View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Texas A&M Repository

USING VAN MANEN’S MODEL TO ASSESS LEVELS OF REFLECTIVITY

AMONG PRESERVICE PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHERS

A Dissertation

by

KRISTY KAY BALLARD

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

August 2006

Major Subject: Kinesiology

 USING VAN MANEN’S MODEL TO ASSESS LEVELS OF REFLECTIVITY

AMONG PRESERVICE PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHERS

A Dissertation

by

KRISTY KAY BALLARD

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved by:

Chair of Committee, Ron McBride

Committee Members, Carl Gabbard
Bob Armstrong
Stephanie Knight
Head of Department Steve Dorman

August 2006

Major Subject: Kinesiology

 iii

ABSTRACT

Using Van Manen’s Model to Assess Levels of Reflectivity Among Preservice Physical

Education Teachers.

(August 2006)

Kristy Kay Ballard, B.S., Tarleton State University;

M. Ed., Tarleton State University

Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Ron McBride

The intent of this study was two-fold. The first purpose was to apply Van

Manen’s model to specific strategies (i.e., written assignments) and supervisory practices

(i.e., interviews) to examine levels of reflectivity demonstrated and if there were any

changes in the reflectivity of student teachers throughout a student teaching period. The

second purpose was to assess the applicability of Van Manen’s model to a preservice

physical education setting. Five physical education majors enrolled in a student teaching

experience volunteered to participate. Five weekly web-based written assignments were

selected and analyzed using Van Manen’s model of reflection. In addition, two

interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and subjected to thematic analysis techniques.

Using Naturalistic Inquiry as a method of analysis suggests that utilizing supervisory

approaches, written assignments, and reflective teaching can foster important changes in

reflectivity levels which encourage reflective thinking in physical education student

teachers. Increased levels of sophistication among the participants as the semester

progressed were noted and may be attributed to a developmental effect similar to Fuller’s

Concerns Theory. The results also support Pultorak’s (1993) assertion that students can
 iv

increase reflective thinking when fostered and encouraged in preservice programs. This

study combines available resources (i.e., technology, supervisors) with Van Manen’s

model to assess reflectivity levels in a physical education setting. Findings indicate that

Van Manen’s model can be used objectively in a physical education setting and can be

utilized in applying a quantitative measure to qualitative responses.

 v

DEDICATION

To my children, Braden and Brynn,

Anything can be achieved if you put your mind to it ~
NEVER GIVE UP!
 vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Ron McBride for serving as

chair of my committee during my time at Texas A&M University. Dr. McBride

provided much attention, knowledge, and experience throughout this journey. I would

also like to thank the members of my committee: Dr. Carl Gabbard, Dr. Bob Armstrong,

and Dr. Stephanie Knight for all of their help and encouragement. Thank you as well to

Dr. Pat Goodson who provided much needed encouragement, advice and guidance.

I would also like to thank my friends, DeeDee Reyes, Radonna Spies, Cindy

Sultemeier, Laura Moon, Karen Enderlin, and Amy Matlock, for being the best support

team ever. Thank you to Deanna Kennedy for listening to me and giving great

encouragement. I would like to especially thank Stacey Manser for always being there

and giving her advice throughout this whole process.

I would also like to thank my extended family, Danny, Wayne, and Patsy, for

their unwavering support and encouragement.

A very special thank you is extended to Oma and my aunts for showing me the

different ways a woman can be strong and for helping me to become the woman I am

today.

I have no way to really thank my husband, Brad. Thank you for the shoulder to

cry on, the desire to protect me, and your unfailing faith in me.

Last, but definitely not least, my mom, Vivian, and dad, Allen, for their endless

love and support; without them I would have never made it this far.
 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………….…..iii

DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………....….v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………vi

LIST OF TABLES..……………………………………………………………………....ix

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….. 1

Background………………………………………………………..1
Definitions of Reflectivity………………………………...1
Models of Reflectivity………………………………….....7
Research in Education……………………………………..9
Research in Physical Education………………………….14

II THE STUDY……………………………………………………...……..19

Methods…………………………………………………………. 24
Participants……………………………………………….25
Procedures……………………………………………..…25
Analysis…………………………………………………..26
Written Assignments…………………………………..…27
Establishing Interrater Reliability………………………..28
Trustworthiness…………………………………………..30
Results……………………………………………………………30
Discussion………………………………………………………..53
Conclusion……………………………………………………….60

III DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS…….63

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………….66

APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………………………72

APPENDIX B……………………………………………………………………………73
 viii

Page

APPENDIX C……………………………………………………………………………75

VITA……………………………………………………………………………………..77
 ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

1. Interview Questions…….………………………………………………………..26

2. Written Assignments……………………………………………………………..27

3. Van Manen’s Levels of Reflectivity……………………………………………..29

4. Sam’s Interview Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels…………………….33

5. Sam’s Written Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels………………………35

6. Rita’s Interview Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels…………………….37

7. Rita’s Written Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels………………………39

8. Emily’s Interview Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels…….…………….41

9. Emily’s Written Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels…………………….43

10. Lisa’s Interview Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels…………………….46

11. Lisa’s Written Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels………………………48

12. Sally’s Interview Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels……………………50

13. Sally’s Written Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels……………………...52

 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This study was used Van Manen’s model to examine reflectivity levels

demonstrated by preservice physical educators during their student teaching semester.

Second, this study examined changes in these levels as the semester progressed. This

chapter reviews the literature on reflectivity and includes: (a) definitions of reflectivity,

(b) models of reflectivity, (c) research in general education areas, and (d) research in

physical education.

Background

Definitions of Reflectivity

Knowing what to do and when to do it is an important characteristic of effective

teaching. Because of this, the preparation of reflective teachers has moved to the

forefront of teacher education (Calderhead, 1989; Hoban, 2000; Ross, 1989; Stahlhut &

Hawkes, 1997). As a result, teacher reflectivity has become an area of growing interest,

import, and concern in the educational literature. According to Dewey (1933),

reflectivity is not an inherent characteristic. Rather, it must be developed. Pultorak

(1993) states that the preparation of reflective teachers is paramount to teacher education.

Education programs need to “prepare teachers who are autonomous models of intellectual

independence for their students…teachers who are able to reflect about their own

behavior and surroundings in order to make valid decisions” (p. 288). While the

preparation of general preservice teachers to become reflective teachers has been studied,

_______________________

This thesis follows the style of The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance.
 2

there has been little research on the preparation of preservice physical educators.

Therefore the purpose of this study was to examine preservice physical education majors

to determine their levels of reflectivity and if any changes in those levels occurred

throughout a student teaching semester.

Dewey (1933) introduced the concept of “reflective thought” and defined it as

“active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of

knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusion to which

it tends” (p. 9). More recently, reflective thinking has been defined as the process by

which a teacher examines his or her situation, behavior, practices, effectiveness and

accomplishments (Valverde, 1982). According to Reiman (1999), reflective teaching

practitioners demonstrate the ability to analyze the process of what they are doing, while

at the same time make judgments to modify their practice so that it best matches the

needs of students. These behaviors follow closely to what Schön (1983) introduced as

reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Reflection-in-action refers to the process of

interpreting, analyzing, and providing solutions to problems during an action (while the

situation is actually taking place. Reflection-on-action refers after the situation has

occurred. The person now mentally reconstructs the situation to analyze actions and

events.

Wojcik (1993) adds that reflective teaching considers what the teacher thinks and

feels about teaching to be a key component to teacher improvement and that reflective

learners not only engage in problem-solving and decision-making, but also reflect on the

thinking in progress. They are able to think about their strategies and revise them in
 3

order to make them more effective. If new ideas are a result of reflective thinking, then

one may conclude that reflective thinking is key to changing and improving teaching.

There are three prerequisite attitudes that must be present for a person to become

reflective: open-mindedness, whole-heartedness, and responsibility (Dewey, 1933).

Open-mindedness is defined as the ability to consider new problems and ideas free from

prejudice and an “active desire to listen to more sides than one…to recognize the

possibility of error even in the beliefs that are dearest to us” (Dewey, 1933, p. 30).

According to Goodman (1991), Dewey’s whole-heartedness refers to one’s internal

strength and their desire to be a reflective educator regardless of any personal cost. The

final prerequisite, responsibility, is considered a moral trait rather than intellectual.

According to Dewey (1933), “to be intellectually responsible is to consider the

consequences of a projected step… [and to] be willing to adopt these consequences when

they follow reasonably from any position already taken.” (p. 32). Responsible teachers

question why they are doing what they are doing and always consider the educational,

psychological, and larger social context and implications of classroom life. They hold

themselves responsible not only for their students’ education, but also implications for

society as a whole. Goodman (1991) adds that intellectually responsible teachers

consider consequences and implications of their actions in both the short- and long-term.

Bullough (1989) argues that while reflectivity is a worthy aim of teacher

preparation programs, the task is to define what reflectivity is. He proposes that four

questions must be answered before any program can attempt to meet the needs of their

students: What is meant by reflectivity? What are program participants to be reflective

about? What are the purposes of reflectivity? What curriculum is most likely to enhance
 4

reflectivity? By answering each of these questions, programs may be developed that give

students the prerequisite knowledge and experience to approach and evaluate problems

and to solve them in a reflective manner.

Rodgers (2002) attempted to take Dewey’s 1933 definition of reflectivity and put

it into terms that could be more readily utilized today. She cited that numerous

organizations, such as the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS);

the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF); the National

Foundation for the Improvement of Education (NFIE); and the National Staff

Development Council (NSDC) have all identified reflection as a goal for teachers and

students to attain. Her argument is there is no clear definition of reflection and therefore,

she undertakes the mission of providing a clear picture of Dewey’s original ideas so that

“they might serve as we improvise, revise, and create new ways of deriving meaning

from experience – thinking to learn.” (p. 844). Rodgers states that reflection includes

four criteria: a meaning-making process that makes continuity of learning possible; a

systematic, disciplined, rigorous way of thinking; needs to happen in community, in

interaction with others; and requires the personal and intellectual growth of oneself and

others.

It is important to note that Zeichner and Tabachnick (1991) outlined four major

theoretical traditions in the reflective teaching literature. Each of these is concerned with

thoughts and practices connected to particular educational aims and values. It is

important to add that the traditions are not mutually exclusive and may overlap in many

ways. The traditions are the academic, social efficiency, developmentalist, and social

reconstructionist tradition. The academic tradition emphasizes the teacher’s role as a

 5

subject matter specialist. They are scholars who address reflection on subject matter and

its transformation to students. The social efficiency tradition emphasizes the intelligent

use of “generic” teaching skills and strategies that have been derived from the scientific

study of teaching.

The developmentalist tradition emphasizes the learner’s natural development as

the basis for what and how something should be taught. The last tradition, social

reconstructionist, views schools and teachers as agencies of change for the creation of a

more just and humane society. This tradition has three central characteristics: reflection

focuses on the social conditions in which teaching practices are situated; reflective

teaching is democratic and focuses on inequality and injustice issues within the school

and society; and reflective teaching is committed to reflection as a communal activity.

According to Van Manen (1977), teachers must be able to apply a variety of

techniques to the curriculum and to the teaching-learning process so that a predetermined

set of objectives can be brought to fruition efficiently and effectively. He adds that

teachers should also be concerned with making educational experiences and actions

visible to other teachers, learners, and the other participants of the curriculum process. In

order to achieve this goal and to make practical decisions, educators must be aware of

alternative theories and/or the underlying assumptions, principles, and premises of

knowledge.

Serafini (2002) defines a reflective teacher as one who consciously,

systematically, and deliberately frames and reframes practices in the “light of

consequences of our actions, democratic principles, and the beliefs, values, expectation,

and experiences that we as teachers bring to the teaching-learning event” (p. 4). He adds
 6

that reflective practice is a willingness to question one’s own teaching. Serafini further

states that there are four aspects to consider when promoting reflective practice – time,

distance, dialogue, and a preferred vision.

Time is crucial. It is difficult for many teachers to put aside the necessary amount

of time so that they might “mull over” what has happened and what should be happening.

Distance refers to the ability to “objectively” analyze one’s own teaching and postpone

judgments until information is collected. He found that it is difficult to analyze

experiences while they are happening and recommends the use of a reflective notebook to

record observations for later analysis. Dialogue is crucial because the use of colleagues

as support cannot be underestimated. Reflectivity is a social process, we make decisions

in a social context based on our social interactions. The final aspect is a preferred vision

which is the ability to articulate what teachers wish their classrooms to be like. It is a

dynamic concept that changes as one’s knowledge base and classroom experiences

expand.

Arredondo and Rucinski (1998) state that “evidence shows that teachers’ beliefs

about learners, curriculum, and numerous other factors directly influence or mediate

classroom practice” and that “the levels of cognitive development of a variety of

professionals are correlated with certain behaviors” (p. 300). Zeichner and Liston (1987)

add that learning for pupils and teachers is greater and deeper when teachers are

encouraged to utilize their own judgment about the contents and processes of their work

and to give some direction to the shape of schools as educational environments. One way

to achieve this belief is by fostering and encouraging reflective thinking.

