comparison of teacher and student perspectives of tasks ... of teaching in physical education,...

JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, 1997.16.388-400 O 1997 HUMAN KINETICS PUBLISHERS, INC.

A Comparison of Teacher and Student Perspectives of Tasks and Feedback

Bonnie L. Tjeerdsma Georgia State University

The purpose of this study was to directly compare teacher and student expectations for task difficulty and performance, perceptions of actual task difficulty, perceptions of student performance and effort, and perceptions of teacher feedback. Stimulated recall interviews following a 14-lesson volleyball unit were conducted with 8 sixth-grade students and their physical education teacher. The results revealed little congruency between student and teacher perspectives of task difficulty or perceptions of student performance and effort. The students and the teacher agreed the most on expected performance level and the least on perceptions of effort. Such differences in perspectives may be partially explained by the sources of information used by the teacher and students to form their expectations and perceptions. There was somewhat higher agreement between the teacher and students on the purpose of and affective reactions to skill-related feedback.

The cognitive mediational model of instruction (Lee & Solmon, 1992) suggested that teacher cognitions and perspectives of instructional events were not enough to explain the teaching-learning process. Student cognitions and perspectives must also be examined in order to fully understand the instructional process. The assumption underlying the cognitive mediational model is that teacher and student views of instructional events may not be the same, which may inhibit communication between teachers and students. A vital feature of clear communication is mutual understanding between the participants (Hanke, 1987), and mutual understanding is best achieved if the participants consider the other person's perspective of the situation.

Recognizing the importance of student thoughts, researchers in physical education have begun exploring student cognitions and perspectives during physical education lessons (e.g., Hanke, 1987; Lee, Landin, & Carter, 1992; Martinek, 1988). However, only one study in physical education has directly compared student perspectives of lesson events with teacher perspectives of those events. Hanke (1987) interviewed 28 sixth- to eighth-grade students and their teachers about critical incidents that occurred during their physical education classes. Although the teachers and students generally agreed on their descriptions of the incidents, they primarily disagreed on the importance of the incidents, their emotional involve-

Bonnie L. Tjeerdsma is with the Department of Kinesiology and Health at Georgia State University, University Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303.

388

PERSPECTIVES OF TASKS AND FEEDBACK 389

ment, the causes of the incidents, and the aims of the teacher. Moreover, neither students nor teachers considered their counterpart's perspective of the event. Criti- cal events were chosen because it was believed such events would be remembered better than the ordinary, routine aspects of physical education classes.

Such critical events probably do not influence the instructional process as directly as the more regular, task-related aspects of instruction. Explanations and practice of motor skill tasks and skill-related feedback given by the teacher are among the regular events in physical education lessons that are likely to affect student 1earning.Yet we know little about the degree of congruency between teacher and student perspectives of these events. We also do not know about the information teachers and students in physical education use to form their perspectives or whether teachers and students base their perspectives on the same factors. Knowl- edge of these sources of information would reveal what is important to teachers and students and what each attends to; such knowledge may be helpful in eventu- ally clarifying any misunderstandings between students and teachers.

When a task is presented to students in physical education, the students and the teacher may form expectations of the difficulty of the task for the students and the level of performance the students will achieve on the task. Student expectations can influence student effort and eventual performance on the task (Good, 1987), whereas teacher expectations for student performance in physical education can influence teacher behaviors toward students (Martinek, 1991). During and after practice of the task, students form opinions about the task's actual difficulty level and the level of success experienced on the task. Perceptions of task difficulty and performance could affect student perceptions of competence, affect, motivation, and even performance on future tasks (Harter, 1981). The teacher also probably developed perceptions of the actual task difficulty and performance level experienced by the students. These perceptions can influence teacher decisions about which task to use next, feedback to give to the students, and teacher expectations for student future success on similar tasks. If student and teacher expectations and perceptions of task difficulty and performance are not similar, misunderstandings about student and teacher behaviors could develop and hinder the learning process. Knowing if and how student and teacher perspectives of these events differ is the first step in improving communication between teachers and students.

