in your school environment? Please
indicate one factor from the list above in the space provided.
Other: (Please Specify)
During your student teaching experience, how conﬁdent do
you feel in performing the following teaching responsibilities
and tasks? "'2
Q.
E : §
Z 2 2
§ *5 E
D Z >
n/a
0 Maintaining Classroom Discipline (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
la
. Assessing students’work " (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
/
0 Determining Ieaming levels of students n a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n
. Motivating Students ’3 <1) (2) <3) (4) (5) (6)
o Explaining subject mattertostudents n/a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
/
. Understanding subject matter for myself " a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
. planning Lessons “la (1) (2) <3) <4) (5) (6)
0 Providing Lessons based on Individual Learning n/a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Levels
. . n/a
- Relating with Parents (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
l
o Relating with School Colleagues (teachers, principal, n a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
etc.)
.. n/a
. Organizing Class Work (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/
. Balancing Heavy Wont Loads a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n
a Working with Children of Different Race/Ethnic la (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Backgrounds
n
. Working with Non-English Speaking Children [a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/a
0 Working with Disabled or Special Needs Students (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n a
0 Dealing with Speciﬁc Problems of Individual Learners I (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
' n/a
0 Using Different Teaching Methods Effectively (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

161

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Which teaching responsibility or task do you feel MOST
conﬁdent in performing? Please indicate one task from the list
above in the space provided.
Other: (Please Specify)
8. Which teaching responsibility or task do you feel LEAST
conﬁdent in performing? Please indicate one task from the list
above in the space provided.
Other: (Please Specify)
E
o
g ._u
E 5
2 E
3 3
‘6 o
2 >
9. How would you describe the degree of difﬁculg that exists in (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
your current teaching environment?
10. During your student teaching experience, how much do the
following factors contribute to a gifficult teaching environment >
for you as a student teacher? E“.
< — a
2 g g
(I)
8 *5 E
C) 2 >
0 Managing Classroom Discipline n/a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
. Motivating Students who are Unmotivated "la (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/
0 Dealing with Individual Differences (i.e. Learning a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
ability, Skill Level)
n/a
0 Dealing with Parental Issues (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/a
0 Dealing with Student’s Home Environment Issues (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/a
0 Inadequate School Equipment and Supplies (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/a
- Inadequate Facility or Space (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/
- Dangerous/Violent School Environment 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/
0 Illegal Drug Usage in Environment 8 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

162

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2‘
Q.
a.
< .c
H = o
O 3
Z 2 E
m
o a. Z‘
O O d)
D Z >
n/
a Managing Large Class Size (Number of students) a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/a
0 Managing Heavy Teaching Loads (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/
0 Lack of Teaching Independence a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/
0 Working with Children of Different Races/Ethnic a (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Backgrounds
n/
0 Working with Non-English Speaking Children a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/a
0 Working with Disabled or Special Needs Students ( 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n/
0 Your Relationship with your Cooperating Teacher 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
n
0 Your Relationship with your University Teaching la (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Supervisor
11. During your student teaching experience. which factor
contributes the MOST to a difﬁcult teaching environment f9_r
19g? Please indicate one fagor from the list above in the
space provided.
Other: (Please Specify)
12. How well did you undergraduate program prepare you for your =
student teaching experience? i
< =
= m
o
3 i
'5' in
Z >
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
13. How would you rate the compatibility of your student teaching
placement? In other words, do you think you are a “good fit” if
with your school placement? {f ‘8
h 0
o t
o o
a. o.
< <
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

163

 

14. Current Student Teaching Assignment

Name of cooperating teacher:

 

Name of school:

 

Grade Level: (1) Elementary (2) Middle School (2) High School

What best describes your typical class size? Please circle one answer.
_ (1) Under 20 students (2) 21-30 students (3) 31-40 students
(4) Over 40 students

What type of class structure do you have?
(1) Only Co-educational classes (2) Only Same-sex classes

(3) Both (Some Coed classes and Some Same-sex Classes)

15. Do you have any additional comments you would like to make in regards to your
student teaching experience? (Use the back if more space is needed)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR PARTICIPATINéllll

164

APPENDIX G

Telephone Interview Guideline: Pilot and Study

 

 

165

Telephone Interview Guideline: Pilot

Instructional Strategies:

 

Think about the last class that you taught. Did you use speciﬁc
instructional strategies to deliver your class lesson or did you

 

 

 

simply go with the ﬂow?
If No I went
—_.I__—
If Yes, I used al with the ﬂow 1
strategy """ "' ""'

 

 

Describe the instructional
strategies that you used in
your last class.

Think about your last class
session and how you
delivered your class lessons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you ﬁnd this method of
instructional delivery to be
effective?

If Yes £_o
Why did you ﬁnd this Why didn’t you ﬁnd
method of instruction this method of
effective? What instruction effective?
happened in the What happened in the
classroom to make classroom to make
you feel that it was you feel that it wasn’t
effective? effective?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you think about your current level of
conﬁdence in utilizing instructional strategies
(very good, good, fair, or poor), where did that
level of conﬁdence come from? In other words,
how did you acquire your current level of
conﬁdence in regards to instructional strategies?

 

 

 

166

 

Telephone Interview Guideline: Pilot

Classroom Management

 

 

Think about the last class that you taught. Did you
use speciﬁc classroom management strategies to
maintain order in your class or did you just go with
the ﬂow and deal with problems as they occur?

 

 

If YES, I use
strategies

 

 

Describe the classroom
management strategies that you
used in your last class.

If NO, 1 NOT
use strategies

 

 

Describe a class seSsion in

which you had an unmly
student I—Inw (lid vml handle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you ﬁnd this
classroom management
' ? If NO
If YES strategy to be effective
Why did you ﬁnd this Why didn’t you ﬁnd this

classroom management strategy
to be effective? What happened
in the classroom to make you
feel that it was effective?

 

 

 

 

classroom management
strategy to be effective?
What happened in the
classroom to make you feel
that it wasn’t effective?

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you think about your current level of conﬁdence in
utilizing classroom management strategies (very good, good, fair,
or poor), where did that level of conﬁdence come from? In other
words, how did you acquire your current level of conﬁdence in
regards to class management strategies?

 

167

 

Telephone Interview Guideline: Pilot

Student Engagement

 

lesson?

 

Think about the last class that you taught. Did you use student
engagement strategies such as motivating students or discussing
with them the value of physical education during your class

 

 

If YES, I use
strategies

If NO, I do NOT
use strategies

 

 

 

Describe a student engagement
strategy that you used in your

 

 

 

Think about a typical class
session. How do you get
your students involved in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

last class. your lessons or how do you
motivate them to want to
participate in physical
activity?
Did you ﬁnd this student
engagement strategy to
' 9
If Yes be effective.
/ If NO
Why did you ﬁnd this , , ,
strategy to be effective? Why dldn t you ﬁnd thls
What happened in the strategy to be effective?
What happened in the

feel that it was
effective?

 

classroom to make you

 

 

 

 

classroom to make you
feel that it was not
effective?

 

 

 

 

 

When you think about your current level of conﬁdence in
utilizing student engagement strategies (very good, good, fair, or
poor), where did that level of conﬁdence come from? In other
words, how did you acquire your current level of conﬁdence in
regards to student engagement strategies?

 

 

168

 

Interview Script: Study

Class Management
1. When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom

management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 =
very good; 3 = fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

2. Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a _ in utilizing classroom
management techniques?

3. Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

4. How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Instructional Strategies
1. When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing

instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 =
very good; 3 = fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

2. Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a _ in utilizing instructional
strategies?

3. Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

4. How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Student Engagement
1. When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student

engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 =
very good; 3 = fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

2. Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a _ in utilizing student
engagement techniques?

3. Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

4. How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where
did it come from?

Additional uestions

Do you still want to be a physical education teacher?
Was your student teaching experience valuable?

Was one teaching setting more valuable than the other?
How valuable was your college preparation?

How helpful were your cooperating teachers?

919.0353?"

169

APPENDIX H
University Committee on Research

Involving Human Subjects Approval Form

170

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

September 15, 2004

TO: Martha E. EWING
138 IM Sports Circle
MSU

RE: IRB# 04-628 CATEGORY: EXEMPT 2

APPROVAL DATE: September 14, 2004
EXPIRATION DATE September 13, 2005

TITLE: The effects of student teaching on teacher efﬁcacy among preservice physical
educators

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this

project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human

subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are

appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. Projects
continuing beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such
expedited renewals are possible. Investigators wishing to continue ‘a project beyond that time
need to submit a 5-year application for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please include a revision form
with the renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your
written request with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in your request a description of
the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.
PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work,
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes In the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
htth/www.humanresearch.msu.edu

Sincerely,

#5422

Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D.
UCRIHS Chair

171

‘z

APPENDIX l

Tentative Schedule of Events

172

 

Tentative Schedgle of Events
Preparation Phase:
By August 13'": Obtain approval to begin dissertation

0 Submit on-Iine UCRIHS form
0 Present dissertation proposal to committee members
0 Obtain UCRIHS approval

By September 30‘": Recruitment of university supervisors

0 Call all six universities. Phone and send recruitment letters to university
supervisors.
0 Discuss with university supervisor:
0 Purpose of the study
0 Value of study to the teacher education program and its possible
contribution in helping preservice teachers succeed during the
student teaching experience and once they enter in their
professional teaching career
0 Need access to student teachers’ and cooperating teachers’
contact information

0 Use check sheet to acquire pertinent information. Example questions that
will be asked:

0 How long is the student teaching process?

0 Is the student teaching experience on the same schedule as the
university or is it on the public school schedule? What is the
schedule that the preservice teachers follow?

0 How many physical education student teachers will be beginning
their student teaching experience during the Fall 2004/Spring 2005
semester?

0 Do they teaching elementary and secondary during the Fall/Spring
semesters?

o Is there a student teaching seminar class when all the student
teachers meet together? When does this class meet?

0 Send recruitment package to each university supervisor
o A letter that describes the purpose and value of the study
0 Informed consent forms
0 Demographic questionnaires
o Surveys

173

 

 

o Follow-up recruitment package with a phone call and/or email
0 Set up meeting to discuss research study and to request
permission to recruit preservice physical educators and their
cooperating teachers for those who have volunteered to participate
o Extend another invitation to participate in study to university
teaching supervisors for those who have N91 returned the
recruitment package

By October 30‘“: Meet with all participating university supervisors

0 Meet with university teaching supervisors at their perspective universities
(If necessary):
0 Answering any questions about research study
0 Request permission to recruit preservice physical educators during
class time
0 Obtain a list of all the cooperating teachers of preservice physical
educators

Phase 1:
By December 15‘“: Recruitment of preservice physical educators

0 Visit each student teaching internship course (taught by university
supervisors); explain purpose and value of study. Invite preservice
physical educators to participate in study

0 Preservice physical educators who volunteer to participate will complete
the following information in class or information will be sent to them via
mail:

0 Informed consent form
0 Demographic questionnaire
- Questionnaires: OSTES and TES

By January 30‘": Recruitment of cooperating teachers

- Organize recruitment package for cooperating teachers:
Phase 2:
By February 30‘“: Data Collection

0 Send 2"d survey packet to preservice teachers
0 OSTES. TES. STEQ
- Send recruitment package to cooperating teachers

0 Recruitment letter, Informed consent form, Demographic information,
OSTES

174

By March 15‘“: Reminders
0 Call/ email all preservice teachers who have not returned survey packet
0 Call/ email cooperating teachers who have not responded and extent
another invitation for them to participate in study
Phase 3

By April 30‘": Data collection

0 Send 3rd survey packet to preservice teachers
- OSTES, TES, STEQ
. Send survey packet to cooperating teachers
- OSTES
- Begin telephone interviews with preservice educators

By May 15‘“: Reminders

0 Call/ email all preservice and cooperating teachers who have not returned
survey packet

By June 30‘“: Data Entry
0 Have all quantitative data entered in SPSS program
By July 30‘“: Categorization of qualitative data

0 Have meeting with two members of dissertation committee for agreement
of qualitative data

By November 30‘“: Data Analysis and Interpretation

0 Complete analyses and interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data
0 Complete chapters 4 and 5

By December 19‘“: Dissertation Defense
0 Dissertation Defense
0 Report ﬁndings

0 Invite participants of the study and academic community
0 Complete revisions

175

 

APPENDIX J

Interview Transcription for Preservice Teachers

176

   

Interview Transcription

Interview #1 (Mona)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 23-r0240: I would hope it would be a 4.