 7

Models of Reflectivity

According to Arredondo and Rucinski (1998), humans behave according to the

level of the complexity of their mental structures and that these structures are organized

into a sequence of stages from less to more complex. Van Manen (1977), in his

theoretical model, defined three stages or levels of reflectivity. Level one, technical

rationality (TR), consists of responses that deal with the technical application of

educational knowledge and basic curriculum principles, such as are the students doing

what the teacher asked them to do. At this level, the contexts of the classroom, school,

community, and/or society are not taken into consideration. At the second level, practical

action (PA), the teacher becomes more concerned with clarifying assumptions and

predispositions while assessing the educational consequences toward which a teaching

action leads. S/he analyzes student and teacher behaviors to see if and how goals are met.

The third level is critical reflection (CR). At this level, educators are concerned with

worth of knowledge and the social circumstances useful to students without personal

bias. S/he asks her/himself several questions such as what were the strengths of the

lesson, what should be changed, and was the content covered important to the students?

Zeichner and Liston (1987) also identified four levels of reflective thought in their

model. The first level is factual, where the teacher focuses on facts associated with

procedural steps. The teacher is concerned with what has occurred in a teaching situation

or what may occur in the future. The second is prudential, where the teacher focuses on

the evaluation of teaching experiences and outcomes. The teacher examines what they

might need to do or evaluates what has been accomplished. Justifactory, the third level,

occurs when the teacher provides rationales for actions. The teacher asks the questions of
 8

why they did what they did, why they did it in that manner, and why they chose that

action with those particular students. The final level, critical, occurs when the teacher

focuses on the underlying assumptions of actions that may or may not have an impact on

social justice. At this level, the teacher examines the goals, curriculum and materials,

procedures, students, and context.

King and Kitchener (1994) proposed that reflective thinking developed in seven

stages, each stage provided the foundation for the next. The first three stages encompass

pre-reflective thinking. In these stages, knowledge is certain and it is the only perceived

truth or reality. Knowledge is absolute and concrete. Individuals in these stages have a

belief system that recognizes a few “expert” as having the one true knowledge. Anyone

who does not subscribe to this knowledge domain is incorrect. Their answers or

solutions do not display any form of reasoning. Stages four and five display more

uncertainty and are referred to as quasi-reflective thinking. Questions about what is the

real truth begin to become apparent. Individuals in these stages recognize that some

problems or situations are ill-structured and that prior knowledge may not prove adequate

in solving the problem. Individuals may demonstrate difficulty in providing sound

rationales to support their statements. The last two stages indicate true reflection.

Individuals realize that knowledge is not absolute and its value must be taken within the

context that it is presented. Decisions are made based on sound rationale and may be re-

evaluated on a constant basis. The individual is both flexible to novel situations and to

change.
 9

Research in Education

Reflection emerges as a suggested way of helping practitioners and preservice

teachers better understand what they know and do as they develop their knowledge of

practice through reconsidering what they learn in practice (Loughran, 2002). Schön

(1983) stated that the ability to frame and reframe problems is one of the most important

aspects of developing reflective practice as it influences subsequent actions in practice.

Reflection becomes effective when it leads a teacher to make meaning from a situation in

ways that enhance understanding from a variety of viewpoints (Loughran, 2002).

Pultorak (1993) used Van Manen’s levels to determine different categories of

reflection. He then incorporated four different procedures (bi-daily journals, bi-weekly

journals, visitation journals, and reflective interviews) into the student teaching

experience to see when, and if, reflectivity occurred. He found that each procedure

provided all three levels of Van Manen’s reflectivity. However, the nature of the

assignment seemed to determine the level of reflectivity. As the procedures developed in

complexity, so did the responses. He advocates that teacher educators consider the

desired level of reflectivity when designing classroom activities so that the end result

should be reflective teachers who can serve as role models for their students.

Tsangaridou and Siedentop (1995) agree and advocate reflection not only because

of the complex decisions that teachers make everyday, but also because of an increasing

concern about the moral and political dimensions of teaching. Tsangaridou (2005)

further states that the value of reflection in teaching will continue to be of interest

because it is necessary that future teachers be prepared for the “challenges and realities of

classrooms” (p. 24). Francis, Tyson, and Wilder (1999) add that the professional
 10

maturation process of the teacher should result in the highest level of reflection that

incorporates the consideration of moral, ethical, and political issues. There is a general

agreement that while teacher education programs cannot prepare teachers for every

situation they may encounter, the programs may help them to become thoughtful decision

makers (Tsangaridou & Siedentop, 1995).

Even though reflective thinking is a desired outcome of the educational process,

it is not always attained. Risko, Vukelich, & Roskos (2002) state that more direction is

needed to move prospective teachers beyond their own egocentric views to become

reflective teachers. They profess that while many programs assign specific activities for

“doing” reflection, they do not describe which instructional strategies might support

reflection. Pultorak (1993) found that student teacher’s lack of time, omission of

structural opportunities to reflect, and the demanding workloads of university supervisors

affected teacher reflection. However, activities recommended by Pultorak designed to

structure or increase reflective thinking by student teachers appear successful in

increasing the amount of time for students to formally record their reflections. Student

teachers can also increase their reflective thinking strategies when placed in programs

designed to foster reflective outcomes (Pultorak, 1993). Arredondo and Rucinski (1998)

added that interventions enhancing the development of teachers’ cognitive structures

ultimately lead to more desirable teaching behaviors. Griffin (1997) added that while

reflection may not be something that student teachers would develop on their own, a

more supportive program with structured activities might help promote reflection.

There are a variety of specific reflective strategies that can help develop the

reflective capabilities of student teachers. Many researchers have focused on a variety of

 11

writing mediums, such as journals, to enhance reflectivity. Wedman & Martin (1986)

reported that “writing engages student teachers in making knowledge explicit” (p. 69).

They espouse that writing is a way to ponder the relationships between oneself and their

role in the institution they serve, between theory and practice, and between their teaching

effectiveness and their daily routines. The authors found that one way to encourage and

refine reflectivity is to pose journal questions that encourage thinking at all three of Van

Manen’s levels. They promote the use of journals as a way to develop and practice skills

so that student teachers may “overcome some of the negative effects currently associated

with field experiences by questioning and examining routinized instructional practices

and institutional procedures.” (p. 71).

Hoover (1994) found that writing was a way for student teachers to deliberate and

to explore the commonalities between what they learned in theory and what they did on a

daily basis. She noted that when student teachers were given a predetermined focus, the

participants demonstrated more reflectivity. When given assignments without a focus,

the participants tended to supply responses that were filled with complaints about their

teaching experience, their mentor teachers, and the reality of the school setting. Hoover

determined that in order for an educational program to be effective, students must be

encouraged to move beyond the personal to deliberations about educational principles

and practice, the consequences of teaching behaviors, and the relationship of schools and

society.

With the advances of technology, Hoban (2000) integrated the World Wide Web

into a university class. His study used templates to encourage preservice teachers to

examine how they learned in a university setting by following a three phase reflective
 12

framework. In the first phase, analysis, the participant examines the personal, social, and

situational factors which influenced his/her learning. In the second, synthesis, the

participant collates the factors determined in phase one. They would then use a constant

comparative analysis process to identify key factors for each of the categories, which

were summarized in a table called a “learning profile.” The final phase, theorizing,

occurred as the participants took the information from the synthesis phase and theorized

about the relationships between them. Hoban found that this strategy could provide

valuable insight for the participants. They could use the information to design an optimal

learning environment which takes the type of teaching, type of learning, and type of peer

interaction into consideration. This awareness could be a useful skill for their future role

as an educator.

Tsangaridou and Siedentop (1995) classified reflective strategies into six general

categories: writings, curriculum inquiry, supervisory approaches, action research,

ethnography, and reflective teaching. Writings consist of journals, logs, or portfolios

designed to assist future teachers in focusing their attention on specific aspects of

teaching and schooling. Curriculum inquiry is utilized after preservice teachers have

received theoretical knowledge about curriculum and then learn how to analyze

curriculum materials and develop their own classroom curriculum.

Developing the reflective abilities of preservice teachers appears to be an

important element guiding supervisory practices. These supervisory actions stress the

role of supervisors stimulating student teachers to analyze and critique their teaching

performance and classroom events while also helping them to reflect on and about the

theory and practice of teaching. Action research engages the student teacher in the cycles
 13

of planning, action, observation, and reflection of the student teaching experience.

Ethnographic methods encourage student teachers to visit different schools and study

different aspects of teaching and schooling in a critical manner. Finally, reflective

teaching strategies encourage student teachers to develop their reflective abilities.

Kraus and Butler (2000) examined one program that was created and designed in

the Glenville State College’s Teacher Education Program. This program exposes

preservice teachers to reflective thought and the use of reflective evaluation. It is

composed of three specific developmental stages: Foundation Stage, Process

Development Stage, and Reflective Practice Stage. During the first stage, students are

introduced to and involved in activities such as dialogue journals, developing a

philosophy of education, and “thinking outside the box.” In the second stage, students

are involved in developing lesson plans for particular content areas. After presentations

to fellow classmates, feedback is provided for reflective consideration. Preservice

teachers must defend their position. In addition, reflective journal entries are required

where specific educational issues must be addressed. In the final stage, the students are

required to analyze and apply various curriculum plans and designs and to implement

various instructional methods. Reflective interviews, journals, and self-assessment are all

implemented in this phase. While Kraus and Butler found that preservice teachers in this

program were provided multiple opportunities to develop reflective thinking skills, they

failed to provide any documentation to show whether this program increased reflectivity

or not.
 14

Research in Physical Education

While much research on reflective thinking is evident in the classroom, there is

little research on reflective thinking in physical education. Placek and Smyth (1995)

found that preservice teachers had relatively low levels of reflectivity that did not appear

to increase very much over their student teaching semester. However, other researchers

found that various methods could enhance reflectivity (Tsangaridou & O’Sullivan, 1994;

Byra, 1996; McCollum, 2002). Tsangaridou and O’Sullivan (1994) found that reflective

assignments could increase the reflective abilities of student teachers. The authors found

that by including specific and challenging questions in materials such as logs, video

commentaries and school observations, preservice teachers could become more analytical

and reflective. They also recommended that all three areas of reflection – technical,

practical, and critical - be considered and not placed in a hierarchical order. Tsangaridou

and O’Sullivan concluded that reflection can be learned and that knowledge can lead to

professional growth and development.

After reviewing the literature of reflective teaching, Tsangaridou and O’Sullivan

(1994) developed the Reflective Framework for Teaching in Physical Education

(RFTPE). The RFTPE was developed as an attempt to describe both the focus and the

level of reflection demonstrated by preservice physical educators. The reflective process

was divided into three categories: technical, situational, and sensitizing. Technical

consists of the managerial or instructional aspects of teaching. Situational deals with the

contextual issues of teaching and sensitizing represents reflection upon the social, moral,

ethical, or political aspects of teaching.

 15

The model also includes three levels of reflection: descriptive, justification, and

critique. Descriptive provides descriptive information of an action about some aspect or

aspects of teaching. Justification gives rationale or logic of an action related to teaching.

Critique gives an explanation and evaluation of various teaching actions. The RFTPE

can be utilized to examine different methodologies such as logs and video commentaries

to enhance teacher reflection. It may also be used to more equally distribute the focus

areas of student teaching from primarily technical to include situational and sensitizing as

well. Students taught to view and interpret teaching from a variety of perspectives may

be encouraged to increase their initial levels of reflectivity.

McCollum (2002) found that the Reflective Framework for Teaching in Physical

Education (Tsangaridou & O’Sullivan, 1994) enhanced preservice teachers’ reflective

thinking. McCollum found three main reasons why the use of the RFTPE could help

facilitate preservice teacher’s reflection. The first is that the RFTPE provides a specific

format for guiding reflective writing by clarifying what is significant to the preservice

teacher. Second, the RFTPE can be utilized in a variety of mediums such as peer

observations, videotape analysis, and analysis of post-lesson conferences. Lastly, by

using the RFTPE in early field experiences as well as in student teaching faculty can

monitor progress or changes in the nature of the preservice teacher’s reflectivity.

Byra (1996) found that supervisors who utilized reflective strategies could

enhance the levels of reflectivity found in student teachers. Supervisors who valued all

three areas of reflection – technical, practical, and critical – appeared to provide more

opportunities for their student teachers to reflect. Byra suggests that supervisors use a

multitude of mediums, such as peer teaching, researching curriculum-related issues,

 16

comparing and contrasting teaching styles, and discussing performance after teaching a

lesson or observing a peer teach. By doing so, preservice teachers are forced to develop

questions and answers about their teaching, others’ teaching, and school issues which

may be positive steps in becoming more reflective. If they do not receive experiences

that require them to reflect on the act of teaching, Byra concludes that they are not likely

to make changes once they become in-service teachers.

