How do different supervisory conferencing methods affect preservice teachers' reflective practices?
<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 19 December 2014, At: 10:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK</p><p>Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & DancePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrd20</p><p>How do different supervisory conferencing methodsaffect preservice teachers' reflective practices?Published online: 22 Feb 2013.</p><p>To cite this article: (1997) How do different supervisory conferencing methods affect preservice teachers' reflectivepractices?, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68:9, 5-5, DOI: 10.1080/07303084.1997.10605014</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1997.10605014</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.</p><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrd20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07303084.1997.10605014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1997.10605014http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p></li><li><p>RESEARCH WORKS</p><p>Editor: Stephen Silverman</p><p>How do different supervisory conferencing methodsaffect preservice teachers' reflective practices?</p><p>T eachers' reflective practiceshave become a focal point of re-cent research in teacher education. Ac-tion research, journal writing, reflec-tive teaching, and reflective writing as-signments are some of the strategiesemployed to increase teacher's insightinto teaching and improving reasoningand problem solving abilities. The au-thor (Byra, 1996)attempts to broadenthe somewhat limited informationavailable concerning reflective prac-tices included in physical educationteacher preparation programs. Thepurposes of the study were to under-stand the effects that two types ofconferen-eing strategies had on 14preservice teachers' (PTs) reflectivepractices and the effects that two dif-ferent post lesson writing tasks had onthe content of PTs reflection.</p><p>The PTs taught three 3D-minute les-sons to small groups (9-13) of K-6learners who attended a private schooland received physical education les-sons three days a week. Each lessonwas videotaped and followed by an in-dividual conference in either a directsupervision method (OS)or a collabo-rative supervision method (CS).Theseven PTs who participated in the OSconference were given feedback bythe supervisor concerning strengths ofthe lesson, followed by weaknesses ofthe lesson and possible solutions. Theconference ended with the supervisorgiving feedback on additionalstrengths of the lesson. This OScon-ference method was described by theauthor as supervisor tell-PT listen.Contrasting with the OS conference,the seven PTs participating in a CSconference were invited into the postlesson dialogue when the supervisorstated, "Tell me about the lesson." Theconference then progressed by the su-</p><p>Nov/Dec 1997 JOPERD Vol. 68 No.9</p><p>pervisor asking follow up questions toencourage the PTs to identifystrengths and weaknesses of the les-son. This CS conference method wasdescribed by the author as supervisorquestion-PT tell. Following each con-ference all 14 PTs participated in 2writing assignments. The first assign-ment involved writing in depth about asignificant event which occurred dur-ing the lesson. The second assignmentrequired writing a video commentaryafter viewing the lesson on videotape.This video analysis required the PT tosummarize and criticize the lesson.</p><p>Both writing assignments were ana-lyzed according to focus-of-reflectionand level-of- reflection categories. Fo-cus-of-reflection is related to the tech-nical, situational, or sensitizing aspectsof teaching. Technical aspects of re-flection include teaching techniques,while situational features involve con-textual components. Sensitizing is re-lated to ethical, social, and political as-pects of teaching. The three categoriesdeveloped for level-of-reflection aredescription, justification, and critique.Description merely describes an act ofteaching, while justification involvesrationalizing that act of teaching, andcritique goes on to explain and assessthe act of teaching.</p><p>Focus-of-reflection results showedthat although both OS and CS groupsresponded more to technical aspectsof the lesson over situational and sen-sitizing issues, a significantly higherproportion of the OS group's re-sponses were related to technical as-pects of teaching than were the CSgroup's responses. This difference be-tween groups was particularly evidentin the significant event task writing.Approximately one third of the CSgroup responses were evenly distrib-</p><p>uted across categories, while morethan 60 percent of the OS group re-sponses were focused in the technicalcategory. In terms of level-of-reflec-tion, both groups were quite similarwith approximately 80 percent of allPTs'comments including a combina-tion of description-justification- cri-tique. A word count was taken on allwritten assignments and revealed asignificant difference between groupswith the CS group on average writinga greater number of words than theOS group. The author speculated thatmore writing could mean morethought.</p><p>Both supervisory conference meth-ods appeared to facilitate reflectivewriting for the PTs. The two writingtasks, however, resulted in differenttypes of reflection. The author sug-gested that to assist PTs in promotingreflection they need to be providedwith a variety of situations and set-tings for reflection. The author alsosuggested that in future research thelong-term effects that direct and col-laborative supervision techniqueshave on PTs' reflective thinking needsto be examined. In addition, the effectof combining the direct and the col-laborative supervision techniquesneeds to be examined within the con-text of preservice teacher education.</p><p>-Byra, M. (1996). Post lessonconferencing strategies andpreservice teachers' reflective prac-tices. Journal of Teaching in PhysicalEducation, 16,48-65. (Submitted byJayne M. Jenkins, a graduate studentin the Department of Exercise andSport Science at the University ofNorth Carolina-Greensboro, Greens-boro, NC 27412-5001)</p><p>5</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f C</p><p>ambr</p><p>idge</p><p>] at</p><p> 10:</p><p>51 1</p><p>9 D</p><p>ecem</p><p>ber </p><p>2014</p><p>Untitled</p></li></ul>