Along with perceptions of actual task difficulty and performance, the teacher and students may also form perceptions of the amount of effort given by the students on the task. Student beliefs about their effort on a task interact with their perceptions of task difficulty and performance to influence their perceptions of competence, motivation and performance on future tasks (Harter, 1981). The amount of effort students give is often used in grading systems in physical education (Matanin & Tannehill, 1994). However, teacher perception of student effort may be very different than student perceptions. Information about the degree of congruency between student and teacher perspectives of effort could be helpful in assessing the use of teacher perception of student effort in grading.

Besides understanding how student and teacher perspectives of various instructional events may differ, it would also be helpful to understand how students and teachers form these perspectives. In other words, what information is used by students and teachers in deciding their expectations and perceptions? Martinek (1991) suggested that the information physical education teachers may use to form

390 TJEERDSMA

their expectations for student performance includes student characteristics (e.g., gender, race, ability), past observations or performances of students, student records, and talks with other teachers. Good (1987) claimed that information from peers, teachers, parentslguardians, and recollections of past performances are likely to influence student expectations for performance. The information students or teachers use in deciding their perceptions of actual performance may be similar to the attributions or causes assigned to performance outcomes (Weiner, 1986). Students in physical education have attributed their performance to their ability, effort or motivation, the characteristics of the task, and environmental aspects (e.g., teacher, peers, other situational constraints; Martinek & Griffith, 1994).

One instructional event that has long been promoted as important to learning in physical education is teacher feedback. However, research has not yet clearly substantiated these claims (Lee, Keh, & Magill, 1993; Magill, 1994; Silverman, 1994). Lee et al. (1993) have suggested that student perceptions of feedback may mediate the influence of feedback on performance. Understanding any differences between student and teacher perspectives of the purpose of particular feedback statements may provide insight into how feedback influences learning. Since affective reactions (e.g., pleasure, anxiety) may also influence student motivation and learning (Harter, 1981), comparisons of student reports of their feelings about particular feedback and the teacher's view of how students might react would also be helpful.

In this study, student and teacher perspectives of two everyday aspects of instruction were compared: the motor skill tasks students are about to perform and have performed, and skill-related feedback given by the teacher. Four specific pur- poses guided this research:

1. To directly compare student and teacher expectations for the level of task difficulty and performance students will experience on tasks

2. To directly compare student and teacher perceptions of the actual level of task difficulty and performance experienced and the effort given by students on tasks

3. To discover and compare the information used by students and teachers in forming their expectations and perceptions of task difficulty, performance, and effort

4. To directly compare students' and teachers' perceptions of the purpose and affective result of skill-related feedback given to students

Due to the limited amount of research previously conducted on this topic, this study should be viewed as exploratory.

Method

Participants and Setting

Eight 6th-grade students (4 females, 4 males) and their physical education teacher participated in this study. They were participating in a larger, comprehen- sive investigation of teacher, student, and contextual influences in physical education. As part of the larger study, the students were one of four types: high ability, high motivation; low ability, high motivation; high ability, low motivation; and


low ability, low motivation. One male and one female for each subgroup were selected for the current study. Because the results of this study revealed few differences in perspectives between the subgroups, the students are considered one group for this paper.

The students were members of two physical education classes (Class A n = 22; Class B n = 27). Three students (2 females, 1 male) were members of Class A, and the remaining 5 (2 females, 3 males) were from Class B. The classes met daily in a gymnasium for 45 minutes per class period. The teacher, a 30-year-old male with 6 years of teaching experience, was considered an excellent teacher by the physical education teacher education faculty at a local university.

The students and teacher were videotaped daily while participating in a 14- lesson volleyball unit. The teacher was not given any instructions about what to include in the unit; however, the tasks and skills given to the separate classes were similar (Tjeerdsma, 1995). The overhead pass and the forearm pass were the only skills worked on during the unit. The task progression included partner work on each skill separately, group work on each skill separately, and group work combin- ing the skills. Five extending, three refining, and two application tasks were presented to each class (Tjeerdsma, 1995). The instructional climate was quite positive, businesslike, and task oriented. Most tasks were cooperative, with competitive tasks used only in the last two lessons and then only for the higher skilled students. The teacher held a narrow skill development focus and provided high levels of positive feedback to the students.