Wittenburg and McBride (2001) recently developed the Dispositions of Reflective

Thinking Questionnaire (DRTQ) based upon interviews from preservice teachers and the

reflective thinking literature. Their instrument represents a first attempt to quantify the

reflective and metacognitive dispositions in preservice teachers. While the DRTQ

represents a quantitative approach to assessing teacher reflectivity, other researchers have

adopted more qualitative methodologies.

Placek and Smyth (1995) for example, evaluated learning activities planned to

facilitate and increase the reflectivity of undergraduate physical education majors. Four

essays were written during the course of the semester. The essays were subjected to

qualitative analysis by dividing each assignment into segments (a segment was defined as

writing which focused on one central idea), coded, added, and a mean score for each

assignment calculated. The categories fell into one of seven levels. Levels 1 through 3

described events with no explanation offered. Levels 4 through 6 offered explanations of

those events. Level 7 offered explanations with a demonstration of consideration of

ethical, moral, and political issues. Placek and Smyth found that the students

demonstrated moderately low levels of reflectivity that increased very little over the

course of the semester.

 17

Physical education research on preservice teacher reflectivity is not just limited to

the United States. Australians Kirk and Tinning (1992) suggested the use of action

research and journals to promote praxis (the inseparability of theory and practice) and

reflectivity in preservice and in-service teachers. The use of journals would move

teachers toward praxis by helping them make sense of their work though critical appraisal

of relevant literature within the context of their own experiences.

According to Risko, Vukelich, & Roskos (2002), engaging in professional

dialogue and coaching may help preservice teachers work through the analysis of their

own teaching behaviors. Incorporating key recommendations of Tsangaridou such as

writing, supervisory approaches, and reflective teaching into the student teaching

experience may have merit and may result in the development of enhanced reflective

thinking among physical education student teachers. Having the students complete

weekly written assignments about their teaching and supervisors conducting follow up

sessions where students are questioned about their performance for example, may result

in devoting more time to thinking about their teaching. Having student teachers

demonstrate proficiency at Van Manen’s third level of reflectivity would appear to be a

worthy goal of teacher preparation.

In summary, this chapter reviewed the current definitions of reflectivity,

reflectivity models, teacher reflectivity research in education, and initial research in

physical education. The results from the literature review reveal that while the use of

journals, small group sessions, teacher interventions, internet assignments, and teacher

preparation programs have been employed in regular education settings, research that

infuses reflectivity in the physical education setting is in its infancy. While studies in the
 18

physical education area have utilized reflective assignments such as logs, video

commentaries, and reflective sessions to help teachers increase reflectivity levels, few

studies combine more than one strategy to address reflectivity. Therefore, the

combination of weekly web assignments and supervisory practices such as debriefing

interviews may have applicability to and enhance reflectivity among preservice physical

education students.

Limitations

The present study involved the following limitations:

1. Due to the small sample size, results will not be generalized to other student

teacher populations.

Delimitations

The study was delimited to:

1. Health and Kinesiology preservice physical education student teachers from

Texas A&M University

2. All participants currently completing their student teaching requirements.

 19

CHAPTER II

THE STUDY

Knowing what to do and how do it has become an integral part of teaching.

Because of this, reflectivity has become a major focus in teacher education programs.

According to Lee (2005), teacher education programs should develop teachers’ reasoning

about why they use certain strategies and how improvements can have a positive effect

on students. Therefore, Lee recommended that preservice teachers engage in reflective

activities to learn new ideas about their teaching. Richardson and Placier (2001) state

that a challenge facing researchers is to develop ways of determining whether or not

preservice teachers are reflective and ways to assess whether or not changes in

reflectivity occur as the result of any intervention. Davis (2006) adds that simply

providing opportunities to reflect is insufficient because the reflection promoted may not

be productive. Teacher educators must “determine the extent to which tasks promote

productive reflection.” (p. 281).

To the best of our knowledge, little information exists that specifically addresses

where or when changes in reflectivity might occur. Therefore the purpose of this study

was to examine a sample of physical education student’s reflectivity during their 12-week

student teaching experience. Written assignments, supervisory practice, and reflective

teaching via debriefing sessions were utilized to determine what indicators of reflectivity

might be present and if changes might be observed throughout a student teaching

semester.
 20

Dewey (1933) defined reflectivity as “active, persistent, and careful consideration

of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it

and the further conclusion to which it tends” (p. 9). Later, Valverde (1982) defined

reflectivity as a process by which a teacher examines his or her situation, behaviors,

practices, and effectiveness, while Reiman (1999) proposed that reflective practitioners

are able to analyze what they are doing as they are doing it and make modifications to

meet the needs of their students. Similarly, Wojcik (1993) stated that reflective

practitioners are able to think about their strategies and revise them in order to make them

more effective.

Several prominent models of reflectivity have been proposed that include

Zeichner and Liston (1987), King and Kitchener (1994) and Van Manen (1977).

Zeichner and Liston’s model contains four reflectivity components: factual, prudential,

justifactory, and critical. King and Kitchener generated a seven-stage model for

reflectivity in which the seven stages are typically condensed into three: pre-reflective,

quasi-reflective, and true reflection.

Van Manen (1977), one of the pioneers of reflectivity, stated that teachers should

be concerned both with making educational actions visible to others, and with their

ability to apply a variety of techniques to effectively reach predetermined objectives. In

order for this to be achieved, teachers must be able to demonstrate reflectivity, i.e.,

explain their teaching actions. In Van Manen’s model, each level of reflectivity is

sequential; one must address the needs of each level before proceeding to the next. The

first level, technical rationality (TR), consists of responses that deal with the technical

application of educational knowledge and basic curriculum principles such as, “Are the
 21

students doing what the teacher asked?” Contexts of the classroom, school, community,

and/or society are not considered.

Once the participant recognizes the restraints of this level, the need for a higher

level of deliberation becomes apparent. The participant evolves to the second level,

practical action (PA). Thinking at this level occurs when the teacher becomes more

concerned with clarifying assumptions and predispositions while assessing the

educational consequences. Here, it is assumed that “every educational choice is based on

a value commitment to some interpretive framework by those involved in the curriculum

process” (p. 226). During this level, one analyzes both teacher and student behaviors to

see if and how goals are met. However, if one desires to deliberate the worth of the

educational goals and experiences, still a higher level of rationality must be attained.

At level three, critical reflection (CR), educators are concerned with the worth of

knowledge and social circumstances useful to students apart from the educator’s personal

bias. The teacher uses continually critiques the influence of institutions and any

repressed forms of authority. According to Van Manen a goal of this level is to have a

“Universal consensus, free from delusions or distortions…that pursues worthwhile

educational ends in self-determination, community, and on the basis of justice, equality,

and freedom” (Van Manen, 1997, p. 227). One who attains this level asks him/herself

questions such as, “What were the strengths of the lesson, what should be changed, and

was the content important to the students?”

Van Manen’s model was chosen for this study because of its prominence in the

reflective teaching literature. Birmingham (2004) notes that Van Manen’s work “remains

a solid and salient foundation for more current research” (p. 313). Literature reviews on
 22

reflective teaching by Tauer and Tate (1998), Tsangaridou and Siedentop (1995), Hatton

and Smith (1995), and more recently, Birmingham (2004) all cite Van Manen’s influence

when discussing reflectivity.

In the general education setting, Schweiker-Marra, Holmes, and Pula (2003) and

Risko, Vukelich, and Roskos (2002) cite Van Manen as one of the premier sources for

reflectivity. Pultorak (1993) used Van Manen’s levels of reflectivity to develop a

framework to determine different categories of reflection while Wedman and Martin

(1986) used Van Manen’s levels to analyze journal statements. Both Pultorak (1993) and

Wedman and Martin (1986) examined student teachers in traditional classroom settings.

In the field of physical education, Tsangaridou and O’Sullivan (1994) used Van Manen’s

work to help develop their Reflective Framework for Teaching in Physical Education

while Placek and Smyth (1995) referred to Van Manen’s framework to help “design,

implement, and evaluate learning activities planned to facilitate and increase reflectivity”

(p. 107).

Most research on reflectivity has occurred in the traditional classroom setting.

Pultorak (1993) used Van Manen’s model to incorporate bi-daily journals, bi-weekly

journals, visitation journals, and reflective interviews into student teaching to see when

and if reflectivity occurred. Tsangaridou and Seidentop (1995) used six categories such

as writings, curriculum inquiry, supervisory approaches, action research, ethnography,

and reflective teaching to help prepare teachers to become thoughtful decision makers.

Wedman and Martin (1986) reported that writing is one way to ponder relationships

between oneself and the roles one plays, between theory and practice, and between

teaching effectiveness and daily routines. They proposed that questions to encourage
 23

thinking at all three of Van Manen’s levels be used. Hoover (1994) used writing as a way

for students to deliberate and explore commonalities. When given a predetermined focus,

students demonstrated more reflectivity.

While most research to date on teacher reflectivity has occurred in the traditional

classroom setting, little information is available for other settings. Tsangaridou and

O’Sullivan (1994), for example, found that reflective assignments could increase the

reflective abilities of physical education student teachers. Unlike Van Manen, they

considered all three levels and did not place them in a hierarchical order. Rather, the

level of reflectivity depended on the context and situation. They developed the

Reflective Framework for Teaching in Physical Education (RFTPE) in an attempt to

describe both the focus and reflectivity level demonstrated. They found that the RFTPE

could be used to examine different methodologies both to enhance reflection and to more

equally distribute focus to all three levels. McCollum (2002) provided support for the

RFTPE in three ways. First, it provides a specific format for guiding reflective writing

by clarifying what is significant to the preservice teacher. Second, it can be utilized in a

multitude of mediums such as peer observations and videotape analysis. Third, by using

the RFTPE in early field experiences, student teachers can monitor progress or changes in

reflectivity.

In another study, Byra (1996) found that supervisors who valued all three of Van

Manen’s levels appeared to provide more opportunities for student teachers to reflect. By

using reflective strategies such as journals and debriefing, preservice teachers may be

forced to develop questions and answers about their teaching which may be a positive

step in becoming a more reflective practitioner. Finally, Wittenburg and McBride (2001)
 24

developed the Dispositions of Reflective Thinking Questionnaire (DRTQ) as one of the

first attempts to quantify the reflective and metacognitive dispositions in student teachers.

This study builds on previous research in several ways. First it begins to sensitize

preservice teachers to the process of reflectivity in the actual school setting. Second, few

studies have incorporated different means of analysis for qualitative data; this study uses

thematic analysis and Van Manen’s model. Third, this study expands upon earlier

research by examining strategies such as written assignments and supervisory practices

such as interviews that promote reflectivity used in other educational areas. Finally,

while there is no specific information on when changes in reflectivity might be expected

to occur, this study attempts to asses changes in reflectivity over a 12-week student

teaching period. Specifically, the purposes of this study were twofold. The first was to

apply Van Manen’s model to specific strategies such as written assignments and

interviews to examine levels of reflectivity demonstrated and if there were any changes in

the reflectivity of student teachers throughout a student teaching period. A second

purpose was to assess the applicability of Van Manen’s model to a preservice physical

education setting.

Methods

A Naturalistic Inquiry approach (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) was employed since

this study examined levels of reflectivity demonstrated by the participants. While

quantitative methods may provide a broader and more generalizable set of findings, the

qualitative methods used here may provide us with more depth of information (i.e., ‘thick

descriptions’) that might increase our understanding of the phenomenon studied (Patton,

2002). Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, and Allen (1993) further support naturalistic inquiry
 25

as a means to examine changes over time by taking into account the dynamics and

complexities which may be valuable in determining transferability and dependability of

findings.

Participants

The study took place in the spring semester of 2003. Participants were physical

education majors enrolled in a teacher training program at a Research Extensive

University located in the Southwestern United States. Eighteen students were enrolled in

a student teaching experience during the time of the study. Of these, 12 were assigned to

the primary investigator for supervision. These students were eliminated from the sample

to avoid potential conflict of interest and feelings of coercion. Of the remaining six, five

(four females, one male) volunteered to take part in the study. All were graduating senior

physical education majors whose ages ranged from 22 to 25 and their cumulative Grade

Point Averages ranged from 2.669 to 3.568. For all participants, the student teaching

course was the culminating experience in their teacher training program. All participants

completed a consent form and the study was approved by the university’s Institutional

Review Board.

Procedures

As part of the student teaching experience, supervisors schedule three site visits to

observe the student teach and to ensure program expectations were met. The interviews

were conducted during two of the visits. The first took place by the third week of the

experience when the student teachers had just begun teaching lessons. The second

interview took place within the last two weeks of the student teaching experience before

the cooperating teacher resumed control of their classes. A structured interview protocol
 26

(Fontana and Frey, 2000) was employed where all participants were asked the identical

five questions about their physical education lessons.