Researcher: And why would you rate your conﬁdence a 4 in classroom management?
Subject 23-r0240: I feel I have good classroom management skills. Coming to a student
teaching classroom, you walk into a room that is already. . .you know, the class rules have
already been laid out. So it is kind of hard to change that, but I can deﬁnitely see if it
were my way it would be different.

Researcher: How would it be different?

Subject 23-r0240: From my experiences, it would be more structured and in one case
more disciplined.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 23-r0240: Much of it was already in place so it was hard to make changes. So I
followed what the cooperating teacher had already been going with and then I tried to
implement some of my own techniques. I tried not to change things too drastically.
Researcher: Was your conﬁdence different from the ﬁrst assignment to the second
assignment?

Subject 23-r0240: Oh, deﬁnitely. I taught in two different types of settings. One was
more, well, not quite inner city, but urban. The other place was more rural. My ﬁrst
assignment was urban and the community was more disciplined and more structured.
That came more easier for me. But the rural setting was much too lacks; I thought it
needed to tighten up. I thought I would think the complete opposite of all this.
Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in classroom management?
In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 23-r0240: I pretty much walked in to the classroom with a lot of conﬁdence. I
had experience working with children before, even teens before. So I felt I already had a
little something to draw upon coming in and just gradually the kids saw my style of
teaching.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 23-r0240: Again, I would say a 4 because it was all new still. Everything is
new and still a new Ieaming experience. Just getting out there and practicing more and
more, I would become better at it. I didn’t do horribly.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 23-r0240: Probably a little bit. With elementary school I was more conﬁdent
than walking into a high school. My elementary was my ﬁrst teaching assignment.

177

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject 23-r0240: With practice and observing the c00perating teacher and how they
structured their lesson plans.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 23-r0240: I wouldn’t give myself excellent on anything because I’m still new.
But it would be some where between a 3 or 4.

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself a 34?

Subject 23-r0240: Out of all three categories I believe it is important to motivate
students. Ihad good experience with students who were not very motivated, when I ﬁrst
began student teaching, but I was able to slightly change their views.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 23-r0240: Yes but no. There was such an age gap. But no because I simply
asked the students what they wanted to do. So I asked one of the girls (at the elementary
school) what they liked to do. And she said she hated basketball, but liked swimming, so
I told her that each sport takes coordination and your body has to be coordinated in order
to do either sport. I explained to her how her body works. So I tried to apply everything
that we did to what they would be interested in. Both (elementary and secondary) were
pretty equal in regards to motivating.

Researcher: Are you still considering to be a physical education teacher?

Subject 23-r0240: Yes, deﬁnitely.

Researcher: Was your student teaching experience valuable?

Subject 23-r0240: Absolutely.

Researcher: Was one teaching setting more valuable than the other?

Subject 23-r0240: Both were very valuable. I learned something different ﬁ'om each
setting

Researcher: How valuable was your college preparation?

Subject 23-r0240: Our school did a very good job.

Researcher: How helpful were your cooperating teachers?

Subject 23-r0240: With my ﬁrst placement they gave me a lot of skills to help me to
organize. For my second placement it needed to be more structured.

 

Interview #2 (Marie)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 32: I would say a 4

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 4

Subject 32: Because I have been a substitute teacher. And a lot of the conﬁdence and
skills I’ve used that have worked for me I was able to use them for my student teaching.
I have had students listen to me before and I didn’t have problems. I’ve taught all the
way up to 12th grade already.

178

f-

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 32: It totally changed. I really had conﬁdence when I came in, but my mentor
really made the difference. My mentor at my ﬁrst assignment really didn’t teach me
anything and my second one she really helped. I was very comfortable being in front of
people. The ﬁrst mentor really just added to what I already had, but I grew much more
with the second teaching assignment.

Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 32:: Experience deﬁnitely. The information that was given, just how to
approach and organize a class was so good. And the preintemship was very valuable.
Substituting also helped. It just makes you more efﬁcient at what you are doing.
Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 32: I would say 4 in that too.

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as 4

Subject 32: Well you have to Ieam how to break down the skills and I wrote a 10 day
lesson plan and I wrote speciﬁcally what I was going to do, how I was going to do it,
what I was going to say, just everything. By the end of the two weeks, everything just
came together. But I’m not sure if I’m just lucky, but I had 50 students and they were not
all athletes at all and the last 3 days of the 2-week unit I had them all participating and
playing a game of volleyball. It was very successful. Also several lessons were already
set for me so I just added to it.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 32:: I really felt my conﬁdence was more at the junior high school level. I felt I
could relate to them better. I felt I could give to them what they needed. Plus, my
mentor teacher gave me so much feedback.

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words; how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject 32: I think it was my general knowledge of the school physical education
curriculum. It is also about educating yourself on what you’re teaching. And deﬁnitely
the classes I took at my college helped me develop lesson plans and a unit. But I really
think it is about educating yourself. The more you know the easier it gets and the more
conﬁdence you have.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor. '
Subject 32 : I would say a 4

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 4

Subject 32: Whatever unit it would be I would always incorporate a really fun warm-up.
The original warm-up was so bad, they would just walk in the class and sit in their rows
and just stretch on their own. And then they would have to jog 2 laps. I sat back and I
said I have some ideas and luckily my mentor was open to them and what I did was have
5 different cardiovascular things for them to do in groups, sometimes I would use leaders,

179

and sometimes I would led. Some days I would have them do lower body, like lunges,
squats, and different things like that. And then Tuesdays and Thursdays they would do
some type of core training. They were really engaged. They interacted with each other
but they were busy and active. I also explained to them the beneﬁts of cardiovascular
exercise and core strength which was a motivation I think for them. I also felt I was able
to answer their questions in a way they could understand it because they could feel it in
their body. I also tried to teach at an intermediate level and then make it a little more
advance.

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?
Subject 32: I’m a personal trainer and I know many ways to build a person’s
conﬁdence. I like to incorporate as much one-on-one in the classroom. It is also the
experience I have had. I know if a student can’t do one activity, there is something else I
can give him to do instead. And also research and education are so important.
Researcher: Anything you want to add about your student teaching experience?
Subject 32: Mentor teachers have to give speciﬁc feedback no matter if it is bad or
good. Because times when I thought I was doing bad, it was good reading that my
mentor teacher wrote some positive things that I did that I really didn’t notice. Things
that I thought I did really well, she would also make more suggestions that I thought were
helpﬁll. And it was very speciﬁc, not like “classroom management was good.” It (the
feedback) has to be very speciﬁc for it to even matter. And they have to know what they
are talking about. My college prep did good in helping to set up a unit and showing an
outline of how classes should go. But often I felt like I just don’t want to do this. And
we had activity classes such as basketball and soccer during our program, things like that,
and they are taught by graduate students. And you go to these classes and they are really
unrealistic in a lot of ways. I just didn’t like that. I didn’t know anything about some of
these sports. I think for the activity classes it would be better if they taught them as if
they were coaching the students. And then we could implement it the way we are going
to teach based on the school you are assigned to because every school is completely
different. It is not only one way to teach and I felt they emphasized that too much.

 

I_nterview #3 (J erer_n_y)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 18: I would rate myself a 4

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 4

Subject 18: Because throughout my student teaching, in all my classes I had a good
management system. The students really already knew what to do. I did not have to
really incorporate much of my own management. They already knew what was expected
of them. So it wasn’t very hard for me to just kind of step in. Now, it makes me think a
little that when I have my own class it might be a little harder because I will have to start
(my own) system. '

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

180

Subject 18: I had a middle school for the ﬁrst half and an elementary school for the
second half. I think my conﬁdence in this area started out about the same with both
assignments. I didn’t have a lot of conﬁdence. I didn’t have tons of it. But after I got in
to it I realized I did know what I was doing so my conﬁdence was pretty high. I was
more nervous about the younger kids because I didn’t have much experience working
with them. But once I got into it I realize I was prepared for it.

Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 18:: I would say it started through the practicum at my college. After I got into
the classroom and actually started teaching myself it was different than just watching and
drinking you can just do it. But once you actually jump into it and do it; and then you
realize it is not that big of a deal and I can handle it.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 18: I would rate myself a 3.

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as a 3
Subject 18: I did everything right off of my actual written lesson plan. It was my ﬁrst
time teaching and everything in my student teaching I had never taught it before. So it
was nothing that really went exactly like I planned it or how I expected it. But after the
ﬁrst class I would teach the same lesson about 3 or 4 times. So by the 3rd or 4th time
teaching that same lesson I would say it was pretty good. It made vast improvement from
the ﬁrst time.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 18:: My conﬁdence deﬁnitely when up from the middle school assignment to
the elementary assignment. I really didn’t have any conﬁdence especially with the little
ones but I discovered that I actually liked the little ones and my conﬁdence improved.
Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject 18: The middle school assignment deﬁnitely my college classes. They prepared
me very well for that. And the younger ones, it was all through student teaching. I don’t
think I got much information about the younger ones from the practicum courses at my
college. It was too much watching. When I took the class, I just didn’t think it was very
valuable at the time, but just having the experience with the kids was good.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair, 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 18: I would say a 3

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 3

Subject 18: I had certain students that as hard as you tried to motivated them and they
still wanted nothing to do with physical education. You can talk as much as you want,
you can do it with them, but if they refuse to do it, I found it extremely difﬁcult to
actually get them to perform what you are asking them to do.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

181

 

Subject 18: The younger kids, all you had to do is show enthusiasm and if you love it,
they’ll love it too. With the older kids, you could talk until your face turned blue and if
they didn’t want to do it, it was extremely hard getting them involved.

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come ﬁom?
Subject 18: It developed through the college classes I took and through student teaching.
Going out there and ﬁnding out what works and what doesn’t work. The university
classes give you a lot of good ideas. What you ﬁnd is that some of them work and some
of them don’t.

Researcher: Did you still want to be a physical education teacher?

Subject 18: Yes!

Researcher: How valuable was your college preparation?

Subject 18: One thing that I didn’t like was that I had so many different teachers. It just
worked out that way. Most students have the same teachers throughout the program or
for at least 4 different classes which works out really good for them for a letter of
recommendation because you had a teacher that really knows you. I didn’t feel that I had
a teacher that knew me very well, that could really write a strong letter of
recommendation for me.

Researcher: How helpful were your cooperating teachers?

Subject 18: I had a really good experience with both of them. They were both
completely different. The ﬁrst one was like you can watch me for two weeks and then I
did everything after that. The second one completely nursed me through the whole thing.
So I had two completely opposites and it worked out just ﬁne. It might have something
to do with the fact that she was a female and my ﬁrst cooperating teacher was male.

 

.Ipterview #4 (Chante)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 26: I would say a 5

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 5.

Subject 26: Well just being in the classroom and having the time to practice different
techniques to see what works and what doesn’t help a lot. So I feel pretty conﬁdent.
Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 26: When I started I would say that I was probably a 3 but by the time I left it
was a 5. I didn’t know any techniques. Not really having too much experience using
different techniques, but my mentor, I watched him for the ﬁrst couple of days and I got
right in there and he let me start teaching right away. So I had time to play around with
different techniques.

Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 26:: Basically my mentor and my classes at college.

182

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 26: I would say 4 very good.

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as 4

Subject 26: Well we were taught to make everything developmentally appropriate. Just
knowing what grade you are teaching and kind of being ﬂexible because you are always
going to have a student that aren’t as developed and you are going to have students who
are more developed so just being ﬂexible in your lesson and providing the low, medium
and advance opportunities so that all students can work at their level. And just planning
everything. I’m a planner and organizer, so that always helped me to deliver my lessons.
Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 26:: I would say that it went up gradually just because delivering your ﬁrst few
lessons you are just nervous and I probably talked more than I really needed to. You
know you just go into a lot of explanation that was not necessary and by the end I was
just giving cues and they got it and it got things going.

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject 26: My own experience being in the classroom mostly; and my mentor he really
didn’t give me that much help but just the support I needed to try new things. The
college program also helps prep you for that. They are always saying how important
lesson planning is, so you get a lot of practice in college with that.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor. '

Subject 26: A 4 .

