Instructional practice of hong kong primary physical education student teachers

Introduction

Understand more about the instructional practice of student teachers will help us to improve their teaching effectiveness. Currently there have been limited studies investigating instructional practice of primary physical education student teachers in Hong Kong. The purpose of the study was to examine the instructional practice of Hong Kong physical education student teachers.

Methods

Twenty local pre-service student teachers were videotaped teaching two ball games lessons in the allocated schools during their final practicum. Each videotaped lesson was coded using the Physical Education Teacher Assessment Instrument (PETAI)(Phillips, Carlisle, Steffen, & Stroot, 1986). Quantitative data generated by the PETAI were comprehensively described. Three pre-service student teachers were randomly selected to participate in the second phase of the study. They were observed teaching two ball games lessons and were invited to take part in two pre-lesson interviews and two post-lesson stimulated recall sessions. Qualitative data were collected through lesson observations and interviews. Constant comparison and analytic induction were used to organize and categorize the data.

Results

Quantitative data indicated that the pre-service students spent 73.18% of their time in instructional behaviours and26.82% of their time in managerial behaviours. Monitoring behaviours received the highest percentages with 38.29% whilst motivational feedback had the lowest percentage with 0.23% within the instructional behaviours categories. The student teachers spent most time on activities organization with 13.04%, whilst least time on beginning and ending class with 0.25% within the managerial behaviours categories. Qualitative data showed that there were common features in teaching behaviours and teaching strategies during teaching.
Discussion / Conclusions
Findings of the present study are invaluable to physical education teacher educators and hold implications for the preparation of physical education teachers.

References

[1]. Phillips, D. A., Carlisle, C., Steffen, J., & Stroot, S. (1986). The computerized version of the physical education assessment instrument. Unpublished manuscript. University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Co.