Pultorak (1993) developed nine reflective questions to help teachers attain Van

Manen’s third level of reflectivity. These questions served as a framework for our

interviews. Appendix A lists all of Pultorak’s questions. Due to time constraints and

potential perceived overlap of question focus, this study selected five of Pultorak’s

questions. (See Table 1) Each interview lasted approximately 20 minutes and was

audiotaped. The tapes were given to the primary investigator for transcription and

analysis.

Table 1. Interview Questions_______________________________________________

1. Do you think the lesson was successful? Why/Why not?

2. What, if anything, would you change about the lesson?

3. What were the essential strengths of the lesson?

4. Can you think of another way you might have taught the lesson?

5. Do you think the content covered was important to the students? Why/Why not?

Note. Question numbers and order were changed from Pultorak’s original list

Analysis

Thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews was conducted (Lincoln and

Guba, 1985). Units of meaning were typed onto index cards and placed in a pile. The

first card was read and placed in a yet-to-be-named category. Then the second card was

read. If deemed similar to the first card, it was placed with the first. If not, it was placed
 27

in a second yet-to-be-named category. This process was repeated with the remaining

cards. When finished, each category (or pile of similar-content cards) was examined for

any over lap with any of the other categories and for any possible connections. Each

question was subjected to its own analysis.

Written assignments

A student teacher website was used in order to maintain contact, provide

resources, and to deliver assignments to the physical education student teachers.

Beginning the second week of the semester, the preservice teachers visited the website to

complete ten weekly assignments. Five of these (weeks 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9) were selected

and forwarded to the primary investigator for analysis (See Table 2). These assignments

were selected due to the potential for detailed and descriptive responses at each of Van

Manen’s levels. For example, the first assignment focused on a discipline situation

which would probably provoke a technical rationality (Level one) response where as the

third assignment asked if the material presented was relevant to students (level three,

critical reflection). Data collection began on week five.

Table 2. Written Assignments______________________________________________

1. Describe one discipline situation that occurred during a lesson you were teaching or when you

were in charge (lunch duty, bus duty, etc.). What was your initial reaction? How did you resolve

the situation? Was there some measure of classroom management that you could have used that

might have avoided the situation? Place yourself in the shoes of the student for a moment. What

may have caused the student to react the way he/she did?

2. Describe your thought-processing strategies you went through in developing the upcoming week’s

lesson plans in your teaching field(s). When did you plan the lessons? Where were you when you
 28

Table 2 Continued

wrote out the lesson plans? How much time was spent preparing the lessons? Why did you choose the

particular activities that you put into the weekly lesson plans?

3. Reflect back on the unit and lessons that you have been teaching. Ask yourself if the material you

are presenting is relevant to the students. Do they understand the importance of “why” they need

to know the material? Can they take the content material and use it in either other content areas or

in their daily lives? Explain how you are accomplishing this or how you intend to accomplish this

in the near future.

4. You should have had ample opportunities to utilize some of the skills of teaching. Refer back to

several lessons from this past week. Which skills were used on a consistent basis in the

lessons? Think back on the feedback that you provided the students. Was the feedback direct or

indirect (questioning strategies)? Were the students challenged to think at levels greater than basic

rote memory? What are some strategies you can use to accomplish the task of moving the

students in your classes to think at higher levels?

5. Over the past semester you have probably noticed a big change within yourself as a teacher.

Discuss the areas in your teaching where you have made the most progress or have seen the

biggest change. Which areas do you think still need more improvement? What was the most

unexpected challenge you faced during your student teaching? What are some new ideas that you

learned from your cooperating teacher(s) or other teachers at your school?

Establishing Interrater Reliability

Analysis using Van Manen’s levels of reflectivity was conducted for both the

interview questions as well as the written assignments. That is, prior to data analysis, the

primary investigator met with two individuals not associated with the present study but

trained in qualitative analysis techniques. In the first session, anonymous assignments

 29

completed by student teachers not associated with the study were read to establish criteria

for each of Van Manen’s levels of reflectivity. This was accomplished by reading an

assignment and then reaching a consensus of which reflectivity level was demonstrated

(See Table 3). An agreement of 90% was reached. In the second session, identical

assignments were read and assigned to one of Van Manen’s three reflectivity levels. A

93% agreement was reached. Agreement was calculated by dividing the number of

agreements by the number of agreements plus the number of disagreements and

multiplying by 100.

Table 3. Van Manen’s Levels of Reflectivity___________________________________

Level Definition

Technical Rationality (TR) Teacher is concerned with technical application of

knowledge and basic curriculum principles (i.e., are

the students on-task?)

Practical Action (PA) - Teacher becomes more concerned with clarifying

assumptions while addressing educational

consequences (i.e., if and how are goals being met)

Critical Reflection (CR) Teacher is concerned with worth of knowledge

without a personal bias (i.e., was content important

to students?)
 30

Trustworthiness

According to Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, and Allen (1993), if intellectual inquiry

is to add to an overall body of knowledge or solve a particular problem, it must

demonstrate some measure of credibility. For this to occur, the inquiry must

“demonstrate its truth value, provide the basis for applying it, and allow for external

judgments to be made about the consistency of its procedures and the neutrality of its

findings of decisions” (p. 29). Guba and Lincoln refer to these qualities as

“trustworthiness” (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

Trustworthiness of this study was established through credibility, transferability,

dependability, and confirmability. Credibility arose through peer debriefings and

member checks. Peer debriefings occurred when the lead investigator met with two peers

to discuss findings, emerging themes, and interpretations of data. Member checks

occurred when the transcripts were sent to participations for validation. Transferability

arose from detailed descriptions of the interviews and weekly web assignments as well as

purposive sampling, the use of participants enrolled in the student teaching course. An

audit trail was kept to account for raw data such as transcripts, coded note cards,

audiotapes, weekly assignments, relevant documents, and interview protocols. Finally,

because confirmability represents an outgrowth of the inquiry versus personal judgments

and biases, the lead investigator relied on the audit trail and judgments of outside sources.

Results

See Appendix C for Thematic Analysis Results

This section presents a compilation of the results from each interview followed by

the written assignments. For the interview data, each question was analyzed separately
 31

and assigned one of Van Manen’s three levels of reflectivity. For the written data, each

weekly response was given an overall Van Manen value. If a sentence or group of

sentences within the response proved to be of a different value than the overall, it was

noted. Since the participants were not compared to each other, data for each one will be

presented separately. At the end of each participant’s results, a table displays Van

Manen’s levels of reflectivity.

Sam – Interview Analysis

For the first interview (see Table 4), Sam’s lesson used a station format to

introduce the students to a variety of physical activities such as clearing hurdles and using

a medicine ball to physically train. Question one, Sam provided primarily level one

responses. He appeared to only be concerned that the students weren’t bored with the

lesson and measured the lesson’s success with the level of participation of the students,

“they were on task, doing what they were told.” Question two prompted another level

one response. Although he fully utilized the gym and made sure to move around to

monitor the students, he realized that there were problems with the equipment such as

some of the watches not working. Perhaps the use of pictures on the wall to show proper

sit up and push up form might have enhanced his lesson as well.

Question three earned a level two response. He realized that by adding variety to

his classes rather than focusing on popular team sports, he was exposing the students to

something they may have not had the opportunity to otherwise experience. Level one

was found in Question four. Sam discussed the set up of the day’s lesson and suggested

using different sport skills as the only way to really change up the lesson, “so the only

way I could change this lesson is try to implement it into our everyday activities…you
 32

could do free throws one station, passing the next station.” For question five, Sam

provided a level two answer. He thought about the predispositions the students may have

had and how, as a teacher, he could address those. By giving the students a variety of

activities, it not only keeps their interest but “gives them different ways to become

healthier too.”

For the second interview, Sam had his students prepare individual weight routines

and place these on index cards to carry with them. Sam provided examples of level one

reflectivity for all questions. In the first question, Sam felt his lesson was successful

because he wanted each student to develop a workout they could perform whether in the

school’s weight room or at home and “I think they came up with some pretty good

workouts.” For the second question, all Sam would change would be when the lesson

was presented in the unit. “I would move this lesson to the front of this unit…so they

could revert back to the note card and not have to ask me any questions.” As for

Question Three, Sam felt the essential strength of the lesson was the fact that the workout

schedules the students developed “gives the kids an opportunity to workout at home or at

a rec center.” The only way Sam felt he could modify the lesson for Question Four

would have been to take a one-on-one approach with the students. “Maybe taking each

individual student, one at a time might help me understand what level they’re on…and

what they need to work on.” Question Five, or whether or not the content was important,

provided the last example of level one reflectivity. Sam noted that now the students

knew which muscles were used as well as have a work out they can take home.
 33

Table 4. Sam’s Interview Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels_________________

Interview Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

1 TR TR PA TR PA

2 TR TR TR TR TR

Note. TR = Technical Rationality; PA = Practical Action

Sam – Weekly Written Assignments

For the first assignment (see Table 5), Sam provided indications of a level one in

his response (TR). His main concern was whether or not a particular student was

following the rules and participating in the day’s activities. He was not concerned with

why she was off-task or what he could do to prevent the behavior. Sam almost achieved

level two when he stated, “the student probably noticed how unorganized the class was

and got the impression she could act that way.” He remained at level one when his

solution to the problem was to have the student “do a lot of little chores for me” in order

to keep her busy.

In the second assignment, Sam provided evidence of level two reflectivity with

one level three statement as well. Sam was very concerned with analyzing his and the

students’ behaviors to see if and how lesson goals were being met and used a variety of

techniques to do so. He used an introduction to let the students know the focus of the

day’s lesson as well as the steps to performing the different skills. Another technique

was to use feedback to let the students know “if they are doing the skill correctly or they

want to be encouraged and rewarded for doing it right.” As for the level three statement,

Sam realized that by using questioning as a form of indirect feedback, he was making the

material relevant without personal bias. “This strategy helps the students learn how to
 34

solve problems…which many of the students are not very accustomed to doing.” Sam

tried to end each class with a closure, which was a good time for him to “review the skill

we went over that day.” Doing so allowed him another chance to see if and how the goals

of the lesson were met.

For his third assignment, Sam responded primarily in level one terms. When

planning his weekly lessons, Sam was more concerned with the technical application of

knowledge, such as what subject will be taught and how many grades need to be taken

that week rather than if and how goals are met (level two) or the worth of the knowledge

presented (level three). By only focusing on meeting curriculum goals, he is ignoring the

predispositions of the students and whether or not they will find the material relevant.

For the fourth assignment, Sam’s response generated level two statements as well

as one level three statement. He was concerned about clarifying assumptions and

predispositions such as “why they are learning what we teach in class” but did not go

much deeper than that. He demonstrated critical reflection when he realized that he could

improve on this aspect, “I realize that I may not have stressed some of the issues on why

it is important to be active.” It is becoming important for Sam that his students

understand the relevance of the lesson and are able to internalize the importance of being

physically active.

For his final assignment, Sam’s response provided evidence of level two

reflectivity. It was a challenge for Sam to modify his lessons to meet the needs of all of

his students, “I had to keep in mind their limitation on what they could and couldn’t do.”

Being able to modify made his lessons run more smoothly and in his opinion, lead to the

biggest positive change, his confidence level, “I became more comfortable in front of
 35

people.” However, he realized that he still needed to work on his discipline, “I am still

young and want to be known as the cool teacher.” As a final note, Sam stated that with

experience, “I will have more discipline and be harder on the students and not allow them

to get away with things.”

Table 5. Sam’s Written Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels__________________

One Two Three Four Five

TR PA TR PA PA

Note. TR = Technical Rationality; PA = Practical Action

Rita – Interview Analysis

For the first interview (see Table 6), Rita presented a lesson on running form in a

command style format. Question one prompted a level one response based on the

students’ ability to follow directions. “I would comment on their stance, that they needed

to correct that and I would actually see them correct it.” She also measured success by

whether or not the students could answer questions at the end of the lesson such as why

form was important and what were the four components. The students were not required

to think or apply concepts. Question two provoked a level two response. Rita analyzed

student behaviors to see if and how goals were met and she felt that by rewarding

students for running, it would keep them motivated. Question three provided another

level two response. By having the students physically and mentally active for over half

of the time period, her goals as a teacher were being met. “They’re physically active and
 36

mentally active really throughout the entire lesson,” as well as meeting many of the

educational objectives and the TEKS.

As for question four, Rita gave a level one response. As for teaching the lesson

another way, Rita would have either changed the pace of the run or the length of the lap.

As a final thought, “I could have had them get with a partner and critique the other

person’s form.” For the final question, question five, Rita had primarily a level three

response. Her concern of the worth of the knowledge and the social circumstances useful

to students was evident. While she realized that the students might “have this dogma of

that running is not fun,” as teachers, they try to make it fun and provide rewards after

completion of the task.