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 4

Subject 26: I feel that I am very energetic and I have lots of enthusiasm. It was easy to
motivate the kids and get them involved in the lessons I planned.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 26: It was pretty steady throughout. I came in with a lot of conﬁdence and I left
with lots of conﬁdence.

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?
Subject 26: I’m just a very energetic person. I have always loved physical education, so
I just naturally try to encourage people to get involved and I try to help them like (enjoy)
the different games and sports that I was teaching them.

 

Interview #5 (Mitch)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.
Subject 20: I would say a 4

183

 

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 4

Subject 20: Mainly because I observed my cooperating teacher and how they had set up
things and I just continued with what they were doing. Most of the time the students
understood there was a clear punishment for misbehaving, so it worked out well.
Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 20: Yes it went up. At ﬁrst you just don’t know what you are doing. You are
not sure if the things you are doing will work out. But you realize that you are able to do
it.

Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 20: Mostly from watching my mentor teaching, and then trying it for myself.
The more I was in the classroom the better I got with managing the kids.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 20: 3

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as 3

Subject 20: I’m still learning and I realize I don’t know everything about teaching there
is to know. When you ﬁrst come in, everything is so new so you are trying out things
and hoping that it will work.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 20:: I would say that it went up for the most part. Most of my lessons went well
but it never goes exactly like you plan it so you have to be ready to make changes when
things don’t work out. The more you teach the less you forget to say things or do
something that could mess up your lesson.

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject 20: My college did a lot of work on lesson plans and organizing your classes.
So that was a big contribution. But my mentor teacher was also a big help in re-
structuring my lessons because there was always something that I would forget or just
didn’t think about.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 20: I would say a 4

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 4

Subject 20: I love working with kids and I think that it is easy to motivate them to get
involved with sport. There is always a kid who is not athletic so you have to give him
extra attention but usually they will come around if you have lots of enthusiasm
Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 20: No I would say it stayed pretty steady throughout.

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

184

 

Subject 20: Well I played lots of sports and I know that you have to pump people up
because you could be tired or your mood could be bad so just a little encouragement can
make a difference. '

 

Interview #6 (LBAﬂ)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 30: I’m a 4

Researcher: Why would you rate yourself conﬁdence as a 4

Subject 30: The rules were already set up when I got there so I just added a few things
that I thought was good and went with it. My mentor teacher gave me a little advice with
a few students that were problems or didn’t like gym, but it went well.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 30: I found I had more conﬁdence at the end. I didn’t know what to expect
when I ﬁrst started. There are also things that happen that you don’t plan for, but near the
end not much surprised me.

Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come ﬁom?

Subject 30: Watching (my mentor teacher) for the ﬁrst few weeks helped a lot to see
how the teacher handles the class. Then just doing it and trying new techniques and
seeing what works with which class and which students, you feel much more conﬁdent in
trying new things.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 30: I would say a 4. I’m not a 5 in anything.

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as a 4

Subject 30: Well I’m pretty good at writing lessons and I had a lot of practice in college
and during my intern so I feel pretty conﬁdent that I can do a good job with it.
Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 30:: I felt pretty steady throughout.

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it deve10p or where did it come from?

Subject 30: The work in my college classes help prepare you and I was required to do
lesson plans in advance (during my student teaching) so I was writing 5 and 6 lessons,
sometimes, per day. You get lots of practice and get good at it. The (college) activity
courses that you take help you set up how you would teach a sport, so you can use a lot of
that information with the students at your school (student teaching).

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 30: I would say a 4 again.

185

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 4

Subject 30: I think you have to motivate the kids and my cooperating teacher would be
very enthusiastic and would say I needed to encourage the kids if you want to get them
involved. I had no problem doing that.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 30: I would say pretty steady throughout. Some kids have to be motivated
differently, but I felt conﬁdent in motivating them to do any lesson I planned.
Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?
Subject 30: I would say from my own background in sport and Competing in sport. I
love it. So I just come in to the classroom trying to share my value for physical activity
and try to encourage them to get involved. My mentor was also a good example because
there was not one day that I didn’t see enthusiasm or energy when he taught a lesson.

 

mwiew #7 (Kevin)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 28: For classroom management I would say probably a 5

Researcher: Why would you rate yourself conﬁdence as a 5

Subject 28: Well from student teaching and from working with kids throughout the
years I found different ways to manage a classroom. I can apply the skills very well in
any particular setting I’m in, and I think I would know which one would work best.
Strategies that work well are short commands and telling the kids what to do and having
them make their own errors and not just telling them what to do all the time. Have them
use their own judgment so you create a little bit of critical thinking. Elementary kids
need a little more direction.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 28: Yeah I would say that it went up for the most part. I worked with two
different teachers so I saw how they managed their classroom. One was a little more
stronger at classroom management so I took some things from him and used it at the
second assignment. He had taught for 10 or 15 years and he was more consistent. My
second assignment was elementary and he had only taught for 2 years. And they were
both really good and I Ieamed a lot from both of them. But the ﬁrst teacher had a very
set way of doing things. The second teacher was still developing his own classroom
management system.

Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 28:: I would say just from teaching. You leam a lot from trial and error. I may
have done something and it didn’t work very well and I would use that for the next
(class) to improve upon it.

186

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 28: I would probably say a 4

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as a 4
Subject 28: Well I think I am very good at planning a lesson. But as a new teacher there
are some things I just kind of don’t plan for. There are unseen variables. Sometimes you
can visualize how a lesson is going to work, but when you actually do it, it may not work
out. There are also environmental factors like gym size or different things in the gym
that just don’t work out for you.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 28: I deﬁnitely went up. The ﬁrst teacher I worked with was kind of set in his
ways. He kind of did a lot of the same stuff over and over again. There were four other
teachers that we had to share the gym with and my mentor teacher had me working in the
weight room a lot so he already had a set plan. So I didn’t have much opportunity to do
my own thing much. But at times, I did get to plan my own lessons and do it my own
way in the gym and in other areas. While the other teacher I worked with, he was fairly
new so he was constantly coming up with different things and trying to modify different
lesson that he had.

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come ﬁ'om?

Subject 28: I would say probably from my activity classes in college that I had
throughout the years and different teachers and coaches that I worked with. And I
developed even more by working with my mentor teachers.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 28: I would say probably a 4

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 4

Subject 28: Well I think I am good at positively re-enforcing students. And from
coaching I think I Ieamed a lot about how to motivate students and how to get them
“siked-up” about working out. But there are some kids that are harder to reach and I
didn’t feel quite as conﬁdent with kids who aren’t athletic but I would like to work on
this area a little more and try to help motivate all students. Sometimes it is really hard to
know the kids when you are only there for 6 or 7 weeks so it makes it hard to know how
to motivate them or what makes them tick. Also some kids are in a great mood one day
and the next day they don’t want to do anything. And it happened with both middle and
elementary school kids, but a little more with elementary. I had one girl who threw ﬁts
and a girl in preschool who just sat in the comer and screamed that she didn’t want to be
in gym class.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ ﬁom
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 28: Yeah I would say it did just because of the mentor teachers. My secondary
assignment the teacher was really good at motivating the kids. The elementary placement
(mentor teacher) was always really excited and he would tell me you have to come in

187

 

when working with elementary kids you deﬁnitely have to come in “siked-up.” You
have to always be in a good mood and if you are not, you have to fake it and really get
them jazzed up about it. He was always really excited and acting really goofy. So my
conﬁdence really went up.

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?
Subject 28: I guess I would say from my personality. I’m a playful guy and I always
want to have a good time and then I just learned different ways to re-enforce kids by
coaching and through college classes and even through student teaching.

Researcher: Did you still want to be a physical education teacher?

Subject 28: Yes I am.

Researcher: Was your student teaching experience valuable?

Subject 28: Deﬁnitely

Researcher: Was one teaching setting more valuable than the other?

Subject 28:: No, they were both pretty important. It was good going to the high school
and then to the elementary to see how that was. So it was important to have both
placements

Researcher: How valuable was your college preparation?

Subject 28: Doing the pre-intemship and pre-intem classes where we did the practicum
were very good and it was helpful for student teaching. Coaching and summer camps
were good but the pre-intemships were different.

 

Interview # 8 (Ronald)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 6: I would say 5

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 5.

Subject 6: In the ﬁrst 5 minutes of class, even on the ﬁrst day, you set the tone of what
you want to do. You maybe smiling on the inside, but right when you walk in the
classroom, which I think is my biggest strength, you get an overall feeling of the
classroom. The kids have to know that I mean business. And they know what is
expected of them right away. You have to let them know what your expectations are of
them right away. And they will adapt to that and they can read right through you if you
are not genuine about it. You have to carry through with what you say. I have had great
teachers to follow and I have Ieamed from them what to do and what not to do. And
obviously, I screwed up a lot.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 6 : I think with each passing day it went up. With the elementary kids, they
don’t read you quite as well, you don’t have to be as stem with them. You can have fun
with them. It was nice going to the elementary setting ﬁrst, so then you can get all the
spider webs out. So when you get to high school, you don’t have a lot of problems
because you have worked out a lot of the kinks.

188

Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 6 : My dad is a great teacher and so is my mom and my sister is as well. We are
a house of teachers. I also had great middle school teachers that inﬂuenced me. I had
great college teachers. High school not so much, but it also showed me that everything is
not a great physical education program. My middle school teacher was just tremendous.
My high school teacher was a great guy but the program was lacking. And every teacher
I had in college was great whether it was in the classroom or observing or student
teaching. They just molded me and I took bits and pieces from each one of them.
Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 6 : It really depends on the lesson and even the day of the week. Sometimes 3,
sometimes 4, and sometimes 5. Sometimes you just forget things, and by the end of the
day you have taught the lesson four times and you realize that you forgot a thing or two.
You may not have planned right the night before. Sometimes you leave out things in
your lesson and you are driving home and you think what the heck was I doing. I think
that sometimes you just have to get the system down, and I just don’t have what a veteran
teacher has. Obviously repetition helps. I do plan well, my range of knowledge in each
activity is also great, I can play badminton, soccer, and can play baseball, and I know the
rules. Very rarely do I get a question that I just don’t know and I have to look it up. But
sometimes you just forget and you are teaching so many classes a day, things get blended
and you forget what class or lesson is what.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 6 :: I’m much better at the high school activities which was my second
assignment. I’m better planning and organizing those kinds of lessons. In elementary
school, some of the games were brand new for me. Some of the games I had to go over
the night before whereas for high school sports, well, I played tennis for 10 years. So I
know it. But when you are teaching the elementary kids to play this tag game or a
frizzbee activity, sometimes the night before is the ﬁrst time I’ve ever seen this game.
You know the basic skills but you may not know the activity all that well that you can
just go through it in your head. If it is sports, I feel great. But as far as some of the
games and activities that you ﬁnd in elementary school, I think that is where my
knowledge just dips down. I have been an athlete all my life. I like teaching the skills
for sports. But as far as jump ropes and hula hoops and those types of activities, I was
just not as strong on.

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject 6: Just overall throughout the years. I’ve always played sports. My conﬁdence
is just very high with teaching sport skills. I can pick up a ball and do whatever I want
with it. It has always been that way. It doesn’t matter if it is a new skill or not, I’m just
good at playing sports. I can play baseball and play golf all in the same day and be great
at it.

189

 

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 6: I would say a 4

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 4

Subject 6: I feel I can capture students very well. My philosophy is that you have to
show the kids that you care about them rather than just the content material. If you just
show them that you just care about the content they will not care about the lesson or
physical education. But if you show the kids that you care about them, you can teach
aerobics and the high school guys will like it, as long as you present it well. I found the
ability to do that. You have to connect with the student. Show them that you care inside
the classroom and more importantly outside the classroom as a student and as an
individual. You just have to start talking to them. Find out what kind of music they like.
Find out what they do after school. Find out where they work, just have a high level of
interest in what they are doing. Make a connection with what they are doing outside the
class and you can sometimes connect that with what you are doing in the class. But ﬁnd
something to key every kid in so that they know that you care.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 6: I would say it stayed the same throughout. The skills that I used differed. In
elementary it is just not very hard to motivate the kids. They are crazy about physical
education for some reason. It’s great! You can tell them to jump across a line all hour
and it was no problem. For high schoolers, you just have to show that you care. You
also can talk to them about the health aspect and how easy it is to get out of shape.
Sometimes you have to play the good road on what physical activity can do for you and
sometimes you have to play the bad road and what’s going to happen to you if you don’t
exercise. But caring for the kids I thinks motivates them more than anything.
Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?
Subject 6: I think being an athlete. I ran cross country and track for college and also
was captain in high school and being the best athlete in high school and then moving to
college, I wasn’t the best, but realizing what it takes to succeed rather than just getting by
on just talent. Dealing with athletes at such a high level, you have to have conﬁdence.
And that just translates over in life.