Stimulated-Recall Interviews

Data were collected using stimulated-recall interviews with the students and the teacher. The stimulated-recall procedure is increasingly used as a method of determining student and teacher cognitions in physical education (e.g., Lee et al., 1992; Martinek & Griffith, 1994). A limitation of this procedure is that an individual's responses could be simply a reaction to what is seen on the videotape, rather than what was actually experienced during the lesson (Lee et al., 1992). Such a limitation is not seen as a major weakness for this study, however, since comparing student and teacher perspectives of videotape observations would also provide information about how perspectives might differ.

A single videotape was created for each student using clips from the lesson videotapes. Each videotape included four task presentations and related clips of the student performing each task (two successful and two unsuccessful). Interobserver agreement of the validity of the performances chosen as successful and unsuccessful was 100%. The tape also included four clips of the student re- ceiving skill-related feedback from the teacher. At least one of each of the following types of feedback were included: praiselencouragement, specific skill correction, and combined encouragement and skill correction.

Each interview consisted of three parts: (a) closed and open-ended questions about expectations for task difficulty and performance (asked after viewing a task presentation); (b) closed and open-ended questions about perceptions of actual task difficulty, performance, and effort (asked after observing thestudent's actual performance on the task); and (c) open-ended questions about the purpose of and affective reactions to feedback (asked after observing skill-related feedback being given to the student; see Appendix). The closed responses utilized a 4-point Likert scale. Each closed response was followed by one or two probes designed to elicit

392 TJEERDSMA

open-ended responses about the information used in choosing a particular task difficulty, performance, or effort level.

Pilot Test

The interview protocol I developed was pilot tested with 6 sixth-grade students (3 males, 3 females) and their male physical education teacher from a different school prior to data collection. Based on the results of the pilot test, several questions were eliminated or revised, and the specific responses to include on the Likert scale were finalized.

Procedures

The interviews with the students were conducted individually and privately within 2 days following completion of the volleyball unit. A colleague was trained to help me conduct the student interviews. I privately interviewed the teacher eight times, once for each student; these interviews were completed within 5 days of the end of the unit. All interviews were conducted in an empty classroom at the school, lasted about 30 minutes each, and were audiotaped for later transcription and analysis. Each interview was transcribed by a person other than the interviewers; I then read each transcription while simultaneously listening to the audiotape of the interview to ensure accuracy of the transcription.

Data Analyses

Due to the exploratory nature of this study, data analysis consisted primarily of descriptive statistics. The Likert scale responses were analyzed using one-to- one comparisons of the teacher and student responses. The number of exact agreements between the teacher and the students per question were tallied, and a percentage of agreement was calculated. In addition, the direction of disagreements was noted by determining the percentage of the teacher's Likert responses that were higherlharder than the students' responses and the percentage of student responses that were higherlharder than the teacher's.

The open-ended responses concerning the information used to form expectations and perceptions of task difficulty and performance were analyzed by my- self and a coding assistant, a person not previously involved in the research, using a two-step approach. First, prior to examination of the responses, possible categories for each question were identified from the literature (e.g., Good, 1987; Martinek, 1991; Martinek & Griffith, 1994; Weiner, 1986). Second, the responses were examined to identify categories common among the students which were not included in the initial categories and eliminate original categories for which there were no responses.

The information which formed expectations of task difficulty and performance level were classified into five categories: ability, motivatiodeffort, task characteristics, environment, and past performances. The factors used in deciding perceptions of actual task difficulty and performance level were placed into five categories: ability, motivatiodeffort, task characteristics, environment, and performance aspects (general or specific descriptions of the student's performance; e.g., "I hit it right," "He didn't bend his knees").


The remaining open-ended responses (regarding information used to form perceptions of effort, purpose of and feelings produced by feedback) were first examined separately by the coders to identify initial categories. These initial categories were then compared; common categories were retained and discrepancies discussed until agreement on the final categories was reached.

Five categories were used to classify the information base for perceptions of effort: ability, task difficulty level, performance aspects, attention/motivation (e.g., "Didn't look like he was concentrating," "I was really focused on the task"), and task-related behaviors (actions related to performing the task rather than the skill; e.g., "She goes after the ball right away," "She wasn't complaining or wasting time").