For the second interview, Rita presented a lesson on nutrition and demonstrated

level one reflectivity in all of her responses. Rita failed to analyze her or her students’

behavior [level two] or to become concerned with the worth of knowledge useful to

students. For Question One, the success of her lesson was based on the fact that the

students were paying attention and doing what she asked. As for changing the lesson,

Question Two, Rita wished there was a way to maintain discipline and to keep them

quiet. As for Question Three, the essential strengths of the lesson, Rita felt the students

could relate to the lesson on nutrition “because they eat.” She also felt the task sheet at

the end of the lesson was a strength because the students had to fill out what they ate for

breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snack and then “put a smiley face or frown face by it….it

got them involved.” For Question Four, Rita would have like to have had more

“interactive visuals” for the students to get them more involved as well as more group

work. However, she noted that in two of her classes, the large number of students would
 37

prohibit group work “they’re loud as it is just sitting in their desks.” As for Question

Five, why the content was important for students, Rita responded, “I think they do realize

that it really is because they’re eating.” She noted that because of the nutrition unit, some

may temporarily change their eating habits but for the majority, “no.”

Table 6. Rita’s Interview Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels_________________

Interview Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

1 TR PA PA TR CR

2 TR TR TR TR TR

Note. TR = Technical Rationality; PA = Practical Action; CR = Critical Reflection

Rita – Weekly Written Assignments

Rita’s responses to assignment one were primarily at level two (see Table 7). She

was very concerned with clarifying predispositions while assessing the educational

consequences of a teaching action. For example, one student chose not to participate in

the activity. After speaking one-on-one with the student, Rita was able to persuade the

student to join in the activity. She noted that the set up of the activity did not promote

much student participation in the outfield and realized that changes should be made to

enhance the experience for all of the students. For her second assignment, Rita provided

indicators of level three reflectivity. When stating which teaching skills she used on a

regular basis, she explained why she felt their use made her a more effective teacher. As

for establishing set at the beginning of a lesson, “I have found that if the students are

drawn in from the start, they are more likely to participate and learn during the actual

lesson and activity.” She also utilized the skill of questioning several times throughout
 38

her lesson to keep the students thinking and to help internalize the information. While

she admitted that some of the teaching skills are not yet a natural part of her teaching

style, she realized that their utilization would help her become a more effective teacher,

“Even though I may have trouble with some, I know they [skills of teaching] are all

extremely important…I am willing to work hard…so I can be as effective as possible.”

When asked to describe thought processes while planning lessons in the third

assignment, Rita exhibited level one reflectivity. She focused more on the technical

application of educational knowledge and basic curriculum principles. Her cooperating

teacher provided a list of skills she wanted Rita to teach and Rita used that list to come up

with a variety of activities to meet each skill. While keeping lesson objectives in mind,

progressive skill sequences are developed as well as the most effective way of presenting

the material. In the fourth assignment, Rita displayed critical reflection (level three)

when asked how she made material relevant to her students. She was able to describe

how she used a specific sport, basketball, and made it relevant to elementary and

intermediate students. At the elementary level, “I was constantly explaining to the

students why we were doing something.” Rita used this format to introduce and reinforce

skills as well as reinforce the notion that the students could continue to participate as they

aged. At the intermediate level, a variety of basketball games, such as “Knock Out,

Horse, and Around the World” were taught to the students. They were told that these

games were “something that they can do now and continue doing in the future.” As a

final note, Rita stated that she planned on making information relevant to the students by

giving them many opportunities to practice and hoped to make the material part of their

lifelong pursuit of health and fitness. For her final assignment, Rita demonstrated level
 39

two reflectivity. Although she listed many areas of improvement, such as increased ease,

increased confidence and effectiveness in discipline, she failed to provide critical

reflection in how these areas improved. Instead, she analyzed how these changes

affected her behaviors to see if and how teaching goals were met. As a final thought, Rita

stated, “I know that I do not know everything about teaching, but I do know that I have

had a very solid foundation laid.”

Table 7. Rita’s Written Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels__________________

One Two Three Four Five

TR CR TR CR PA

Note. TR = Technical Rationality; PA = Practical Action; CR = Critical Reflection

Emily – Interview Analysis

For the first interview (see Table 8), Emily used a station format to review fitness

components such as agility and speed. Question one prompted a level one response.

Emily was primarily concerned that the students were on task and doing what was asked

of them, for example, that the students went through all the stations and able to answer

questions. Question two provided a combination of level one and two. While Emily was

again concerned with the students being on task and paying attention, “They just don’t

quiet down, they don’t listen…I could have changed that and made sure I had all their

attention,” she also realized that they may not have understood because some of the

material was complicated. Question three revealed another combination but this time

from levels two and three. Emily was able to look at her actions and the prior knowledge
 40

of her students to plan a lesson that would be effective for all. Emily stated, “I knew the

things I was going to teach them…they understood that. And they understood which

stations were working on those…I think I did a good job getting that point across…They

were able to answer questions I asked them.” Question four was not asked.

Question five provoked a response that was level three. Emily realized the

knowledge that the students were entering the class with as well as areas that were new to

the students, “They’ve never actually been taught things, never been asked questions.”

The students were also realizing the importance of physical activity and why it might

benefit them in the future. She summarized by stating, “I just think the biggest thing

about it, it relates to them, it’s so important for them for the here and the now is for them

to see this, to learn this now and be able to use this in their life, in the future. And I hope

that they do.”

For the second interview, Emily’s lesson focused on drugs. She had previously

gathered information for the students. They’re assignment was to take the material and

present it to their peers. For Question One, Emily provided a level one response. Her

measure of lesson success was the fact that the students were completing the task, asking

questions, and presenting the material as asked. Question Two prompted a level two

response. She realized that when she did all the research, she limited the educational

value of the experience for the students, “I just think they would have gotten a lot more

out of it if they had to do the research…they would have learned more.”

Emily’s response to Question Three was also level two. She demonstrated her

concern over how student behaviors met the goals of the lesson. Even though Emily

planned the lesson, the students were allowed to take “control” of the material
 41

presentation. “They got to use their creativity…and put it together in a way that they

wanted to teach the class.” Question Four. Unfortunately, question four was not asked.

Question Five prompted another level two response from Emily. She discussed

predispositions students may have had, “a lot of them just hear the good things…they

don’t know what happens if they get caught.” She felt that her lesson addressed many

components of drug abuse and drug laws that the students may not be familiar with and

found that “they usually really get involved in and learn a lot from it.”

Table 8. Emily’s Interview Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels_______________

Interview Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

1 TR TR & PA PA & CR - CR

2 TR PA PA - PA

Note. TR = Technical Rationality; PA = Practical Action; CR = Critical Reflection

Note. Question 4 was not asked in either interview

Emily – Weekly Written Assignments

For the first assignment (see Table 9), Emily exhibited predominantly level two

responses. She described a situation in which two young men were involved in a

physical shoving match that had the potential to escalate into something more. Emily

separated the men and had them sit against the wall to wait for her. Once the rest of the

class resumed their activities, Emily approached the young men to get their sides of the

story and to rectify the situation. She was not so much concerned about whether or not

the students were on-task but what she could do to get them back into the activity. Thus
 42

she displayed an ability to meet the goals of the lesson by understanding the needs of her

students.

For the second assignment, Emily again demonstrated a level two response. She

used a variety of teaching skills to clarify assumptions and to assess her teaching actions

because “they [skills of teaching] are skills used to create a positive and effective learning

environment, as well as to establish a well-managed classroom.” By using teaching skills

such as establishing set, teacher silence, feedback, and pre-cueing, Emily was able to

analyze if and how her daily goals were met.

When asked to describe her thought processes when developing lesson plans, the

third assignment, Emily provided a level two response. Her first step was to make an

outline of what she wanted to teach, keeping in mind the predispositions and current

levels of her students. As for her teaching behaviors, she wanted to make the activities

“fun and different everyday,” and her goal was to “finalize objectives, determine which

Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) would be met as well as which of the

American Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance

(AAHPERD) outcomes.” Overall, she appeared concerned with making sure that her

behaviors and that of the students would meet her weekly goals.

In assignment four, when asked how she made the material relevant to her

students, Emily answered “why” rather than “how;” a response indicative of level two.

She stated, “I realized that the things the students would remember most were things they

were also learning about in other classes.” Despite the revelation, Emily failed to state

how she made the material relevant.

 43

Emily’s answer to the fifth assignment provided an indication of critical

reflection. She noted that she was able to improve in three different areas throughout her

student teaching semester: discipline, planning, and improvising. With discipline, “it is

important that your students view you as a disciplinarian first and then they can begin to

see you as a friend.” With planning, she learned “you can never plan too much for one

class period.” Lastly, she learned to prepare for bad weather days and missing class days

due to outside factors such as unscheduled programs. She summed up her ability to be

flexible, “I have learned to prepare…and be willing to work with several different

elements.” Emily also found that for her, the most surprising aspect of teaching was the

lack of motivation from several students. After many failed an exam and seemed not to

be upset, she stated, “The attitude was very shocking for me…I want to learn what will

motivate them to succeed in the classroom.”

Table 9. Emily’s Written Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels_________________

One Two Three Four Five

PA PA PA PA CR

Note. TR = Technical Rationality; PA = Practical Action; CR = Critical Reflection

Lisa – Interview Analysis

For the first interview (see Table 10), Lisa used a station format to teach a lesson

on the five fitness components. Question one prompted primarily a level one response.

Lisa was primarily concerned that the students were active and “all participating in
 44

something.” She was surprised “they were able to recall all the components of fitness

and identify which activities went with them after we just talked about it for 5 minutes.”

Question two was a brief level one response. Lisa was only concerned with the technical

application of knowledge and how that application affected her lesson. She commented

on the lack of flow of the lesson and realized, “I think I forgot my components on the

chest pass poster.”

Question three once again reflected Lisa’s concern with the technical application

of knowledge (level one). She was “happy about the students realizing to use them [the

station cards] as a reference” and “everybody was on task for probably 35-40 minutes of

the class period.” Question four progressed to a level two response. Lisa became

concerned with the student’s ability to apply the prior knowledge they obtained with

future cognitive endeavors, “they could figure out what exercises went with what and

even create themselves a workout…letting them use what they know and apply it to an

activity.”

The final question, question five, provoked another level two response. Lisa

realized the educational consequences of teaching fitness components. However, the

level of that knowledge varied, “they don’t need to know the technical terms of it but

they need to know what’s involved in fitness so they can identify activities that are

beneficial to them.” When asked to clarify, she stated, “I’m not as concerned that they

say “muscular endurance” as “we work our muscles for an extended period of time.”

For the second interview, Lisa’s class was nearing the end of a tennis unit. The

students were engaged in game play. Question One provided the basis for a level one

response. Lisa felt her lesson was successful because “they were all playing and
 45

interacting.” She did not worry about clarifying any assumptions or the worth of the

knowledge given to the students. Her only concern seemed to be the fact that “they really

picked up the skills and could stand there and hit that ball.”

Lisa provided a level two response when asked Question Two. She went beyond

the technical application of knowledge and addressed assumptions that she had made. “I

thought we all had an understanding…but I should have modeled how a game should

go.” After seeing confusion from many of her students, Lisa realized “I went over it too

fast” and she should have revisited the material. When asked the essential strengths of

the lesson in Question Three, Lisa gave a level one response. Her criterion for a

successful lesson’s strength was the fact that “all the students were active a lot.” She also

stated that the lesson “made them think about when to use the shots,” but she failed to

explain how she came to that conclusion or how she measured this cognitive ability.

Question Four provided another level one response. The only suggestion Lisa had for

modifying the lesson would be to present a tennis match on television and “maybe

identify the shots…and then we try to model what the tennis pros do.” Level one

reflectivity emerged from Question Five. Lisa appeared to be more concerned that the

students were active and happy rather than learning or improving skills. “I think they had

a lot of fun.” She felt this was more crucial than “if they were actually learning the

specific skills in tennis.”

 46

Table 10. Lisa’s Interview Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels________________
Interview Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

1 TR TR TR PA PA

2 TR PA TR TR TR

Note. TR = Technical Rationality; PA = Practical Action

Lisa – Weekly Written Assignments

Assignment One - Lisa primarily recorded a level one response (technical

rationality) when answering assignment one (see Table 11). She was mainly concerned

with the technical application of knowledge and was not concerned with any deeper

reflective levels. Following the examples set forth by her cooperating teachers, Lisa

plans to take the approach that “students should never have time to misbehave” and she

will have a “specified routine for the students to follow as they enter the class.” She

plans to take “full advantage” of routines and procedures to help the class “run

smoothly.”

Assignment Two – At first glance, it appeared that Lisa was providing level two

responses for her second assignment. After further scrutiny, it was determined that she

was actually at level three, critical reflection. Not only did Lisa examine both her and the

students’ actions to see how and if goals were being met, she went further by critically

analyzing herself. She did this by examining each of the teaching techniques she utilized.

She also examined how she could use them to become a more effective teacher and how

she could “make it [the material] more meaningful to the students.” Her final statement

reinforced her critical reflectivity, “Although I need to work on several of them [teaching
 47

skills], they always aid me to allow me to teach effective lessons and increase student

learning.”