Researcher: Did you still want to be a physical education teacher?

Subject 6: I do. Yes, I do.

Researcher: Was your student teaching experience valuable?

Subject 6: Incredibly valuable.

Researcher: Was one teaching setting more valuable than the other?

Subject 6:: I thought the high school was just because I want to teach high school. I
thought it was more of my style and where I want to be when I’m older.

Researcher: How valuable was your college preparation?

Subject 6: Oh yea for sure. We have a lot of great teachers and only one bad one.
Everything up to student teaching prepared me very well for my internship and what I did
in the classroom.

Researcher: How helpful were your cooperating teachers?

190

Subject 6: Oh yes, they were tremendous.

 

Ipterview # 9 (Angela)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 27: 4

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 4.

Subject 27 : I would say that I just have a handle on it. I’m always prepared and nothing
took me off guard during my internship. Not even the kids ﬁghting. I just could handle
it. I think also having kids of my own probably helps with this. But in both places I
believe it had a lot to do with my mentor teachers. Both teachers were very strong and
the kids knew also that they had to follow my instruction or they knew that the
cooperating teacher would deal with them and me. I also laid it out before I got started
and I really didn’t have any problems.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 27: It was different because my ﬁrst assignment was elementary so I had to
have a different handle on them than on the high school level. The way I talk to the
elementary was different. I used transitions at the elementary but not so much at the high
school. But my conﬁdence was pretty steady throughout.

Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 27:: At college they taught us quite a bit there, but also watching my mentor
teachers for the ﬁrst couple of weeks. And also having my own kids.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 27 : I would say 4 again.

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as 4

Subject 27: Because everyday I taught I had a lesson and I made sure I explained it to
the kids to make sure the kids understood it. Once we got started, if there was a sign that
they did not understand it or something just wasn’t going right. I would stop and start
over and make changes in it. And overall, my lessons went very well.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 27:: My conﬁdence was pretty steady.

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject 27: That was through college. They made sure you had a lesson plan everyday.
And we even went through days were we discussed on how to change it if things weren’t
going right. I thought the program was excellent.

191

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 27: Probably a 4 again.

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 4

Subject 27: Because there were some students especially at the high school level that
would say, “I’m not doing it.” And I would just say try it, and if you try it and you don’t
like it well at least you just tried it. And the students would at least make some effort. I
never had a student that absolutely just reﬁised. I would also say to some of them that
well you might as well just try your hardest because this is what we are doing today. And
they did it.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 27: It was probably more at the elementary my ﬁrst assignment because they
were easier to motivate. It really didn’t change a whole lot in high school, but the
elementary school assignment came much easier to me in regards to motivating the kids.
So, I actually would say that my conﬁdence was steady but it was easier at the
elementary.

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?
Subject 27 : Because I know just how important it is. And I tried to get that across to
them. So because I know the importance of it, I would try to get them to do it. So it was
really my own personal interest.

Researcher: Did you still want to be a physical education teacher?

Subject 27: Oh yea.

Researcher: Was your student teaching experience valuable?

Subject 27: Yes because I Ieamed about the things that my college didn’t teach me.
You have to have hands on experience. It teaches you more than just sitting in a
classroom (and your professors) telling you it. You have the experience of this worked or
that didn’t work.

Researcher: Was one teaching setting more valuable than the other?

Subject 27:: Yes.

Researcher: Was your college preparation valuable?

Subject 27: Yes.

Researcher: Was your cooperating teachers helpful?

Subject 27 : Yes. Both had very helpful criticism and tools and ideas to give me. They
were both absolutely excellent.

 

I_nterview # 10 (I‘iffapy)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 12: 4

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 4

192

 

Subject 12: I think during my student teaching I Ieamed a lot of things and a lot of good
strategies that worked for me and worked for the kids.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 12: Some days were good, some days were bad. It often depended upon the
moods of the kids or the mood I came in with that day, what we were doing, stuff like
that. Ihad a couple of kids that were extremely challenging. It really depended upon
how their day had gone before they even got to my class. So what I would do, if they are
distracting me while I’m giving instruction 1 would either say their name or walk over to
where they are sitting to let them know that I want them to be quiet. After that they
would have to sit out for 5 minutes. I would then tell them that they would have to be a
better listener or other things that I have said to them before or different things. If that
doesn’t work, I have them sit out for half the class period. And I had to sit a couple of
kids out for the whole class period. I would also threaten to send kids to the principal but
I never did, we try to handle everything in the gym, but if it is a big issue, like I had a
ﬁght, they go to the principal. And if need be, I will call mom and dad, and say this is
not working.

Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 12: The more comfortable I became with teaching and being in front of others.
You know you are standing there in front of 30 kids and they interrupt you and you loose
your train of thought and you’re standing there thinking what the hell was I going to say
next. I don’t remember. But I guess the more comfortable I become with them whereas
their talking didn’t bother me, I stopped it, but I was able to continue on. I guess I just
got more comfortable during my student teaching and things weren’t so bad. The more
kids I dealt with or the more situations I dealt with the easier it became.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 12: I would probably say a 4.

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as 4

Subject 12: Well I’m not perfect but I’m not bad. In my 4th week of student teaching
my mentor teacher said you know I feel completely comfortable with you and he handed
everything over to me in my 4’h week. So that was a conﬁdence booster right there too.
But once you get more comfortable with the kids and you know what you are doing, it
makes it a lot easier.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 12:: Well the ﬁrst one you do, you’re nervous and you stumble on your words
and you forget to ask questions. When I ﬁrst taught the kindergarteners, oh my God, it
was so bad. They are in their own world. They were the hardest. You have to go step-
by-step with everything and can’t skip anything with those kids. Like I never taught
kindergarten. I went through this whole lesson and I’m like okay let’s go and they are
looking at me like what is she talking about. And I’m like, “Oh no” I just wasted 10
minutes of their time because they have no clue on what the hell they should be doing.
So I had to go back, and Bob was like you need to ask them more questions so that they

193

know what you are doing. So I got much better. You have to go slow with the
kindergartens, you have to ask them along the way. Ask them pointed questions so that if
half the class can’t answer, you know that you have to go back and do it again.
Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject 12: The more I taught the easier it became and the less stressful it became.
Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 12: I would say a 4

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 4

Subject 12: Generally if I’m doing a topic that I know that the kids aren’t going to like
too well, like jump rope, they did not like jump rope; you can always make it interesting
to them by playing different music or you can challenge them by saying, “how many
jumps can you do in 30 seconds?” or “Let’s see if you can do this many (jumps)?” You
can always ﬁnd ways to get them to be excited about what they are doing.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 12: Oh yea deﬁnitely. You come out of college thinking everyone loves
exercise just as much as I do, and then you get the chubby kids who don’t want to be
there because they physically can’t do what you are asking them to do, so therefore they
hate it. See, you have those kids you have to deal with and then you have the kids at the
other end of the spectrum who love it and wish they could be here all day. And you will
not have any problems with them. So you have to try and ﬁgure out how I’m going to get
this kid to be where that kid is now. So the more you do it and the more you think well if
I were fat and I couldn’t bend down and touch my toes, how hard would this be for me
and is there any way I can change it to make them want to do it. Are there things that I
can do for this kid that maybe the other kid doesn’t need?

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?
Subject 12: Well, my ﬁrst week I watched everything. You can tell the kids that can do
stuff and the kids that struggle and the kids that can’t do anything that you ask them to
do. So I started thinking, well, I really didn’t analyze my mentor teacher, but when he
would teach I would say, “well how could I do this differently than how he is doing it and
maybe that would get them interested.” So I would analyze things when I didn’t have to
take control over the class; stuff that I thought I could do and I would talk about it with
him (the mentor teacher). And he would say, “Well that was a great idea. So you should
try to do this with that kid.” And in turn be changed some things that he did. The guy
was really nice and very open to anything and he was such a great guy. I was lucky to
have that placement. And he was a basketball coach and I was a basketball referee. And
he would always ask me about stuff. And we both played golf, so we always had stuff to
talk about.

Researcher: Did you still want to be a physical education teacher?

Subject 12: Yes, I just got a job.

Researcher: Was your student teaching experience valuable?

194

 

Subject 12: Oh yea! When you are in college you plan lessons. You teach lessons on
your peers and your peers aren’t going to act like little kids. They aren’t going to act out
and tell you that they hate you. Well, no kid ever said they hated me, but they would say,
“This sucks!” You don’t have to deal with that when you teach your peers. And your
peers are completely compliant to everything you say. And it is so not real world. Well,
it’s good because it gets you out there and it gets you ready to be in front of people to
deliver instructions.

 

I_nterview # 11 (Nathan)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 25: Uh 4

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 4.

Subject 25: When I was student teaching I would organize the class in a speciﬁc manner
so when they walked into the class they would know what they had to do. They had a
speciﬁc spot they had to go to every single day. So it was set up like a routine. Then, I
could just say a certain word and that would tell them to come over to me, so they
understood it was time for instruction. And after I would go through the instruction, they
would know where to go or they would get paired up in groups by numbers or colors.
Something that was basic. Then once they knew what to do, I would go around and
correct them.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 25: I was at 3 different school assignments and during the ﬁrst week of student
teaching it was more like a Ieaming experience to see how things go and how things get
played out, see what I need to do. I was at 2 elementary schools for the ﬁrst 7 weeks and
then the second 7 weeks I was at a middle school. And once I went to the middle school
my conﬁdence was ﬁne. There was no problems whatsoever. See, I coach football, and
going to the middle school level it is more like problems with the kids, well not problems,
but situations arise where you get more attitude and you are going to have more
discipline problems. So, I understand that and I know how to deal with that. I already
had 3 years of coaching under my belt at the high school level so I already knew how to
deal with like situations that would arise. As far as physical education and teaching, I
really never had a problem, because, you know, I feel like I know what I’m talking about.
Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
. words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 25 :: I guess you could say half classroom and half experience. Just like college
classes that teach you methods and ways on how to handle classroom management and
problems. And I was a student coach at college with the football team and I had over 100
hours of pre-student teaching, so that also gave me an idea of what was going to happen
when I began student teaching. And then last Fall 2004, I coached up at a high school in
(name of city).

195

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 25: Um, I guess K and 1St grade I would give myself a 3, but as far as
everything else I would give myself a 4.

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies this way?
Subject 25: Because I have a hard time talking in a way where kindergarten or 1st
graders can understand. The language I would say, like I would use words like rotate and
90 degrees. And obviously, I was informed after that they don’t have any idea of what
you are talking about.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 25:: I would basically say as long as I prepared myself the night before and I
knew what I was going to do and I had everything planned out. I would have a little
piece of paper on me that would basically breakdown what I wanted to get accomplished
in the class, so I would use that as a reference as the class went on. So yea, my
conﬁdence was pretty steady throughout.

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject 25: Well I was with a mentor teacher that had great instructional strategies and
when I taught for her class, I would do the same thing she did because it worked well.
She was at 2 different elementary schools so I had her for the ﬁrst 7 weeks. The other
mentor teacher did not help. He was never around. He was an older guy and he was kind
of like, this is what I want you to do, and then he just left. And we were doing just basic
sports that I knew about so my conﬁdence was okay. So it wasn’t like it was tough. And
through preparation I felt ﬁne. And I think through school, that helped, but honestly, I
felt student teaching was a joke! I think student teaching was a lot easier than class, and I
don’t think it should be. Well, let me rephrase that, for the ﬁrst 7 weeks, it wasn’t a joke
because K-Sth grade they are still interested in sports. You can say “run” and these kids
are going to have fun and do it. It doesn’t matter. But then once I went to the middle
school level, I’m surrounded by other physical education teachers that if someone is not
participating and I would notice that and I would go to them and say, “You need to do
this. You need to be on task.” They (the professional PE teachers) have basically
condition these kids to the point where the kids say, “so and so didn’t say I had to do it,
so I don’t have to.” They are basically let off so that they don’t cause problems in the
class so the physical education teacher doesn’t have to deal with it. So everyone is not
participating. And they (the professional teachers) don’t do anything about it because
like I said they are old and they don’t want to deal with it. They just accept it.
Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 25: I would say a 3.

