INSTRUCTOR VERSUS PEER FEEDBACK IN MICROTEACHING ON THE ACQUISITION OF CONFRONTATION; ILLUSTRATING, ANALOGIES, AND USE OF EXAMPLES; AND QUESTION-ASKING TEACHING SKILLS FOR PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS

The investigator's purpose for conducting this study was to determine if pre-service secondary science teachers benefited more from teachers who had experience teaching science at the secondary level from other preservice teachers participating in the microteaching process. In addition, the researcher attempted to find any relationships between the ratings of independent judges, feedback sources, and the study participants and the responses of the participants to a critique of the microteaching process.;The experienced teacher feedback sources were doctoral students in Science Education who were experienced science teachers at the secondary level. The judges all had experience in secondary science teaching and were in instructional positions in Science Education at Indiana University.;The participants were introduced to the microteaching process, instructed on the use of the video-tape, received an explanation of sequence of events during the study, and use of the instruments to evaluate and critique the microteaching experience. The initial microteaching lesson was based on a selected objective in an area of science appropriate for the secondary science teaching.;After an initial microteaching experience, the participants practiced the teaching skills of confrontation; illustrating, analogies, and use of examples; and question-asking. These skills were selected as examples of aspects of instruction being addressed in the methods course. The microteaching experiences were rated by judges who viewed a video-tape of the lesson. The participants were divided into high and low rating groups and randomly assigned to microteaching groups. All participants were randomly assigned to either experienced-teacher feedback or another participant (peer) feedback. After each video-taped microteaching lesson the participants were rated by their teaching group, by three independent judges, by their feedback source, and themselves; received a critical feedback session with their feedback source; and critiqued the entire process. The independent judges rated all the microteaching experiences on an instrument modified from the Stanford Teacher Competency Appraisal Guide and a specific teaching skill instrument. The feedback source, the participant, and microteaching group evaluated the lesson using the specific teaching skill instrument.;The subjects of the study included nineteen preservice secondary science teachers involved in science methods instructions.;A multiple analysis of variance design was used to analyze differences between the judged ratings of teaching skill on four successive microteaching experiences. There were no differences between the judged acquisition of skills, but there were differences between the ratings of the three judges of the skills performed. In addition differences were found between the ratings the judges and the participants, judges and the feedback sources, but no differences were found between the feedback sources and the participants. After completing each microteach and feedback session, the participants responded to a critique of the process. Correlations were found between the ratings and the perceptions of the participants.;It was concluded that there were no differences between the acquisition of teaching skills that depended on the source of feedback, but differences did occur between the judged ratings of the performance. More attention should have been paid in the study to establishing reliability within and between judges by insisting on common agreement on the criteria used in measurement. The skill providing critical feedback learned by the peer evaluators may have improved their own teaching. The recognition that teachers can be taught to critically analyze the teaching process, be observant of others' teaching, should be utilized in enhancing their own teaching.