Assignment Three – In describing the thought processes used when developing

lesson plans, Lisa provided evidence of a level three response (CR). While planning,

Lisa asked herself many critical questions concerned with the worth of knowledge and

how the material can best be related to the students. She begins planning a week in

advance because it gives her time “to think of potential problems” and how she can avoid

them. She also asks herself questions such as “What am I trying to accomplish? Is this

interesting? Do I understand the point of the lesson?” Once she “answers all questions

positively” she moves on to other aspects of the lesson plan such as set, activity, closure

and pre-cue. For Lisa, “the lesson plans help me to be organized…and planning a lesson

well before time is a great aid to present an effective lesson.”

Assignment Four – For her fourth assignment, Lisa provided indicators of level

three reflectivity. She provided several examples of how she made the material relevant

to the students as well as how the students could use this information in the future. As an

instructor, Lisa made sure to state the relevance of the lesson at the beginning of each

class period. She also tried to make sure that she points out to all of the students how the

material can be used in the “real world” as well as other subject areas by having the

students “perform activities that aid in the application of the information to real life.”

Assignment Five – When asked what areas she made the most progress or had

seen the biggest changes, Lisa provided a predominantly level three response.

Throughout the semester, Lisa was forced to think of different ways she may have

approached lessons to improve the learning process. By learning how to “break the
 48

lessons down to provide success for every student” and by “providing variety in my

lessons,” she felt she will continue to improve as a teacher. Her biggest challenge was

discipline and she found that “I need to work on not disciplining the students because

they have made me angry or done something to me.”

Table 11. Lisa’s Written Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels_________________
One Two Three Four Five

TR CR CR CR CR

Note. TR = Technical Rationality; CR = Critical Reflection

Sally – Interview Analysis

For the first interview (see Table 12), Sally did a circuit workout in the weight

room. For question one, Sally gave a level three response. She was concerned with the

worth of knowledge gained by the students and she measured this from the student’s

actual comments. “I think that is the best way…to know if the lesson’s successful is the

feedback from the students.” One of the students came to the realization that the workout

he was exposed to in the day’s lesson was one he could take with him after high school.

As for question two, Sally provided a strong level two response. She was very concerned

with clarifying her directions so the students could get more out of the lesson because

they seemed to be “confused on the circuit workout.” To prevent this from occurring

again, Sally would “just provide [sic] more information, more detail.”

Question three provoked another level two response. Sally understood that many

students might just now realize how important safety and technique are in a weight room.
 49

To illustrate safety, Sally said, “I think they realize how important spotting is to

somebody when you can’t get weight off of them. I think that was an important feat for

us.” As for technique, she stated that the students realized, “it can make a tremendous

difference on the strain you place on your body” and “I think they realized to actually

correct because they felt the difference.” Question four prompted a level one response.

Sally felt that the main changes she could have made to her lesson dealt with more of a

technical application than anything else. From reducing the number of stations,

increasing the number of repetitions, and making the groups of students smaller, Sally

believed that the students might have gotten more out of the lesson. As for question five,

Sally delivered a level three response. She was very concerned with the worth of the

knowledge presented and whether or not it was useful to the students, “it’s really hard to

motivate students to do things in class much less take it home or take it beyond physical

education class.” However she realized that even though it may mean more preparatory

work on the teacher’s behalf, it results in lessons that are, “more adventurous, more

challenging…not the same old-same old and I think that’s most important.”

For the second interview, Sally had the students work on the slap shot, a

component of floor hockey. Question One demonstrated level one reflectivity by Sally.

She was very concerned that they students were on-task, “They actually tried to do the

components that I asked…they went through the drills.” Sally demonstrated level one

reflectivity with Question Two as well. When asked what she would change about the

lesson, Sally felt she would defensive drills for the students to do and admitted that the

floor hockey unit “could be a little bit more challenging.” Question Three presented

another level one response. As for strengths of the lesson, Sally felt that both the task
 50

sheets and the amount of activity time were important. She explained that the activity

time was maximized and the students were able to have much repetition with the drills.

As for the task sheets, “it’s giving you two different outlets to actually attain one goal.”

[The partner and the actual work sheet]

Level two reflectivity was demonstrated in Question Four. Sally realized that

with this particular group of students, drills, individual and peer work was most efficient.

“It is a group that always wants to stay active.” She also noted that if she had them

perform one-by-one, the students tended to “get kind of antsy and they get off-task,”

therefore, small group activities were more productive than large group. Question Five

prompted another level two response. Sally felt that the content covered in the day’s

lesson was relevant because “they were able to see why the wide grip worked…why all

the methods worked, they could see why.” Not only were the students performing the

slap shot, they were asked to analyze their own and their partner’s performance and then

make corrections and/or modifications. Sally added that the students were aware the

material they learned in this day’s lesson would be tied into the next lesson.

Table 12. Sally’s Interview Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels_______________
Interview Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

1 CR PA PA TR CR

2 TR TR TR PA PA

Note. TR = Technical Rationality; PA = Practical Action; CR = Critical Reflection

 51

Sally – Weekly Written Assignments

For assignment one (see Table 13), Sally displayed evidence of level three

reflectivity. She was very concerned that she keep an open mind when dealing with her

students and by keeping their social circumstances in mind, Sally was able to better

manage her teaching time as well as make sure that her material is relevant to all students

in her charge.

Realizing and considering the home life of many of these students has me

reconsidering some of my management plans and decisions. Being sensitive to

the students and understanding why they think as they do will help me build a

strong foundation…

Practical action (level two) was the primary level from Sally for her second

assignment. She often used the teaching techniques of repetition and redundancy, teacher

silence, and questioning to reinforce the main points of the day. Had she pursued this

line of thought further, level three reflectivity may have been achieved.

For the third assignment, Sally provided level one responses. Sally focused on

the technical application of knowledge such as worksheets, activities, and class notes as

well as basic curriculum principles that included how many days she will spend on each

subject. Prior student subject knowledge and worth of knowledge did not appear to be

considered while planning.

Sally provided evidence of level three reflectivity in her fourth assignment. She

began her response with the statement “it is quite ironic that physical education and

health are considered the least important in the academia setting, but actually they have a

greater and more extensive impact on the students than that of any other subjects.” She
 52

then proceeded to describe how in each of her teaching fields she tries to make material

relevant to her students. In physical education, she tried to use fun and enjoyable games

to reach every student, “I try to include everyone and their skills. I include the beginner

to the advanced.” In health, she used “appropriate experiences and education” to keep

her students “stimulated and interested.” As a final note, Sally added, “I have to

motivate, encourage, and reinforce the ideas surrounding this dominion daily.”

When asked what areas she had made the most progress or had seen the biggest

changes, Sally’s response provided indications of level three thinking in her last

assignment. Her area of biggest progress had been in the area of class management. She

critically reflected that, “I have set boundaries, yet left openings and opportunities for the

students to have an effective lesson and still be stimulated and interested each day.” She

was also able to look at the social circumstances the students brought to the learning

arena, “I need to take each day as another chance to open minds up to physical activity.”

As a final statement, Sally noted that she learned many concepts during her student

teaching experience and perhaps the most relevant is “there seems to be a solution to

every problem.”

Table 13. Sally’s Written Results with Assigned Van Manen Levels_________________

One Two Three Four Five

CR PA TR CR CR

Note. TR = Technical Rationality; PA = Practical Action; CR = Critical Reflectivity

 53

Discussion

The purposes of this study were two-fold. First, we wished to apply Van Manen’s

model to specific strategies such as written assignments and interviews to examine levels

of reflectivity and changes in these reflectivity levels throughout a student teaching

period. Second, we sought to assess if Van Manen’s model might be applicable to a

preservice physical education setting.

Across the 12-week student teaching period, each reflectivity level of Van

Manen’s model was noted at some point as were changes in levels of reflectivity.

Observed changes were in a positive direction with none of the participants

demonstrating a decrease in reflectivity. In general, these increases are in line with Van

Manen’s notion that reflectivity is sequential. This progression could be seen in the

written assignments where all students recorded higher levels of reflectivity as the

semester developed.

In this study, the written assignments moved from technical foci (such as

discipline) to a more reflective focus (such as how to make material relevant to students).

Such progression may have led to the positive changes in reflectivity levels observed

throughout the student teaching period. Pultorak (1993) reported a similar trend and

noted that teachers should consider the desired level of reflectivity and then design

activities to match. For example, Lisa displayed level one, technical rationality, in her

first assignment, but had progressed to level three, critical reflection, by her final

assignment. In her first written assignment, Lisa provided evidence of technical

rationality when she stated that both of her cooperating teachers used management

strategies, such as teacher silence or reward systems, to enhance the learning

 54

environment. In contrast, in her final assignment, Lisa demonstrated critical reflection

when she realized that she could not discipline a student “when they have made me angry

or done something to me.” She also realized that she could not simply present the

material and expect the students to learn it; she needed to constantly revisit the

information and provide connections to new information.

While all of the participants demonstrated higher levels of reflectivity across the

written assignments, only two displayed critical reflection (i.e., level three) during the

first interview and none during the second. Similar findings were reported by Hatton and

Smith (1995) who concluded that written and oral reflections may not reveal the true

thoughts of the preservice teacher because of feelings of vulnerability and/or the need for

self protection. It is difficult to determine if the differences in reflectivity levels noted

between the oral and written data were due to the activity itself or if the student teachers

felt more comfortable with the anonymity of writing versus the face-to-face contact of the

interviews.

Time constraints may have been another reason for the absence of higher levels of

reflectivity during interviews. Pultorak (1993), Zeichner and Liston (1987), and Hatton

and Smith (1995) found that reflection may be affected by lack of time. All found that

when students were given ‘adequate’ time to answer (‘adequate’ time was unique to each

person), the students demonstrated higher levels of reflectivity. Since many of the

participants in our study had to resume teaching duties immediately after the debriefing

session, their focus may have been on answering the questions as quickly as possible in

order to prepare for the next class.

 55

While Ross (1989) also found that her students demonstrated high reflectivity

levels at least part of the time she suggests that the supervisor could be at fault for not

fostering higher levels of reflectivity due to lack of communication or inadequate

directions. The lower levels of reflectivity found in both interviews may be a function of

the structured interview format. Since probing questions rarely prompted the student

teacher to elaborate or provide additional examples, the participants may have felt their

responses were adequate.

Other potential limitations for the lack of reflectivity may have been due to the

participants desire to ‘please’ the interviewer or the interviewer’s questioning techniques

(for further details on limitations related to structured interviews, see Fontana and Frey,

2000). In contrast, the written assignments were very specific regarding which question

the students were to answer and instructions to provide specific examples. The

participants might have provided more reflective answers had the interviewers prompted

the participants to expand or provide additional examples.

Gore (1990) studied three groups of students and found that the ability to reflect

may be due to the nature of the students themselves. One group, for example resisted

reflection (recalcitrant), a second group adopted behaviors in order to achieve good

grades (acquiescence), while the third focused on the process of learning and reflection

(committed). It is difficult to distinguish, however, if the student teachers in our study

were committed to learning or were being acquiescent because they desired a good grade,

since these motivation variables were not examined. Overall, Gore (1990) found that age

and experience had no relation to reflectivity levels.

 56

Though the present study, we did not examine whether or not age or experience

impacted reflectivity, the student’s grade point average (GPA) might represent another

variable for consideration. For example, Sam had the lowest GPA and demonstrated Van

Manen’s levels one and two on a consistent basis. Critical reflection was never displayed

in either interview or written work. Sally, on the other hand, had the next lowest GPA yet

consistently demonstrated the highest levels of reflectivity, a possible indicator that she

was committed to reflectivity rather than to receiving a good grade. Meanwhile, Rita,

who had the highest GPA, consistently demonstrated all three levels throughout the

semester. She scored particularly high on her written assignments. From the obtained

data, like Gore, we could not accurately determine if student GPA might impact levels of

reflectivity (i.e., the higher the GPA, the higher levels of reflectivity).

The changes in reflection observed in this study may also be a function of the

student teachers becoming more acclimated to their environment. At the beginning of the

semester, the student teachers were more concerned with off-task behavior rather than if

the students were learning or not. By semester’s end, the student teachers were focused

more on trying to get to know their students in order to make the material relevant. These

shifts in focus can be explained, in part, by Fuller’s (1969) Concerns Theory. Fuller’s

developmental theory comprises three hierarchal stages of concerns: self, task, and

impact. At the self stage, concerns about one’s own survival and adequacy in the

learning environment dominate. The student teacher asks himself how he is doing, will

he succeed, and how others think he is doing. Once these concerns are alleviated, he can

move to the next stage. The task stage is the mastery stage of teaching. Here one deals

more with concerns about daily tasks such as grading papers, attending meetings, finding
 57

educational resources and other activities. Once these are alleviated, the student teacher

can move to the final stage, impact. Here the focus shifts to learning and concerns for

themselves is replaced with concerns for the students. Are the students learning, is the

material relevant, and how can achievement levels be raised are questions an individual at

the impact stage might ask.