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 3

Subject 25: As you move up in the grade levels, you ﬁnd it more and more difﬁcult to
motivate the kids. When I was in K-5th I only had one 5th grade class and the amount of
time they spent in physical education was once a week for 30 minutes. So I noticed that

196

some attitude was displayed and activity level dropped. But once you get to 6th -8th grade
the athletes are going to love physical education because they love sports. And then you
see another group of people that have no interest in what you are doing and they don’t
care because they don’t feel it can be applied to them as of right now. I don’t think I
have Ieamed all the ways to motivate kids. I don’t think I had the time to form a
relationship with every single individual and obviously as a teacher that is what you want
to do. You want to do that because then you can ﬁgure out well what motivates this kid
and what can you do to get this kid to do what you want them to do.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 25: In elementary, everyone loves what you do every single day. You never
have a kid say, “I’m not doing this.” So it was pretty much the same because elementary
was easy. .

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?
Subject 25: Just through experiences. Like through school and coaching and I don’t
have any problem talking to anybody.

Researcher: Did you still want to be a physical education teacher?

Subject 25: Yes, that’s what my degree is in, but I just want to be in a situation where I
run the program. I want to have free range on how I apply the guidelines a district may
have on a program.

Researcher: Was your student teaching experience valuable?

Subject 25: I would say yes. I won’t say I had a bad experience, but I had a learning
experience of what not to do.

Researcher: How valuable was your college preparation?

Subject 25: I think if you know what you want to major in, you should really go
intensive and in-depth in those areas. You shouldn’t have to retake the same general
education classes that you took in high school.

Researcher: How helpful were your cooperating teachers?

Subject 25: The ﬁrst mentor teacher, she was a great person, she gave lots of feedback.
She would sit there in the classroom and basically watch me teach every single lesson.
She would never leave. There would never be a time during that entire 7 weeks where if
I’m student teaching in class she would walk out and go do something else. She would
always wait until the class was over. And after the class was over, she would give me
feedback like right on the spot. That was very help because she was giving me more
ideas. The second teacher was completely opposite. He would leave me with a class of
like 50 kids and say go outside and play football. And these kids have it where they
never went through drills, so why are they all of a sudden going to want to do drills with
me when you never take them through drills.

 

Ipterview # 12 (Frederick)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

197

Subject 10: I would say about a 4

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 4

Subject 10: I started out in my student teaching at the lower end, but by the end I felt I
got much more conﬁdent. I’m conﬁdent in front of the students. I was able to respond
more appropriately to students that misbehaved. I would put them in the hallway for a
few minutes and have a little talk with them. Just being able to use different classroom
management strategies, I feel much more conﬁdent now. I deﬁnitely have more
strategies now then what I started out with.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 10: I had the same assignment for 16 weeks. So I had the same students. But at
the beginning I didn’t even know how to do the attendance very well. Just being in front
of people was just difﬁcult, just going from listening in the classroom (in college) to the
experience of being in front of students. I started off with 25 students and then I
increased all the way up to 100 students. I was able to manage that quite well. I only had
to do that once or twice. But mostly I had 50 students. So my conﬁdence increased.
Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 10: 1 always talked after class with my c00perating teacher and I would say “So
how did things go? What do you think I should do here?” And most of the time he was
there in the class at the beginning and near the end. He would pop in and out throughout
the hour the rest of the 10- 12 weeks. So he was there at the beginning, coaching me
through it. And also we had our (college) seminar once a week. We would talk about
different strategies and some of them didn’t apply to physical education, but a lot of them
did. . . j ust different techniques and how to gain control and different types of movements
' you could do. And my school, some of the PE classes that I had, you know, how to get
people in groups, how to get people lined up, use a whistle to start students (in their
activity). Things like that. So a lot of my experiences from college and my c00perating
teacher were very helpﬁil.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 10: I would say about a 4.

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as a 4
Subject 10: I always like to get everyone active in some type of manner. In physical
education, you want people moving and doing different things. A lot of time I observe
the other teachers just talk for 20 minutes and then have the students do something. I was
always demonstrating and then have them (the kids) do a quick thing and then asking if
there were questions. Always keeping them on top of their game. I think my lessons in
the beginning were 50-50, and at the end I felt much more conﬁdent. I tweaked them a
little bit and made them much more interesting. I did different things like that.
Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 10:: I think it was kind of steady, well, at the beginning it was maybe a little
lower, but I think I kind of stayed the same. The instructional strategies stayed the same
but my classroom management and my student engagement strategies may have

198

 

 

increased so it made my instruction better. I was able to do more instructional things
because my classroom management was better. Even my cooperating teacher mention a
few things, like “Oh wow, you got some great instructional ideas. I haven’t seen
anything like that.” And, “Oh, that’s worthwhile.” But he deﬁnitely helped me get to
that consistent level. I was not there when I started.

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject 10: I have always been the physically active person in my family. I like to
explain things and break things down. I have a sports background, but also my college
program has helped me. We had to teach in front of our own peers which was kind of
interesting. It was totally different than teaching in front of younger students. The peers
actually were harder. So different experiences like that. And my cooperating teacher’s
help was wonderful and I met with him between classes or met with him after school or
different things like that.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 10: I would say a 3

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 3

Subject 10: I think the majority of students I motivated or engaged. But I was in middle
school and it is kind of hard. A third of the students don’t really want to be there, they
don’t really care because it’s physical education and that kind of thing. So, I think I need
to do a better job trying to relate to middle school students in the aspect of physical
education.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 10: At the beginning at don’t think I was selling physical education. I was kind
of going up there and talking like a broken record. It was okay but I think toward the end
I made it a little more interesting and tried to relate it to the real world and why you need
to do different activities and exercises.

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?
Subject 10: It didn’t come from my cooperating teacher that much. I don’t think I’m
that good at motivating people speciﬁcally for physical education, more generally. I
think some of the strategies I lack are motivation. It was the most difﬁcult for me.
Trying to think why this sport or activity is really important. And how do you explain
that to someone who wants to just sit in the comer and read a book all day.

Researcher: Did you still want to be a physical education teacher?

Subject 10: Well I just took a position as a math teacher. If they offered both at the
table, I would probably take the physical education job. But the one thing that is tough
for me is that you don’t (in physical education) have your own class or your own Space.
Other teachers have their own room and their own stuff in their class. I felt like my math
students were my own students instead of when I did PE. At my school, there were 4 PE
teachers and space was a problem. You just didn’t have a real identity.

Researcher: How helpful were your cooperating teachers?

199

‘ Subject 10: I didn’t think the staff was very strong. They were kind of the throw the
ball out kind of program and watch the kids play.

 

.Ifterview #13 (Daniel)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 22: I would say a 4

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 4

Subject 22: Because I think I did a good job as far as class management is concerned,
but I think it is the toughest part for a new teacher to master. So I think that it is my
number one improvement area, I guess. At the middle school level, I actually did some
things that I ﬁrst worked on with the elementary kids, like counting to 5 and then taking
away time to do things. So, if you waste my time, I’ll waste your time kind of thing.
This method worked better with the elementary aged kids than with the middle school
kids. With the middle school kids, after practicing it and making it a routine they become
indoctrinated, so to speak, and it began to work.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 22: It varied because I worked in three different assignments. I taught in a
weight room situation. I taught in the gym and I taught in the classroom as well. I think
my classroom management in the weight room and in the gymnasium, that conﬁdence
went up as I was doing that. But having 25 to 30 kids in a classroom, classroom
management became a much more difﬁcult task.

Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 22:: Well, I’m always a pretty conﬁdent guy, so I was fairly conﬁdent going in
and just utilizing the skill that I Ieamed in college. I think that just helped a ton.
Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 22: I would say a 5

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as a 5
Subject 22: I think that this is my best asset, the pedagogy itself because I. . .not in a
classroom setting, but through my coaching experiences and my experiences working
with elementary and middle aged children. I think this is my number one asset. You
have to get down to their level, but in the same respect, I taught 6 graders 12th grade
material. So, I have worked with high school kids that know a lot less than my six
graders in regard to the muscular skeletal system.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ ﬁom your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 22:: I think it went up a little bit because as I became more indoctrinated into
the routine of planning lessons and knowing what the students like and what they did not
like, it became a much easier task.

200

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject 22: Well, I just had an exceptional cooperating teacher. And he helped me
become the conﬁdent person that I am now in teaching, because he would give me the
feedback I needed to become a more effective teacher in terms of instructional strategies.
He was there all the time with me (in the classroom). He would help with classroom
management strategies as the class went on. But he let me succeed and fail on my own as
well which I think was important because you Ieam from your mistakes.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor. 1

Subject 22: I’m going to say 5 again. I don’t know if I’m thinking too highly of myself
(laugh)

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 5

Subject 22: Well through coaching that is all you do. You are a motivator. And I have
been coaching since I was a junior in high school so I have had a lot of practice at that.
My sport is football, track, and basketball and I coach all three. And in terms of looking
at my students at the beginning of my tenure (student teaching) they were not exactly
excited about physical education but once my student teaching was done these kids
would come up to me in the building as say, “Man, Mr. ****, I just played basketball for
ﬁin last night because you taught me how to do it.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 22: I think it was pretty steady throughout.

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?
Subject 22: Well, it has been developing since I was a young kid dealing with the
football coaches that I had growing up, and seeing how they motivated me as an athlete
and taking that in both my classroom skills and in my coaching. So it has been
indoctrinated since I have been in 5th grade. The best inﬂuenced on me was that my next
door neighbor was the varsity football coach and he invited me to come to practice one
day for the ﬁrst season and I never left. Ijust kept going and going and going. And from
that day on I said I was going to teach and coach. This is what I’m going to do for the
rest of my life.

Researcher: Did you still want to be a physical education teacher?

Subject 22: Oh God yes!

Researcher: Was your student teaching experience valuable?

Subject 22: Very. I think because of my cooperating teacher, he was MAHPERD
middle school teacher of the year a few years back. And I just Ieamed so much from him
as far as classroom management strategies go and how to effectively instruct and plan for
kids at the middle school level. I couldn’t have asked for a better situation.

Researcher: Was one teaching setting more valuable than the other?

Subject 22:: I found the weight room/ﬁtness room most valuable (than the classroom
setting) to me because that was where he let me go all out and that became my area of
expertise as far as my student teaching was concerned.

Researcher: How valuable was your college preparation?

201

Subject 22: Well I think one of the biggest things that helped me was being able to teach
my own peers and the “methods of teaching physical education class” that Prof *****
teaches. I think his class was probably the number one class that helped me as far as
teaching physical education was concerned. I don’t think the general education classes
helped me that much because I think they are more geared to the classroom teacher. And
I don’t get a whole lot out of my cohort classes at my college which is my general
education classes like psychology of education, middle and high school teaching methods
and that class was the worst class I took at my college. The teacher didn’t think that
physical education needed to be in schools. So I had a problem with her.

 

Interview #14 (Keshia)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 7: I would say between a 4 and a 5

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 4or 5

Subject 7: Because towards the end of my student teaching any problems that came up
in class were just resolved very quickly and classes ﬂowed and I received comments from
other teachers on that fact, that my classroom management was really good. Keeping the
student active was a good technique. That would be it. When they are moving, it’s less
time for them to sit there and get bored and come up with something of their own to
disrupt the class.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 7: Yes, it deﬁnitely did increase.

Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 7:: Just realizing that students were respecting me and respecting what I was
doing with the class. That just boosted my conﬁdence and then having other people
compliment you on what you are doing really helped. Classes that I had (in college)
where they talked to us about different ways to keep kids active and to group kids to keep
them active and to basically keep them moving helped.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 7: I would say a 4

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as a 4
Subject 7: I don’t have a problem sitting there and writing up a lesson. I feel conﬁdent
in my background in the different information that I need to know and the information
that the students need to get from me. I feel very conﬁdent in the fact that I can get that
information across to them and get them to understand the information. Strategies that I
used were “hands-on” and visual. “Hands-on” is trying to get the students to use the
machine the proper way and actually putting a student on that machine and showing them
the way they had been doing it, and then showing them or just by talking to them or

202

 

 

placing their hand in a different spot on the machine, showing them the proper way to do
it. So then, they got the feel of where they need to feel that resistance doing it the proper
way and then also the improper way. And the visual would be kind of the same type of
thing, like a follow the leader type of thing. Also worksheets and reminders, having them
repeat the information back to me. Using key words and things like that.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 7: It increased a little bit. At ﬁrst I wasn’t sure how much the students knew
coming in to the classroom, how much they knew about different information. So, I
wasn’t sure if some kids were trying to be funny and push how much I knew. They
might be saying, “Oh, this is a student teacher, I’m going to go on-line tonight and see
what I can ﬁnd and see what this person knows.” So I was a little nervous about that in
the beginning but it was ﬁne, I found out very quickly how much they knew and their
background.

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come ﬁ'om?

Subject 7: Well it started from the background from the classes I’ve had. And then in
the ﬁrst couple of weeks (of student teaching) just getting a feel of what the students
already knew and where I needed to take them from there. So being able to answer their
questions really helped me feel conﬁdent.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 7: I would say 4

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 4

Subject 7: I always feel there is room for improvement in everything so to give yourself
an excellent to start out with is kind of like you don’t need much improvement. The
students always said that, “You make it so much fun. We never wanted to come to gym
class before.” So comments like that helped. I did everything right with the students. I
never had the students do something I wouldn’t do myself. I think a lot of times
motivation comes from people seeing you do it. So, if I were to just sit there against the
wall and say, “ Okay, you need to do 20 push-ups and 20 sit-ups. And then we are going
to do a passing drill and this and that and the other.” They are a lot less likely to say,
“This is a lot of fun. This will be great let’s do.” If I’m sitting down and not doing
anything. . ..just being up there, and doing things with them and constantly prompting
them, “Okay, you can do it. You have 5 laps to go. Good work everybody. Pat yourself
on the back. This is excellent.” The kids would say, “You pushed us harder than what
we thought. We are so tired, give us a break. But it’s so much fun, we really enjoyed
that.”

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 7: I would 'say it stayed pretty steady. Like I kind of knew going in that I was a
very upbeat person. I’m just going to grab the bull by the horns and say, “Let’s go!” It’s
my passion for physical education and for activity in general that I knew would just come
out. I think it stayed pretty steady.

203

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?
Subject 7: I’ve worked with kids for a long time. I always knew I could connect with
kids and always keeping that line of professionalism there. So they always knew what I
expected of them. Knowing that I could motivate kids because sometimes kids don’t
want to be out in the pouring rain, but to get them to come out and actually follow
through with what I had planned. One of the big things is if we had a hard day, I always
made sure I stood at the door before they left and each student got a high ﬁve before they
walked out of the classroom. I didn’t do it every single day, I kind of varied it up, but if
we deﬁnitely had a hard day I would make sure I was always at the door to tell them that
they did a good job. And also just paying attention to what was going on in their lives.
Whether they were playing in extracurricular activities so I could ask them what was
going on or say, “Oh, how did the baseball game go last night or Oh, I saw your softball
game. And that was a great hit in the third inning.” Stuff like to let them know that
someone cares.

Researcher: Did you still want to be a physical education teacher?

Subject 7: I actually just signed my contract on Monday.

Researcher: Was your student teaching experience valuable?

Subject 7: Oh yes! And it is deﬁnitely going to come in very handy in a few weeks.
Researcher: Was your college preparation valuable?

Subject 7: Yes. There were times that I think I wasn’t being prepared well. But once I
actually got in there (student teaching) I was like “yeah” I guess I was prepared better
than I thought I was. I knew things I didn’t even know that I had Ieamed and it just came
naturally to me. Or things that you really didn’t think you grasped or remembered
Ieaming comes back to you when you need it.

Researcher: Was your internship valuable?

Subject 7: Yes, it was kind of interesting. She was like a mom and best ﬁiend all in the
same boat. She turned the classes over to me right away. I took over the classes right
then and there and taught right through the 16‘h week. She was always there in between
classes to answer any questions. She would say, “Sometimes I feel like you are
mentoring me just as much as I’m mentoring you.” So it was funny. I was the same age
as her kids and everything like that.

 

Ipterview #15 (Lesli_e)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 1: I would say 4

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 4

Subject 1: I would say 4 just because of the fact that like I feel very conﬁdent about my
education. I know what I was taught and how to teach it. Just like how to get students’
attention and how to make them want to be there. We had the rules posted up and
everyone knew their purpose as to why they were in the classroom. They knew why they

204

were there and what they were expected to do while they were there. So that helped a lot.
And the students pretty much respected the other teacher, so that kind of fell over into
me. With the high schoolers I really didn’t have any problems with their behavior, it was
more their motivation. And I had a really hard time with that because the teacher whom I
was with I didn’t like what she did at all. I didn’t like her strategy of doing things and the
whole class I was in was strength and conditioning for the majority of the internship. I
don’t enjoy that, so it was really hard for me to motivate people. So then when I couldn’t
motivate them or I just didn’t want to be there, like I just didn’t like how everything was
run. When I tried to do something different I would get shot down every time. And there
were behavior problems due to the situation. Because some of the kids didn’t want to
work that hard and then when I would try to get them to do something, they would be
like, “why?” They would say, “I’m not the teacher.” But with the elementary kids, it
was still motivation, but more in the lines of when I say stop, you need to stop and follow
directions. So that was really the only thing and I would sit them down and talk to them
about it. It was easier for elementary because they are more intimidated by you. They
will listen and they look up to you more. And they are scare of you telling their parents
or their teacher. Whereas the high schoolers they were like, “Go ahead, I don’t care.
Send me to detention. Whatever.”

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 1 : In the very beginning, it was low just because I was scared because I really
didn’t know what I was doing. But as it went along, it just kept getting higher and
higher. And then toward the end, it got a little lower just because I was in high school
and I was like can I control these people? But then the more and more they got to know
me and the more and more they knew what I was there for they listened. So it did get
better because they rlespected me more. And they were like well she’s not going away
and she’s not going to stop so they just came to terms with everything. So I would say it
went up.

Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come ﬁ‘om?

Subject 1:: I think a lot of it came ﬁom my college courses. Just because they push it a
lot. They give you a lot of different strategies and if this does work then try that. And
then I also think that I’m a manage type of person, I follow directions very well. I don’t
like to be told what to do, but I follow directions. I’m just real organized. So if firings
don’t go my way, I’m ﬂexible to where I can change. There’s just a lot of different
strategies that we have been taught all through out the way. And even in high school
every teacher has a different strategy for getting you to do something management wise.
Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 1: I would say a 4, maybe even a 5

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as a 4

Subject 1: I had to teach an entire unit the second week I was in high school and it was
on badminton. Well, I didn’t know anything about badminton. So it was really difﬁcult.
But I wrote my lesson out and I kind went with the ﬂow.. I can always play it by ear and
just give them a whole new analogy so that different types of students can understand it.

205

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 1:: My conﬁdence deﬁnitely decreased because I went from elementary to high
school. In elementary, I knew all that stuff and it was very easy for me. It was very easy
for me to get my point across to like the oldest, which was like 5th graders. And they
were like, “Oh, really!” And they were excited to do it. But in high school if I had to
plan a lesson, on like strength and conditioning and I had to do all these different aerobic
things, I didn’t have that much conﬁdence about it. I didn’t know that much about it, so I
would have to read would I could and ﬁgure it out and write a lesson and prayed to God
that it went okay. But it deﬁnitely decreased because I didn’t understand what I was
doing as much and it was hard to go to the teacher and talk to her because I didn’t like
her.

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject 1: Well, like writing lesson plans I Ieamed that deﬁnitely in my college classes.
When we ﬁrst started doing them, I thought it was stupid. It took me like 4 hours to write
a 7 page lesson plan. I was like this is just dumb. The last lesson plan I did took no time
because I actually lmew what I was doing. It is like smashed in you head because you
had to do it everyday. So like in our classes they were like constantly preparing us.
Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor. 7

Subject 1: I would say like a 3 or 4. It depends on the grade level.

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 3 or 4.

Subject 1: With elementary I would deﬁnitely say a 4. If you act enthusiastic and you
act like it is the most exciting thing that they are ever going to do, they will think of it the
same way. With high school you can be like, “Yeah!” And they are like, “Whatever. I
don’t want to do this.” So I would go with a 3 with high schoolers. I’m an “up” person,
but when it comes to things that I’m not “gun-ho” about I don’t want to do it. And it is
really hard for me because I don’t want to do it with them. So it is really hard for me to
motivate them. I would do rewards with high schoolers. I would say, “If you work hard
and we do this the whole time, then we won’t do this today. You know what I mean?”
Like core work or agility things would be skipped. But if I saw they were slacking and
they didn’t do what they were supposed to do, it was like punishment or a reward at the
end. It didn’t always work, they were like “I don’t care.” So I tried a reward policy kind
of thing.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 1: It increased just because at the end of the internship I was more conﬁdent. I
felt like I could actually go to a school and I could be a teacher and I not going to be
terriﬁed of what I’m actually going to have to do. I understand how classes work and I
understand what they are looking for. At the beginning, I was like, “Oh my God!
Kindergarteners, I’m terriﬁed.” Now I’m like whatever.

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

206

Subject 1: I would say it was developed through college classes. But it kept going as I
was teaching. You just learn different things as you go and you watch the other teachers
and see their ideas and you feed off of what they do. I’ve always been very active and
into sports. I’m always the leader of everything. I’m always like the captain of
everything. And I have to be in charge. That’s just how I am. I have to be good at
everything.

Researcher: Was your student teaching experience valuable?

Subject 1: I think that I got a lot of valuable experience from it. The elementary teacher,
I enjoyed it. I liked the secondary teacher I was with, I just didn’t like her strategies or
how she did anything. Because I feel like in student teaching you are suppose to try out
what you know and that kind of thing. And they are supposed to let you kind of teach
and have ﬁill range of the classroom. Well, I never got to that. I was never allowed to.
And every time I went to try something new or ask her if I could do this instead she’s
like, “That’s not how we do things.” So I was like, “Do I have to write a lesson plan?
And she was like “yeah.” So my lesson plans were like hers every single day and that
sucked. I didn’t like it.

Researcher: Was your college preparation valuable?

Subject 1: For sure, I think I was really prepared in that aspect. There were a lot of
strengthens. The teachers there were excellent. They just helped us out a lot and
whenever we had questions, it was really easy to go to one of them and ask them any
question we had.

 

Interview #16 (Jeffrey)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 1]: Probably 4

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 4

Subject 11: Because I thought most of the time I had the students doing what I wanted.
On an occasion, something would happen where a student might have an outburst of
some type and I wasn’t able to get them under control like I wanted. Like I had a student
walk out and you ask them to come back and they keep walking. Ninety percent of the
time the classroom was looking how I wanted it to or expected it to. I think routine was a
big part of it, but I also think, the tone I set at the beginning of the class and then stressing
the importance of things right off the bat and then I also built solid relationships with
each one of the students because if you have a relationship that is going both ways and
they knew I wouldn’t ask them to do firings I wouldn’t do myself then they are less likely
to break rules such as that. I think the personal relationship with each student helped
with the classroom management.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

207

Subject 11: I think it increased because my relationship with the students over time. I
had things to fall back on. I could sense if a student wasn’t feeling right. I think it
increased because of the relationship I had, not for any particular skill management.
Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 11:: I think for me through my past work experience and volunteering with
campers or students or people round that age. And getting to know them (the students)
and I just think from past experience. I never felt uncomfortable being in front of a group
of student. I worked in an outdoor camp setting for 6 summers where I was working with
kids that would like be students. And I’m working in an outdoor setting which is
something we do in general as physical educators. So I felt comfortable in large settings
where random things can happen dealing with a lot of kids. I did some volunteer
physical education teaching for Mt. Pleasant home school students. So they would come
twice a week and I had a group of about 10-11 kids because they didn’t have a physical
educator and I would teach them for like an hour a day, twice a week. So I think just
being in front of a lot of students made me comfortable when I student taught.
Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 11: I would probably give myself a 4 again.

