Building pre-service teaching efficacy: a comparison of instructional models

Abstract

Background: Cooperative Learning (CL) is an inclusive name for various models of teaching/learning methods, all of which emphasize the fundamental of meaningful collaboration among learners during their learning activities. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine whether the CL teaching model contributed to the teaching efficacy and planning skills of student teachers. Participants and settings: Forty-nine physical education student teachers were assigned to one of two groups: the Cooperative Learning Group (CLG) or the Direct Instruction Group (DIG). Research design: Each group was divided into small teaching groups of 3–5 students. Intervention in both groups included participation in a 15-week methods class. At the end of each lesson, the instructors checked off a list of criteria that indicated the model they used during the session. In addition, the student teachers also practiced their field experience teaching at the same school once a week throughout the year. During the second semester, 12 days of field experience were added. During these 12 additional days the pre-service teachers taught in the same school every day, supervised by the school's cooperating teachers and by their supervisors. Intervention relating to the CL model included: (1) Theoretical content knowledge about the essence of the model and its philosophical aspects, as well as basic principles of team-building procedures; (2) Practical experience of the pre-service teachers' (three lessons), focusing on ‘building a community of learners’ in the PE classes, ‘communication and trust’ between the students, and ‘problem-solving’ issues; and (3) Written assignments related to CL on: planning ‘ice-breaking’ activities for building a community of learners, setting up activities related to communication and trust in a group, and developing activities that emphasize problem-solving. In addition, all the participants were asked to plan one CL teaching unit consisting of four lessons of 45 minutes each. Criteria for evaluation of the unit and the lesson plan were explained by the instructors. Data collection: All participants filled out physical education teaching efficacy questionnaires before and after the intervention, at the end of the intervention, their unit plans were analyzed using rubrics determining planning abilities. Findings: Results demonstrated that at baseline, there were no differences between the two groups in the self-efficacy mean score (DIG pre = 7.6; CLG pre = 7.6), but a significant difference appeared between the groups over time (F(1, 47) = 16.467, p < 0.0001), where the DIG perceived their teaching efficacy to be higher than did the CLG, but the CLG included more cooperation principals in their planning compared to their counterparts. Conclusion: It is recommended that physical education teacher education programs focus on no more than two or three instructional models during the three-year program, and that they should be thoroughly practiced until they are mastered.