KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2

Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about the efficacy of different types of feedback on micro-teaching activities

Nur Yiğitoğlu Aptoula(BOGAZICI UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-9039-6672
Sayfa
79–92
Yayın Tarihi
2021-04-27
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Findings also suggested that while they expected feedback about processing of the task from their peers, they expected feedback about self regulation from their teacher trainer.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This research investigates pre-service teachers’ perceptions regarding the efficacy of the feedback on their micro-teaching activities.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:During a 16-week semester, nine pre-service teachers were observed and their micro-teaching activities were video-recorded.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Findings also suggested that while they expected feedback about processing of the task from their peers, they expected feedback about self regulation from their teacher trainer.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:micro-teaching activities · feedback · feedback

Özet

This research investigates pre-service teachers’ perceptions regarding the efficacy of the feedback on their micro-teaching activities. During a 16-week semester, nine pre-service teachers were observed and their micro-teaching activities were video-recorded. After their micro-teaching activities, they were asked to reflect on their own perceptions about the feedback they received on their micro-teachings. In addition, after each micro-teaching, they were asked to participate in an interview and a focus group interview regarding their perceptions about the different types of feedback. Findings suggest that, although pre-service teachers considered teacher trainer feedback as the most influential one in their development as teachers in the long run, they stated that they changed their teaching immediately when they themselves realized a mistake and reflect on those in self-evaluations and reflections. Findings also suggested that while they expected feedback about processing of the task from their peers, they expected feedback about self regulation from their teacher trainer.

Abstract

This research investigates pre-service teachers’ perceptions regarding the efficacy of the feedback on their micro-teaching activities. During a 16-week semester, nine pre-service teachers were observed and their micro-teaching activities were video-recorded. After their micro-teaching activities, they were asked to reflect on their own perceptions about the feedback they received on their micro-teachings. In addition, after each micro-teaching, they were asked to participate in an interview and a focus group interview regarding their perceptions about the different types of feedback. Findings suggest that, although pre-service teachers considered teacher trainer feedback as the most influential one in their development as teachers in the long run, they stated that they changed their teaching immediately when they themselves realized a mistake and reflect on those in self-evaluations and reflections. Findings also suggested that while they expected feedback about processing of the task from their peers, they expected feedback about self regulation from their teacher trainer.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Aptoula, N. Y. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about the efficacy of different types of feedback on micro-teaching activities. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.752214

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (30)

  1. Buitink, J. (2009). What and how do student teachers learn during school-based teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 118-127. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.07.009
  2. Butler, B. M., & Cuenca, A. (2012). Conceptualizing the roles of mentors during student teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 34, 296-308. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.717012
  3. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.
  4. Copland, F. (2009). Causes of tension in post-observation feedback in pre-service teacher training: an alternative view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 466-472. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.001
  5. Çelik, M. (2008). Pre-service EFL teachers’ reported concerns and stress for practicum in Turkey. Education and Science, 33(150), 97-109.
  6. D’Rozario, V., & Wong, A. F. (1996, November). A study of practicum-related stresses in a sample of first year student teachers in Singapore. In annual conference of the Singapore Educational Research Association and Australian Association for Research in Education, Singapore (pp. 25-29).
  7. Eröz-Tuğa, B. (2012). Reflective feedback sessions using video recordings. ELT Journal, 67(2), 175-183. https://www.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs081
  8. Faez, F., & Valeo, A. (2012). TESOL teacher education: Novice teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness and efficacy in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 46(3), 450-471. https://www.doi.org/10.1002/tesq.37
  9. Freeman, D. (1982). Observing teachers: Three approaches to in-service training and development. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 21-28. https://www.doi.org/10.2307/3586560
  10. Gao, X. S., & Benson, P. (2012). “Unruly pupils” in pre-service English language teachers’ teaching practicum experiences. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 38(2), 127-140. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2012.656440
  11. Gebhard, J. G. (2009). The practicum. In A. Burns and J. C. Richards (Eds), The Cambridge Guide to second language teacher education (pp. 250-258). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyder.
  13. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://www.doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  14. Johnson, K. E. (1996). The vision versus the reality: The tensions of the TESOL Practicum. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 30-49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Kleinknecht, M., & Gröschner, A. (2016). Fostering preservice teachers’ noticing with structured video feedback: Results of an online- and video-based intervention study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.020
  16. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211-232.
  17. Lee, I. (2007). Feedback in Hong Kong secondary writing classrooms: Assessment for learning and assessment of learning. Assessing Writing, 12(3), 180-198. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2008.02.003
  18. Legutke, M. K., & Ditfurt, M. S. (2009). School-based experience. In A. Burns and J. C. Richards (Eds), The Cambridge Guide to second language teacher education (pp. 209-217). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Ng, W., Nicholas, H., & Williams, A. (2010). School experience influences on pre-service teachers’ evolving beliefs about effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 278-289. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.010
  20. Paker, T. (2011). Student teacher anxiety related to the teaching practicum. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 42, 207-224.
  21. Preece, P. F. W. (1979). Student teacher anxiety and class-control problems on teaching practice: A cross-lagged panel analysis. British Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 13-19.
  22. Prilop, C. N., Weber, K. E., & Kleinknecht, M (2020). Effects of digital video-based feedback environments on pre-service teachers’ feedback competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 120-131.
  23. Roulston, R. (2014). Analysing interviews. In U. Flick (Ed.) The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 297-313). London: Sage.
  24. Rozelle, J. J., & Wilson, S. M. (2012). Opening the black box of field experiences: How cooperating teachers’ beliefs and practices shape student teachers’ beliefs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1196-1205. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.07.008
  25. Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.) The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170-184). London: SAGE.
  26. Seymen, S. (2012). Beliefs and expectations of student teachers’ about their self and role as teacher during teaching practice course. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1042-1046. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.245
  27. Sutton, R. M., Hornsey, M. J., & Douglas, K. M. (2012). Feedback: The communication of praise, criticism and advice. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
  28. Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In U. Flick (Ed.) The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 153-170). London: Sage.
  29. Wahba, E. (1999). Microteaching. English Teaching Forum, 37(4), 22-23. Retrieved June 2015, from http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/usia/E-USIA/forum/vols/vol37/no4/p23
  30. Yuan, R., & Lee, I. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ changing beliefs in the teaching practicum: Three cases in an EFL context. System, 44, 1-12.