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as a 4
Subject 1]: I felt whenever I was called upon to put together a solid lesson I was able to
do that. But the way my schedule was, I didn’t have to do that everyday because like in
weight lifting, a lot of times it’s the same thing everyday repeated. But then when I had
to put together things for lifetime ﬁtness like they would have to go to the classroom once
per week, so I would put together a lesson for that and it was just a lot of work. I often
thought if I had to do this everyday, especially during your ﬁrst year before you have like
things put together. Like I just wondered if I would be able to put the same amount of
time and energy in each lesson. So I think it is kind of a fear that I have, but I felt
whenever I did put something together it went pretty well. I think in the classroom they
wanted to cover so much material but you are only in there once a week. So I think
students would Ieam more if they wrote down continuous notes (daily). I felt it really
didn’t work well to cover a lot of material in a short period of time and keep them
focused. I think guided notes helped them. They had to ﬁll-in-the-blanks. So they
would have to keep looking up and listening and ﬁlling in their worksheet. For physical
education class I really liked partner activities. We had a lot of students from the special
education classroom within our physical education setting. It was always good to have
them with a partner at the end. You can also get a very conﬁdent senior to work with a
ﬁ'eshman who is struggling in a lot of different ways.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ ﬁ'om your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 11:: I think it stayed pretty steady. If anything it might have decreased just a
little bit. I got so caught up into like the routine the teachers already had set up. I didn’t
try too many of my own things. I wonder how much information in college that I hope I
don’t forget. I feel like I already forgot a lot of those ideas. A teacher mentions a

208

strategy and you say, “Oh, that would be good.” And then you never end up using it.
But I think it stayed pretty steady for the most part.

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject ll : I think a lot of it came ﬁom, we had a pretty good methods class in college.
And for me I think that was a big part of it. The (university) teacher was great. I didn’t
agree with everything he said, but his ideas, enthusiasm and energy and enthusiasm for
the subject was obvious. And within that class, he believes that this much of the class
should be divided on classroom management time, this much on activity time and this
much on instructional time and things like that. So we really do practice lessons where
he had a stopwatch and he is breaking down the lessons second by second to see what
you are doing. So at least it gets in your head that you have to get the kids moving this
about of time. But the ﬁrst day of the unit, your instructional time is going to be higher
than on the ﬁfth day of a unit or the 3rd day of a unit. So I don’t believe that it can be an
exact science and that every lesson can be a straight percentage. But it gets in your head
that you have to have everything planned out. You need to have your equipment in
speciﬁc spots to save a little time here and there. And like he would mention statistic on
how much time kids would get equipment and how much time they should have been in
activity. So I think it made me really think about things.

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 11: I would say a 4 again

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 4

Subject 11: I feel like keeping kids engaged, like right off the bat, each lesson starts out
on paper and you can see the importance of it. And when you can work it in the physical
education setting, if they don’t necessarily see the long term importance of it (the
activity), I feel you can engage students by just giving them positive feedback
throughout. In the weight room it was easy because they were out there and I can make a
loop around the weight room and give them positive feedback and corrective feedback
about a particular lift. And that builds their conﬁdence. And even if they don’t know
like the long term effects of strength training, they feel good about themselves and they
want to continue to do it. Then eventually the message about thinking about their health
for a lifetime, like when they are ﬁfteen or something, sets in. Giving positive feedback
is it. Like a lot of the letters I got from students said something like the little comments I
said to them which I don’t think were that big of a deal but obviously it was, they said, “I
want to do well. And I want to work harder. And I want to work harder in my other
classes.” Stuff like that. Building relationships is also good. And another technique I
used that I think helped me was getting leaders. I would ask the older kids to really step
up and be leaders for the ﬁeshman. I would ask them to actually demonstrate and
actually jog the laps. And I would ask them am I asking them to do something all the
unrealistic. And they would obviously say, “no.” And so once I had their support, it was
a lot easier to get the younger kids to follow through. And like a freshman is not going to
put forth a lot of effort if a junior or senior is not.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ from
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

209

 

 

Subject 11: It probably stayed pretty steady. I think I’m a pretty conﬁdent individual.
And I have had a lot of success working with students and like through my college
courses. So I like don’t come in feeling like I’m not going to succeed. I always did
good.

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?
Subject 11: Just past experience working with students and working with campers.
Getting them to try things, they usually wouldn’t do, or getting them to step out of their
comfort zone. Having success in other teaching areas, make me feel like I could have
success in getting students to be active in a physical education setting.

Researcher: Did you still want to be a physical education teacher?

Subject 11 : Ideally, but right now I’m applying for a special education position. Right
now I’m living in Hawaii and they don’t have a great need for physical education
teachers.

Researcher: Was your student teaching experience valuable?

Subject 11 : It was okay. It was good in a sense that I enjoyed seeing different teachers.
I enjoyed the relationships with the students but I don’t think it was valuable in regards to
a real teaching experience. Where you have to create your own curriculum that you
believe should be taught. I don’t think it was very valuable in like in the lesson plans
because you are still teaching what the teacher wants so its like, here’s the subject matter,
this is kind of what I would do. And they already have the outlines and everything, so
you just ﬁll in the blanks of it. And then, you have to do it that way because you don’t go
the whole semester and so you have to turn the class back over to the teacher. It was a bit
conﬁning. Ideally, for me I would love to have a complete semester. But that’s just me.
I don’t know how other people would feel about that. But I think it would be extremely
valuable to be able to plan for the entire semester all the way from meeting the kids to the
ﬁnal exam.

Researcher: How valuable was your college preparation?

Subject 11: Too many class that just don’t apply. I graduated with 180 credits. I know
plenty of people that reached 200 credits. I think our physical education major was only
53 credits or something like that. It’s just very long. I think it was valuable, it just could
have been accomplished in a much shorter time. I think the firings that I got out of some
of these class. . ...it was just like I was going to them.

 

I_nterview #17 (Lorenzo)

Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing classroom
- management techniques, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 3: I would say a 4

Researcher: Why would you rate your conﬁdence as a 4

Subject 3: Because I don’t feel like I have completely mastered the skill. However, I
did feel that my class in terms of management was smooth. Transitions were good. The

210

 

 

students weren’t up running around. They were in place. They knew exactly where they
were supposed to be and what they were supposed to be doing. And they got their job
done as well as allowed me to get my job done as well. The strategy that I personally
used was that I used a ﬁtness program in the very beginning. They knew what they had
to do. Every morning they would have to run “X” amount of laps. They get into groups
for stretching and whatever. They knew exactly where they supposed to be. These
things never changed. And following this, they would sit around the 3-point line while I
gave instruction. It was very consistent everyday. Nothing ever changed.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in classroom management differ from your ﬁrst
teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 3: I would say it deﬁnitely elevated. The more comfortable I got, the smoother
things ran. However, on given days I was unsure of myself because something didn’t go
as planned. You kind of second guess yourself. It most deﬁnitely got easier.
Researcher: How did you acquire your conﬁdence in classroom management? In other
words, how was it developed or where did it come from?

Subject 3: Actually it was trial and error. Getting started, I would try different
techniques in order to see how the students would respond. If they responded poorly,
obviously I knew it was a poor technique and it wasn’t the best thing for this group.
Different schools, different students are going to respond differently to different
techniques. So you kind of feel out which technique would work best in this situation
and go from there. You ﬁnd out which one works and you go from there. You can make
some modiﬁcations here and there. But I don’t think that’s necessary. Once you ﬁnd
something that works stick with it. Don’t try to reinvent the wheel everyday.
Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing
instructional strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 3: 3 and a half. Between fair and good.

Researcher: Why did you rate your conﬁdence in instructional strategies as a 3 or 4
Subject 3: I plan something out in my head and it seems like it’s going to go so well. I
got everything planned out perfectly, I think. And then there’s a little glitch here and
there. And it’s always going to happen. You are going to get those kinds of days.
Where you get that glitch and . . .I mean you may think you are 100% prepared, however
you are not. I think the best strategy I had for planning was going over it. Before I put it
down on paper, I would go through the motions and movements and try it out myself
before I had them (the students) try it out. Make sure I’m capable of breaking it down
and synthesizing it for them so that they can get a better explanation and understanding of
it. So that was my method. I would always go through the drills and everything prior to
it. I would physically go through it as well as in my head. After school I would set stuff
up just for me and see how I liked it. If I liked it, maybe they won’t, I’m not positive,
I’m still fairly young, but I like to think that I know what kids would like and not like.
And most of the time I felt that I did a pretty good job. But obviously there are those
times that it just didn’t work out.

Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing instructional techniques differ from your
ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 3:: Oh it increased due to my ...... I just wasn’t aware of my expectations that
my cooperating teacher had on me. Going into it I didn’t know exactly what the

211

expectations were. What I was expected to do. So I got more comfortable as she let me
know what her expectations were for me. I think the woman teacher laid down exactly
her expectations. She got it all out on the line for me. I was able to understand more of
what she wanted and teach to her expectations. Whereas the male teacher kind of left me
on my own. He laid down some expectations for me but was fairly open ended, I would
say.

Researcher: How did you acquire your level of conﬁdence in utilizing instructional
strategies? In other words, how did it develop or where did it come from?

Subject 3 : Like I said, everything is trial and error of ﬁguring out what works for you.
And not only that, they used the EPEC program so a lot of stuff what laid out for me
which was .....and I got comfortable using that program. And so the more comfortable I
become with the EPEC program the more comfortable I become in utilizing those skills.
Researcher: When you think about your current level of conﬁdence utilizing student
engagement strategies, how would you rate yourself? 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 =
fair; 2 = poor; 1 = very poor.

Subject 3: I don’t ever want to call myself excellent because I always feel like there is
always something to work on. In that regard, I feel like I do very well. I feel like I am
very motivating. I can get the students motivated and get them started and participating.
I feel like I do a very good job at that. But there is always something to work on and
there is always something more to do. So I would always give myself a 4, I would say.
Because a 5 is kind of unheard of. I really feel like there is always something you can do
better.

Researcher: Why did you rate yourself as a 4

Subject 3: The problem I had a lot of times ...I told you we do this ﬁtness program and
they would come out and they would run. They do their push-ups, sit-ups and all this
stuff. And my technique that they seemed to like, it really wasn’t a technique; in order to
motivate them, it was something to prove to them that it (the activity) was useful. And
that I’m not trying to sit there and boss them around. I would actually do it with them.
That’s how I work. I would do it with them just so like I didn’t seem like I was the boss.
I wasn’t a hypocrite. I wasn’t preaching something to them that is not valuable.
Researcher: Did your conﬁdence in utilizing student engagement strategies differ ﬁ'om
your ﬁrst teaching assignment to your second teaching assignment?

Subject 3: That’s one thing that I think stayed steady throughout. I feel like I went in
with a pretty good understanding on how kids work and just their mind set. So it was
relatively steady. I knew my philosophy of course and so getting that through. . ...I didn’t
have to change anything. It worked well for me in the past when I had done other
teaching experiences so I just kind of maintained it.

Researcher: How did you acquire you level of conﬁdence in utilizing student
engagement strategies? In other words, how was it developed or where did it come from?
Subject 3: I would say just observation. Teachers I had observed in the past, in mid-tier
experience. Where at my college its teaching experience where you would go teach a
lesson one time a week at a local area school. It takes place about your junior year. And
so, it gets you class experience, it gets you observation time and it gives you a teaching
experience and it gets you connections. I mean you are able to have one-on-one time
with a teacher. And actually pick their brain a little bit. You get to understand how it
really is. So before you can get into the teaching program you had to have 90 hours of

212

observation time. So you would sit in on teachers often. As often as you could, in order
to observe strategies and kind of develop your own. But obviously, not reinvent the
wheel if something works. Maybe steal it! There’s no patent on it!

Researcher: Did you still want to be a physical education teacher?

Subject 3 : Oh most deﬁnitely. I got applications all over the place.

Researcher: Was your student teaching experience valuable?