Fuller’s theory mirrors the levels of reflectivity found in Van Manen’s model

quite appropriately. Van Manen’s level one, for example, is similar to Fuller’s self stage.

That is, at that level/stage one is concerned that the students are doing what is asked and

little more. Rita, for example, described a discipline situation in her first assignment

where the student did what she asked (technical rationality) and she felt she had the

situation under control (Fuller’s self stage). “I gave him one warning and he

responded…I felt like I had the situation under control and that the boy was going to

participate.”

At Fuller’s task stage and Van Manen’s practical action stage (level two) needs

are being addressed and educational consequences are being considered – are goals being

met? becomes the focal issue. In the second written assignment, Sam addressed the issue

of how he met predetermined educational goals (practical action) by utilizing numerous

teaching skills when developing his lesson plans (i.e., Fuller’s task stage). Sam noted

that he tried to use indirect feedback whenever possible because it “helps the students

learn how to solve problems that are related to body mechanics.”

Fuller’s final stage, impact, corresponds to Van Manen’s critical reflection level

(CR). In both models teachers ask whether the material is relevant and how might

achievement levels be increased. In her final assignment, Lisa noted that for a student to
 58

achieve success she must break down the lesson into steps and get the student involved,

“I cannot simple present information and expect the students to learn it.”

In sum, the first purpose of this study was to apply Van Manen’s model to

strategies such as written assignments and interviews to examine levels of reflectivity and

determine if there were any changes in these reflectivity levels throughout a student

teaching period. We detected all three levels of reflectivity in our sample and noticed

changes throughout the study’s time period. As for the second purpose of this study, we

sought to assess if Van Manen’s model might be applicable to a preservice physical

education setting. While the model has been applied to other educational settings and

proven to be a valid assessment tool (i.e., Pultorak, 1993; Wedman and Martin, 1986),

this study provided support of the applicability of Van Manen’s model to a physical

education setting.

Van Manen’s three level model provides a format that served as a viable tool to

guide and assess reflectivity levels of preservice physical educators. Because of the

important role of teacher reflectivity in today’s educational environment, teacher

education programs must provide opportunities to develop reflectivity (Davis, 2006; Lee,

2005). This is equally true in physical education where the National Association for

Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), Standard Eight states that physical education

teachers “are reflective practitioners who evaluate the effects of their actions on

others…and seek opportunities to grow professionally” (2001, p. 8). Nevertheless, few

documented efforts have focused on promoting and/or assessing reflectivity levels among

Physical Education teaching programs (Tsangaridou & O’Sullivan, 1994; Placek &

Smyth, 1995)
 59

This study is an attempt to fill this ‘assessment void.’ Tsangaridou (2005) noted

that prior studies indicated how difficult it was to teach preservice teachers to become

more reflective. Our study is unique because it combines available resources (i.e.,

supervisors, technology), with Van Manen’s model to assess reflectivity levels in a

physical education setting. By adding reflective components to techniques already

utilized in a student teaching experience, NASPE guidelines for reflective practitioners

may be accomplished.

This study found that Van Manen’s levels could be used to obtain objective

assessments of both written and interview protocols. Of particular note was that as the

written assignments increased in complexity, responses also tended to increase in

reflectivity. By first focusing on technical components (i.e., discipline, teaching skills)

and then moving to more complex components (i.e., personal changes, material

relevance, socioeconomic impact of community), preservice teachers may be prompted

and encouraged to increase their reflectivity. This strategy of building on components

may satisfy Richardson and Placier’s (2001) challenge of developing ways to determine

levels of reflectivity and ways to assess whether changes occur as the result of a

particular intervention.

Additionally, Van Manen’s model can be used to apply a quantitative measure

(i.e., level one, two, or three) to qualitative responses (i.e., interviews and written

assignments) to assess reflectivity levels of teachers. It is important to note, however,

that in order for Van Manen’s model to be utilized in the preservice physical education

setting, the supervisor will require training. The supervisor needs to be trained to know

the three levels and be able to recognize/evaluate the student’s responses. These
 60

expectations are predicated on the assumption that the preservice program has infused

reflectivity into its field-based experiences. The expectation for reflectivity during the

student teaching experience then represents a continuation of these expectations and are

not suddenly introduced during their culminating internship.

Despite its contributions in applying a teacher reflectivity model to a student

teacher setting, there are some important limitations to note in the present study. Sample

size, for example, has to be acknowledged: by only examining five preservice teachers, it

is difficult to ascertain if these same changes occur with a larger population of student

teachers. Because of the small sample size, no attempt to extrapolate the results beyond

the immediate sample will be made. Nevertheless, these results do merit consideration

for use in teacher preparation programs as they suggest that as structured activities (i.e.,

written assignments) increase in ‘difficulty,’ reflectivity levels may be increased as well.

Additionally, the student teaching time frame may have presented a limitation as

well. A twelve week student teaching experience might not represent enough of a time

frame to study cognitive changes. Observation of student teachers over a longer period

might yield further information on the stability of the changes and whether they can be

maintained.

Conclusion

In sum, our data suggest that the use of supervisory practices (debriefing

interviews), weekly written assignments, and using the Internet as a vehicle for

communication between student teachers and supervisors can bring about shifts in

student teacher reflectivity. Using Van Manen’s model to develop such strategies may
 61

prompt preservice teachers to cultivate reflective questions and answers about their

teaching with may be a positive step in becoming a more reflective practitioner.

Based on lessons learned from this inquiry, future studies might further

examine the use of semi-structured debriefing sessions that allow additional prompts and

questions to be asked. Perhaps through the use of prompts and asking for more examples

in the interview questions, substantive changes in reflectivity may be noted. Since Van

Manen’s framework has already been utilized in the general education setting as well as

with undergraduate physical educators (Wedman and Martin, 1986; Pultorak, 1993;

Tsangaridou and O’Sullivan, 1994; Placek and Smyth, 1995), examining preservice

teachers represents a logical next step in expanding physical education research.

Future research could also examine the role of subject matter content on

reflectivity levels. The subject matter taught may have an impact on the levels of

reflectivity. For example, a lesson concerning drug use may provide evidence of higher

levels of reflectivity compared to a lesson over the proper form for running. Also, it may

be important to determine if student teachers are truly demonstrating level three (critical

reflection) when writing responses or if they are motivated for a grade. While lesson

context may have an impact on levels of reflectivity, simultaneously examining students’

motives for writing specific responses may help determine if the students are actually at

the demonstrated level of reflectivity.

Finally, we recommend increasing both the number of participants as well as the

time frame of study. For example, Van Manen’s model can be used to monitor student’s

reflectivity as they progress through their teaching practicum and into their induction

year. As Ellsworth (2002) noted, reflection is a learned process and specific strategies
 62

should be taught to both preservice and in-service teachers. Examining the participant as

both a preservice and inservice teacher may provide evidence of students learning how to

be reflective and whether or not they continue to use this knowledge in their induction

years. For today’s teacher, reflection should become an ingrained activity used not only

to become more thoughtful decision makers but also to become more effective teachers.
 63

CHAPTER III

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Methods that help to increase teacher and preservice teacher reflectivity are

considered highly beneficial. This study was designed to utilize weekly web assignments

and supervisory practices such as debriefing interviews to help assess reflectivity among

preservice physical education teachers. The findings of this study may be valuable in

several ways.

First, the use of debriefing interviews may serve to help the preservice teacher

focus on various aspects of teaching they might otherwise ignore such as why or why not

the lesson was successful and how they might improve in future lessons. Although the

student teachers demonstrated low levels of reflectivity during the interviews according

to Van Manen’s model, they were provided a focus to determine whether or not the

lesson was successful. By allowing the students to revisit the interview questions later in

the day as suggested by Wedman and Martin (1986) and Hoban (2000), the students may

be able to focus more clearly on the lesson and provide responses that demonstrate higher

levels of reflectivity.

Second, this study found that most of the participants were more comfortable with

the written assignments than the interview setting. This may be due to the nature of the

assignments, such as a focus on discipline and what they felt they learned while student

teaching. Having more time to reflect and to thoughtfully phrase responses may also

have contributed to the higher levels of reflectivity found in the written assignments. A
 64

goal of teacher preparation programs might be to address how to structure learning

experiences that maximize opportunities for thoughtful reflection.

Additionally, all but one of the participants demonstrated Van Manen’s third level

of reflection through the written assignments at some point during student teaching.

While this finding may be supported by Fuller’s (1969) theory that students become less

focused on task and more focused on teaching; or by Ross’s (1989) findings that some of

the preservice teachers were more predisposed to reflectivity; or by Gore’s (1990)

findings that the students anticipated the responses we were looking for and wrote

accordingly, we suggest that this study demonstrates that preservice teachers can increase

reflectivity when placed in programs and environments that are designed to foster

reflectivity.

Finally, it is recommended that teacher preparation programs utilize Van Manen’s

model of reflectivity in order to provide students with opportunities to reflect in a manner

that allows them to reflect until the process becomes more natural and less forced. It is

also suggested that students are provided with a number of mediums to express their

reflectivity such as lab experiences, technology, and written as well as oral assignments.

As Pultorak (1993) and Loughran (2002) stated, students can increase their reflectivity if

they are in programs designed to foster it.

One major limitation of the study that should be recognized is the number of

participants. Only a small number of students were enrolled to student teach the semester

the study was conducted. Since the primary investigator was also a University supervisor

who oversaw many of the student teachers who could not be used. This was to eliminate
 65

any conflict of interest or feelings of coercion on the student’s part. Consequently, the

number of available students to participate in the study was limited.

In conclusion, it is suggested that further research expand the number of

participants in the sample pool and increase the time frame of a study. As technology

continues to advance, examining other methods of intervention such as web cameras and

home video conferencing may also be beneficial. It is also suggested that practices used

to introduce and increase reflectivity begin at the onset of the education program and

continually reinforced not only while student teaching but as novice teachers as well. As

educators, our goal should be to continually grow and demonstrate thoughtful reflectivity.

We cannot expect our students to become autonomous practitioners if we are not as well.
 66

REFERENCES

Arredondo, D.E., & Rucinski, T.T. (1998). Using structured interactions in conferences

and journals to promote cognitive development among mentors and mentees.

Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 13, 300-327.

Birmingham, C. (2004). Phronesis: A model for pedagogical reflection. Journal of

Teacher Education, 55, 313-324.

Bullough, R. V. (1989). Teacher education and teacher reflectivity. Journal of Teacher

Education, 40, 15-21.

Byra, M. (1996). Postlesson conferencing strategies and preservice teachers’ reflective

practices. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 48-65.

Calderhead, J. (1989). Reflective teaching and teacher. Teacher and Teacher Education,

3, 43-51.

Davis, E.A. (2006). Characterizing productive reflection among preservice elementary

teachers: Seeing what matters. Teaching and Teacher Education: An

International Journal of Research and Studies, 22, 281-301.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to

the educative process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Ellsworth, J.Z. (2002). Using student portfolios to increase reflective practice among

elementary teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 342-355.

Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L., & Allen, S.D. (1993). Doing naturalistic

inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J.H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to
 67

negotiated text. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative

Research 2nd edition. (pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Francis, A., Tyson, L., & Wilder, M.S. (1999). An analysis of the efficacy of a reflective

thinking instructional module on the reflective thinking demonstrated in the field

experience logs of early elementary preservice teachers. Action in Teacher

Education, 21, 38-44.

Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American

Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226.

Goodman, J. (1991). Using a methods course to promote reflection and inquiry among

preservice teachers. In B. Tabachnick and K. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and

practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education (pp. 56-75). New York: Falmer

Press.

Gore, J. (1990). Pedagogy as text in physical education teacher education. In D. Kirk &

R. Tinning (Eds.), Physical education curriculum and culture: Critical issues in

the contemporary crisis (pp. 101-138). Basingstroke, Hampshire: The Palmer

Press

Griffin, B. J. (1997). Helping student teachers become reflective practitioners. The

Teacher Educator, 33, 35-43.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and

implementation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11, 33-49.

Hoban, G. (2000, April). Integrating a reflective framework within web-based templates

for student and teacher self-study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, USA.

 68

Hoover, L. A. (1994). Reflective writing as a window on preservice teachers’ thought

processes. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 83-93.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kirk, D., & Tinning, R. (1992, April). Physical education pedagogical work as praxis.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Kraus, S., & Butler, K. (2000, February). Reflection is not description: Cultivating

reflection with pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of

the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, IL, USA.

Lee, H-J. (2005). Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflective thinking.

Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and

Studies, 21, 699-715.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publishing, Inc.

Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning

about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 33-43.

McCollum, S. (2002). The reflective framework for teaching in physical education: A

pedagogical tool. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 73, 39-

42.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Placek, J. H., & Smyth, D. M. (1995). Teaching preservice physical education teachers
 69

to reflect. Physical Educator, 52, 106-112.