Subject 3 : I would say it was extraordinary! I learned so much from that woman. She
was an outstanding physical educator, number one. And number two, she is very critical
and I need that. I need someone to be critical and tell me what worked well and what
didn’t work well. As long as you don’t take criticism poorly. I think criticism is like
they are offering you advice. Make it constructive. Learn from your mistakes. And she
wouldn’t tell you in a way that would make you feel demeaning. She wouldn’t tell you in
a demeaning manner. She wouldn’t tell you to make you feel bad about yourself. But
she would let you know what worked and what didn’t and let you go ﬁ*om there. And I
think that is what I needed.

Researcher: How valuable was your college preparation?

Subject 3: I would say there are some classes that I found to be valuable and some that I
found invaluable. So I would say it was 80-30. The method courses were really good.

213

REFERENCES

214

REFERENCES

Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efﬁcacy and the instructional
practices of Special education teachers and consultants. Teacher
Education and special Education, 17, 86-95.

Anderson, R. N., Greene, M. L., & Loewen, P. S. (1988). Relationships among
teachers’ and students’ thinking skills, sense of efﬁcacy, and student
achievement. Alben’a Journal of Educational Research, 34(2), 148-165.

Armor, 0., Conroy-Osequera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A.,
Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading
programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools (Report No. R-2007-
LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED130243).

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of
efﬁcacy and student achievement. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Askins, J. C., & lmwold, C. H. (1994).- The existence of conﬂicting perceptions in
a secondary physical education student teaching experience. Physical
Educator, 51, 35-46.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efﬁcacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American
Psychologist, 44, 1 175-1 184.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efﬁcacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H.
Freeman and Company.

Barﬁeld, V., & Burlingame, M. (1974). The pupil control ideology of teachers in
selected schools. Journal of Experimental Education, 42(4), 6-11.

Behets, D. (1990). Concerns of preservice physical education teachers. Journal
of Teaching in Physical Education, 10, 66-75.

215

Benz, C. R., Bradley, L., Alderman, M. K., & Flowers, M. A. (1992). Personal
teaching efﬁcacy: Developmental relationships in education. Journal of
Educational Research, 85, 274-285.

Boggess, T., McBride, R., & Griffey, D. (1985). The concerns of physical
education student teachers: A developmental view. Joumal of Teaching
in Physical Education, 4, 202-211.

Bowers, H., Eicher, K., & Sacks, A. (1983). Reducing stress in student teachers.
The Teacher Educator, 19(2), 19-24.

Briscoe, F. G. (1972). The professional concems of ﬁrst year secondary
teachers in selected Michigan schools: A pilot study. Unpublished
doctorial dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Brissie, J., Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Bassler, O. (1988). Individual situational
contributors to teacher burn-out. Journal of Educational Research, 82(2),
1 06-1 12.

Chapman, E. (2003). Assessing student engagement rates. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, College Park, MD. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED482269).

Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efﬁcacy and commitment to teaching.
Joumal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323-337.

Cowley, K. S. (1999). A study of teacher efﬁcacy and professional Ieaming
community in quest schools. Washington, DC: Ofﬁce of Educational
Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED431758).

Croker, D. L., & Wilder, A. (1999). How can we better train our teachers? English
Journal, 88(3),17-21.

Darden, G., Scott, K., Darden, A., & Westfall, S. (2001). The student-teaching
experience. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 72(4),
50-53. ~

Dembo, M. H., 8 Gibson, S. (1985). Teacher’s sense of efﬁcacy: An important
factor in school improvement. Elementary School Journal, 86, 173-184.

Denham, C. H., & Michael, J. J. (1981). Teacher sense of efﬁcacy: A deﬁnition

of the construct and a model for further research. Educational Research
Quarteﬂy, 5, 39-61.

216

 

Enochs, L. G., Riggs, I. M., 8. Ellis, J. D. (1993). The development and partial
validation of microcomputer utilization in teaching efﬁcacy beliefs inventory
in a science setting. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 257-263.

Evans, E., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efﬁcacy, and
commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Education
Research, 80(2), 81-85.

Fortman, C. K., 8. Pontius, R. (2000). Self-efﬁcacy during student teaching.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Westem Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED447103).

Fritz, J., Miller-Heyl, J., Kreutzer, J., & MacPhee, D. (1995). Fostering personal
teaching efﬁcacy through staff development and classroom activities.
Joumal of Educational Research, 88(4), 200-208.

Gibson, 8., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efﬁcacy: A construct validation.
Joumal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1990). A longitudinal study of preservice
elementary teachers’ personal and science teaching efﬁcacy. Red Hill,
Australia: Centre for Mathematics and Science Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED404127).

Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T. (1982). A comparison of ﬁrst-year, ﬁfth-
year, and former teachers on efﬁcacy, ego-development, and problem
solving. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 558-562.

Gordon, L. M. (2001). High teacher efficacy as a marker of teacher
effectiveness. San Diego, CA: California Council on Teacher Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465731 ).

Greenwood, G.E., Olejnik, S. F., & Parkay, F. W. (1990). Relationships between
four teacher efﬁcacy belief patterns and selected teacher characteristics.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23(2), 102-106.

Greer, J., 8. Greer, B. (1992). Stopping burnout before it starts: Prevention
measures at preservice levels. Teacher Education and Special Education,
15(3), 168-174. '

Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of responsibility teachers assume for

academic successes and failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher
Education, 32, 44-51.

217

Guskey, TR. (1984). The inﬂuence of change in instructional effectiveness upon
the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research
Journal, 21, 245-259.

Guskey, T. R. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efﬁcacy.
Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 41 ~47.

Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efﬁcacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the
implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 4, 63-69.

Guskey, T. R. (1998). Teacher efﬁcacy measurement and change. San Diego,
CA: American Educational Research Association (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 422396)

Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efﬁcacy: A study of construct
dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. (1981). A self-efﬁcacy approach to the career
development of women. Joumal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339.

Henry, M. (1989). Changes in teacher education: Focus on ﬁeld experiences.
In J. Braun (Ed.), Reforming teacher education: Issues and new
directions (pp. 690-695). New York: Garland.

Henson, R. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and
measurement dilemmas. Keynote address presented at the annual
meeting of the Educational Research Exchange, College Station, TX.

Herbert, E., Lee, A., & Williamson, L. (1998). Teachers” and teacher education
students’ sense of efﬁcacy: Quantitative and qualitative comparisons.
Joumal‘.of Research and Development in Education, 31(4), 214-225.

Herbert, E., & Worthy, T. (2001). Does the ﬁrst year of teaching have to be a bad
one? A case study of success. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,
897-91 1.

Hollingsworth, P. (1990). Reading teacher burnout and stress. Reading
Improvement, 27(3), 196-199.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O C., & Brissie, J. S. (1987). Parent
involvement: Contributions of teacher efﬁcacy, school socioeconomics
status, and other school characteristics. American Educational Research
Journal, 24, 417-435.

218

Housego, B. E. (1992). Monitoring student teachers’ feelings of preparedness to
teach, personal teaching efﬁcacy, and teaching efﬁcacy in a new
secondary teacher education program. Alberta Journal of Educational
Research, 38(1), 49-64.

Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 27, 279-300.

Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efﬁcacy and the
organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4),
355-372.

Kahn, B. (2001). Portrait of success: Cooperating teachers and the student
teaching experience. Action in Teacher Education, 22(4), 48-58.

Kiviet, A. M., & Mji, A. (2003). Sex differences in self-efﬁcacy beliefs of
elementary science teachers. Psychological Reports, 92, 333-338.

Knudson, R. E. (1998). Secondary student teaching and the supervised
experience. The High School Journal, 82(1), 49-61.

Lin, H. L., & Gorrell, J. (1998). Preservice teachers’ efﬁcacy beliefs in Taiwan.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32(1), 17-25.

Martin, J. J., & Kulinna, P. H. (2003). The development of a physical education
teachers’ physical activity self-efﬁcacy instruction. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 22, 219-232.

McBride, R. (1985). The concerns of inservice physical education teachers as
compared with fuller’s concern model. Paper presented at the national
convention of American Alliance for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation, and Dance, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED265122.

McBride, R., Boggess, T., & Griffey, D. (1986). Concerns of inservice physical
education teachers as compared with Fuller’s concern model. Joumal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 149-156.

McJunkin, M. A., Justen III, J. F., Strickland, H., & Justen, S. (1998). Supervisory
styles preferred by student teachers. The Clearing House, 71, 248-250.

Meyer, L. A., Wardrop, J. L., Hastings, C., & Linn, R. L. (1993). Effects of ability
and settings on kindergartners’ reading performance. Journal of
Educational Psychology. 81(2), 247-258.

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efﬁcacy

219

and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the
transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology. 81,
247-258.

Morrell, P. D., & Carroll, J. B. (2003). An extended examination of preservice
elementary teachers’ science teaching self-efﬁcacy. School Science and
Mathematics, 103(5), 246-251.

Paese, P., & Zinkgraf, S. (1991). The effects of student teaching on teacher
efﬁcacy and teacher stress. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
10, 307-315.

Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational Research. 62, 307-332.

Parkay, F. W., Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S., & Proller, N. (1988). A study of the
relationship among teacher efﬁcacy, locus of control, and stress. Joumal
of Research and Development in Education, 21(4), 13-22.

Parker, M. J., Guarino, A. J., & Smith, R. W. (2002). Self-efﬁcacy in a sample of
education majors and teachers. Psychological Reports, 91, 935-939.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Plourde, L. A. (2002). The inﬂuence of student teaching on preservice
elementary teachers? Science self-efﬁcacy and outcome expectancy
beliefs. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(4), 245-253.

Poole, M.B., & Okeafor, K. (1989). The effects of teacher efﬁcacy and
interactions among educators on curriculum implementation. Joumal of
Curriculum and Supervision, 4(2), 146-161.

Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y.F. (1992). Contextual effects on
self-perceived efﬁcacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education,
65, 150-167.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers’ self-
efﬁcacy beliefs, attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching
practice priorities in relation to the responsive classroom approach. The
Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 321 -341.

Rose, J. 8., & Medway, F. J. (1981). Measurement of teachers’ beliefs in their
control over student outcome. Joumal of Education Research ,74, 185-
190.

220

 

Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efﬁcacy and the effects of coaching on student
achievement. Canadian Joumal of Education, 17(1), 51 -65.

Ross, J. A. (1994). Beliefs that make a difference. Ontario, Canada: Canadian
Association for Curriculum Studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 379216).

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external
control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.

Shahid, J., 8 Thompson, D. (2001). Teacher efﬁcacy: A research synthesis.
Paper presented t the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association (Seattle, WA, April 10-14, 2001).

Shantz, D., 8 Brown, M. (1999). Developing a positive relationship: The most
signiﬁcant role of the supervising teacher. Education, 119(4), 693-694.

Sia, A. (1992). Preservice elementary teachers’perceived efﬁcacy in teaching
environmental education: A preliminary study. Ontario, Canada: North
American Association for Environmental Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 362487).

Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development:
Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher
change. American Educational Research Joumal, 25, 1-30.

Smyth, D. (1995). First-year physical education teachers’ perception of their
workplace. Joumal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14, 198-214.

Soodak, L. C., 8 Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efﬁcacy and student problem as
factors in special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 66-
81.

Swanke, D. (1980). Follow-up studies and teacher education program content.
Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 32-36.

Trentham, L., Silvem, S., 8 Brogdon, R. (1985). Teacher efﬁcacy and teacher
competency ratings. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 343-352.

Tschannen-Moran, M., 8 Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efﬁcacy: Capturing
an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

Vaughn, 8., Schumm, J. S., 8 Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in

education and psychology. .Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.

221

 

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of
Educational Research, 54(2), 143-178.

Vollmer, F. (1986). Why do men have higher expectancy than women? Sex
Roles, 14, 351-362.

Wendt, J. C., 8 Bain, L. L. (1989). Concerns of preservice and inservice physical
educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8(2), 177-180.

Wepner, S. B. (1999). Time to talk about ﬁeld experiences. Educational
Horizons, 77(2), 82-88.

Woods, A. M., 8 Weasmer, J. (2003). Great expectations for student teachers:
Explicit and Implied. Education, 123(4), 681-688.

Woolfolk, A. E., 8 Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efﬁcacy
and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology. 82(1), 81-

91.

WooIfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., 8 Hoy, W.K., (1990). Teachers’ sense of efﬁcacy and
their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education,

6, 137-148.

222

 

 

 

 

 

   

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

lﬂllllllllllll