Pultorak, E.G. (1993). Facilitating reflective thought in novice teachers. Journal of

Teacher Education, 44, 288-95.

Reiman, A.J. (1999). Guided reflective practice. N.C. State University: Raleigh.

Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001) Teachers change. In V. Richardson (Ed.),

Handbook of research on teaching (pp.905-947). Washington, DC: American

Educational Research Association.

Risko, V. J., Vukelich, C., & Roskos, K. (2002). Preparing teachers for reflective

practice: Intentions, contradictions, and possibilities. Language Arts, 80, 134-

144.

Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective

thinking. Teachers College Record, 104, 842-866.

Ross, D.D. (1989). First steps in developing a reflective approach. Journal of Teacher

Education, 40, 22-30.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in

action. New York: Basic Books.

Schweiker-Marra, K., Holmes, J.H., & Pula, J.J. (2003). Training promotes reflective

thinking in pre-service teachers. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 70, 55-61.

Sebren, A. (1994). Reflective thinking-integrating theory and practice in teacher

preparation. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 65, 23-24,

57-59.

Serafini, F. (2002). Reflective practice and learning. Primary Voices K-6, 10, 2-7.

Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education.

 70

Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 2-9.

Stahlhut, R. G. & Hawkes, R.R. (1997, February). An examination of reflective thinking

through a study of written journals, telecommunications, and personal

conferences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for

Teacher Educators, Washington, DC, USA .

Tauer, S.M., & Tate, P.M. (1998). Growth of reflection in teaching: Reconciling the

models. Teaching Education¸ 9, 143-53.

Tsangaridou, N. (2005). Classroom teachers’ reflections on teaching physical education.

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24, 24-50.

Tsangaridou, N., & O’Sullivan, M. (1994). Using pedagogical reflective strategies to

enhance reflection among preservice physical education teachers. Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education, 14, 13-33.

Tsangaridou, N., & Siedentop, D. (1995). Reflective teaching: A literature review.

Quest, 47, 212-237.

Valverde, L. (1982). The self-evolving supervisor. In T. Serfiovanni (ED.), Supervision

of teacher (pp. 81-89). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical.

Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228.

Wedman, J. M., & Martin, M. W. (1986). Exploring the development of reflective

thinking through journal writing. Reading Improvement, 23, 68-71.

Wittenburg, D., & McBride, R. (2001). Validity and reliability of the Dispositions of
 71

reflective thinking questionnaire [Abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport, 72, A-83.

Wojcik, P.H. (1993). A self-study in reflective teaching. (Report No. SP 036 010).

Fordham University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383 670)

Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard

Educational Review, 57, 23-48.

Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1991). Reflections on reflective thinking. In B. R.,

Tabachnick & K. Zeichner (Eds.) Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher

education (pp. 1-21). London: Falmer Press

 72

APPENDIX A

Pultorak’s (1993) questions

1. What were essential strengths of the lesson?

2. What, if anything, would you change about the lesson?
3. Do you think the lesson was successful? Why?
4. What conditions were important to the outcome?
5. What, if any, unanticipated learning outcomes resulted from the lesson?
6. Can you think of another way you might have taught this lesson?
7. Can you think of other alternative pedagogical approaches to teaching this lesson
that might improve the learning process?
8. Do you think the content covered was important to students? Why?
9. What moral or ethical concerns occurred as a result of the lesson?
 73

APPENDIX B

Weekly Written Assignments

http://stpe.tamu.edu

Week 1 - Describe the teaching and learning environment at the school you have been
assigned. What type of environment does your cooperating teacher(s) promote? Provide
some of the positive aspects that you have observed your cooperating teacher(s)
displaying within the school environment (this is not strictly limited to what you may
have observed in his/her classroom).

Week 2 - What proactive steps have you observed your cooperating teacher(s) take or
instill in the gym and/or classroom for providing a good class setting? What management
skills have you observed your cooperating teacher(s) utilize to control the environment?
Provide at least one scenario of how the teacher(s) effectively used management
strategies to enhance the learning environment

Week 3 - Describe one discipline situation that occurred during a lesson you were
teaching or when you were in charge (lunch duty, bus duty, etc.). What was your initial
reaction? How did you resolve the situation? Was there some measure of classroom
management that you could have used that might have avoided the situation? Place
yourself in the shoes of the student for a moment. What may have caused the student to
react the way he/she did?

Week 4 - Describe your thought-processing strategies you went through in developing the
upcoming week’s lesson plans in your teaching field(s). When did you plan the lessons?
Where were you when you wrote out the lesson plans? How much time was spent
preparing the lessons? Why did you choose the particular activities that you put into the
weekly lesson plans?

Week 5 - Reflect back on the unit and lessons that you have been teaching. Ask yourself
if the material you are presenting is relevant to the students. Do they understand the
importance of “why” they need to know the material? Can they take the content material
and use it in either other content areas or in their daily lives? Explain how you are
accomplishing this or how you intend to accomplish this in the near future.

Week 6 - You should have had ample opportunities to utilize some of the skills of
teaching. Refer back to several lessons from this past week. Which skills were used on a
consistent basis in the lessons? Think back on the feedback that you provided the
students. Was the feedback direct or indirect (questioning strategies)? Were the students
challenged to think at levels greater than basic rote memory? What are some strategies
you can use to accomplish the task of moving the students in your classes to think at
higher levels?
 74

Week 7 - Provide a brief description of the socioeconomic structure of the community in

which you are teaching. How does this impact the social and learning environment in the
school? Give examples of positive and negative aspects that you have noticed in the
school that may stem from the community. Critique how the school takes advantage of
the positive aspects of the community and how they overcome the negative.

Week 8 - What was your initial reason for going into education? Explain why you chose
to be a teacher. What is your current feeling about teaching now that you have eight
weeks of teaching experience under your belt? Discuss in detail what you think should
be the purpose of education. What should education be providing for your students?
How does your primary teaching field fit into this philosophy? What is your vision for
education in the next 10 years and where do you see yourself that vision?

Week 9 - Over the past semester you have probably noticed a big change within yourself
as a teacher. Discuss the areas in your teaching where you have made the most progress
or have seen the biggest change. Which areas do you think still need more
improvement? What was the most unexpected challenge you faced during your student
teaching? What are some new ideas that you learned from your cooperating teacher(s) or
other teachers at your school?

Week 10 - How well do you think the Texas A&M Professional Development Program
(PDP) prepared you for student teaching in Health/Physical Education? Your second
teaching field? Which courses were the most beneficial that prepared you for student
teaching? Please provide suggestions for future directions in our program that will assist
future student teachers.
 75

APPENDIX C

1. Do you think the lesson was successful? Why/Why not?

For the first interview, emergent categories were lesson success, student
characteristics, and lesson emphasis. As for the first category, all felt their lessons
were successful based on the fact that their students were active the entire class
period. Student characteristics consists of three subcategories of cognitive actions,
student physical behaviors, and student attitudes focusing on student interest.
Cognitive actions were characterized by the way students reacted to cognitive stimuli
and was measure that the students answered questions throughout the lesson. Student
physical behaviors was the students’ physical actions. For example, Rita said she
would correct some aspect of running form and the student would comply. Student
attitudes focusing on student interest dealt with the present and future interest of the
students. For example, Sally wanted to provide a lesson that the student could do on
their own at home now and after completing high school. Lesson emphasis dealt with
the focus of the lesson as well as teaching techniques. Rita would ask the students
what the purpose of the lesson was during closure to make sure they learned what she
wanted them to learn.
Categories to emerge in the second interview were lesson success, teacher actions
and beliefs, and student characteristics. Lesson success was very similar to the first
interview. All felt the lesson was successful but few said why; success was based on
the fact that students answered questions at the end of the lesson. Teacher actions and
beliefs were what the teachers did to help the students learn such as Sam trying to get
his point across. Student characteristics was again similar to the first interview, were
the students on-task, asking questions, and completing the assignment.
2. What, if anything, would you change about the lesson?
Lesson structure, student behaviors, and changes to lesson emerged in the
interview. Lesson structure was how the gym was to be organized, what topic was
covered, and which teaching style was used. For example, Emily would have the
students do the research themselves. Student behaviors dealt with how the students
responded physically and cognitively to teachers demands such as Sally’s students
were not paying attention. For changes to lesson, almost all had suggestions for
change. Sam, for instance, would check all equipment beforehand to make sure all
was working correctly.
In the second interview, lesson plan changes, teacher beliefs and actions, and
student behaviors emerged. As for changes, Sally would add more drills and Lisa
would model the game and define the rules more. For teacher beliefs and actions,
Lisa felt that if she had been clearer in her instructions, her students would have
known what to do and not been off-task. For the final category of student behaviors,
Sam felt that if his students had their workout cards in advance, more time could have
been spent working out rather than asking redundant questions.
3. What were the essential strengths of the lesson?
For the first interview, emergent categories were lesson content and structure,
student involvement, and teacher behaviors. Lesson content was what was covered
that day and how the topic was addressed such as Lisa using station cards to present
the information. Student involvement involved physical and cognitive actions from
 76

the students. Rita and Sam commented on the time the students were physically
active while the others focused on more of a cognitive aspect such as giving examples
and discussing differences between fitness components. Teacher behaviors dealt with
preparation and teaching skills such as Sam getting to know his students and “where
they were coming from” so he could relate material to the students.
In the second interview, lesson strengths and student behaviors emerged. Lesson
strengths pertained to perceived positive lesson outcomes. These ranged in
complexity from Sam being glad the students got to work out to Emily giving her
students several options on how they could present the learned material. As for
student behaviors, this category dealt with how students performed, in class or not.
Sam’s lesson gave them a workout they could do on their own and Rita covered
nutrition so the students could modify habits at school and at home.
4. Can you think of another way you might have taught the lesson?
Only two categories emerged for both interviews. In the first, changes to
implement and content emerged. Changes were alternative choices the student
teachers might make when teaching this same lesson in the future. For example, Lisa
would change the format to divergent and have the students decide what activities
went with what. The content category dealt with the subject matter covered in the
lesson. It did not particularly relate to the question and was more of a miscellaneous
category.
For the second interview, lesson changes and student discipline emerged. Lesson
changes were very similar to interview one, such as Rita allowing the students to do
more of the activity themselves. Student discipline dealt primarily with off-task
behavior. Several noted that whether in the gym or not, if students were not kept
busy, they tended to get “antsy” or talk to neighbors and not do what asked.
5. Do you think the content covered was important to students? Why/Why not?
Three categories emerged in the first interview. The first was student cognition.
Emily commented that prior instructors had the students enter the gym, perform the
activity, and leave without checking for understanding. She changed the presentation
and now the students are beginning to realize why actions are important and how it
will benefit them in the future. Second to emerge was lesson content. Here is
material covered in the lesson. For example, Sam said that instead of focusing on
traditional activities such as football and basketball, he presented activities such as
hurdles and shuttle run to keep students interested. The last category was lesson
relevance, the importance of the lesson. Sally found that by introducing different
activities, some students are actually motivated to take what they have learned outside
the class room.
In the second interview, lesson importance, teacher beliefs and actions, and
student characteristics emerged. Lesson importance was basically the same as lesson
relevance. All felt their lesson was important but few said why. Rita felt nutrition
was important because “we all eat.” Teacher beliefs and actions were their beliefs
about the effectiveness of the lesson such as Lisa equating better skills with more
motivation to play. Student characteristics were student behavior and actions. Sally’s
students were able to see how each component of the slap shot worked together for an
effective shot and what would happen if they did not use each correctly.
 77

VITA

Kristy Kay Ballard

Current Address Permanent Address
905 Balcones #102; College Station, 1630 Cactus Ridge; Fredericksburg,
TX 77845 TX 78624
(979) 764-7656 (830) 997-3897

EDUCATION
Doctor of Philosophy, Kinesiology, August 2006
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX

Master of Education, Physical Education, May 1999

Tarleton State University, Stephenville, TX

Bachelor of Science, Exercise and Sport Studies, December 1997

Tarleton State University, Stephenville, TX

TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Graduate Assistant, Department of Health & Kinesiology, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX
June 1999 – August 2006

Adjunct Professor, Department of Health & Kinesiology, Sam Houston State

University, Huntsville, TX
August 2004 – present

PUBLICATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
Staudt, K., & McBride, R. (2001, December). Determining levels of reflectivity
among preservice physical educators. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Texas Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance,
Corpus Christi, TX.

Staudt, K., & McBride, R. (2002, February). Using Van Manen’s to assess levels
of reflectivity among preservice physical education teachers. Paper presented at
the annual Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, TX.

Staudt, K., & McBride, R. (2002, April). Assessing levels of reflectivity among
preservice physical education teachers. Poster presented at the annual meeting of
the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, San
Diego, CA.

Ballard, K., & McBride, R. (2004, March). Examining reflectivity in preservice

physical educators. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American
Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, New Orleans, LA.