The responses concerning the purpose of feedback were placed into three categories: to improve performance (e.g., "To make me a better player," "To get him to bend his knees lowery'), to positively reinforce correct performance (e.g., "To keep us doing the right thing," "To let her know that I liked what she did"), and to motivate/encourage (e.g., "To keep her focused," "To make me want to try harder"). Five categories described the responses about the feelings produced by the feedback: positive, no change in feelings, increase in effort, decrease in frus- tration, and increase in self-confidence.

Final coding of the open-ended responses was conducted independently by the two coders. If a participant's reply included several different parts and these parts could be placed into two or three different categories, all relevant categories were used to code that reply. For example, when a student was asked why he expected a task to be easy, he replied, "Well, all you had to do was hit it to the other person over the net, and I had done good on everything else." This reply was coded as both task characteristics and past performances. Reliability of the classifica- tions between the coders ranged from 80% to 84% for all questions except perceptions of effort (72% agreement) and feelings produced by feedback (76% agreement).

For each question concerning information used and perceptions of feedback, a percentage of responses per category was calculated as a group for the students and over all students for the teacher. The student percentages were then compared to the teacher's percentages. The questions concerning the perceptions of feedback were also analyzed using one-to-one comparisons of the teacher and student responses. Percentages of exact agreements, partial agreements (at least one corn- mon category between the student and teacher in their responses to a question), and disagreements were figured.

Results

Comparison of Likert Scale Responses

There was considerable disparity between the Likert-scale responses chosen by the teacher and those chosen by the students (see Table 1). The highest agreement was on the expected level of performance on a task, while the lowest agreement was on perceived effort. In several instances, the teacher's Likert scale choices were higher or harder than the students' choices. The teacher generally expected the task to be harder for the students than the students did, and the teacher often had higher perceptions than the students of the students' performances and effort.

394 TJEERDSMA

Table 1 Percentage of Agreements and Direction of Disagreements Between Teacher and Students on Likert Scale Responses

Question % exact % teacher % student

agreements higherlharder higherharder

Expected task difficulty Expected performance Perceived task difficulty Perceived performance Perceived effort

Table 2 Information Most Frequently Used by Teacher and Students in Forming Expectations and Perceptions

Question Teacher responsesa Student responsesh

Expected task difficulty 34% task characteristics 26% rnotivatiodeffort 26% ability

Expected performance 34% past performance 23% motivatiodeffort 23% ability

Perceived task difficulty 83% performance aspects

Perceived performance 7 1 % performance aspects

Perceived effort 33% attention/motivation 26% task-related behaviors 2 1 % performance aspects

41% task characteristics 35% past performance

39% past performance 35% task characteristics

37% motivatiodeffort 26% task characteristics 26% performance aspects 55% performance aspects 24% motivation/effort 45% attentionlmotivation 27% performance aspects

"Percentages are based on the total number of the teacher's responses in a category for a question for all 8 students. bPercentages are based on the combined total number of responses by all 8 students in a category for a question.

Information Used to Form Expectations and Perceptions

With the exception of perceptions of task difficulty, the category of information used most often by the teacher and students in deciding their expectations and perceptions was the same (see Table 2). The primary basis for the students', as well as the teacher's, expectations of task difficulty was the task characteristics. Past performances were the main sources of information the teacher and students


used when deciding their expectations for student performance on a task, while perceptions of student actual performance on a task were based on descriptions of student performance on that task (performance aspects). The main source of information the students and teacher used to decide their perceptions of student effort was the degree of student attentionlmotivation.

Even though the primary source of information was often similar between the teacher and students, some important differences emerged in the remaining sources. The teacher also used his knowledge about student ability levels and typical motivation or effort at tasks as the basis for his expectations of task difficulty and performance. The students, on the other hand, often used knowledge about their own past performances to decide their expectations of task difficulty and information about the task's characteristics to form their expectations of performance. In addition to performance aspects, the students also based their perceptions of their actual performance on a task on their knowledge about their motivation levels. Interestingly, the teacher frequently used his observations of student task- related behaviors to decide his perceptions of student effort, whereas the students did not mention these behaviors.

The factors used in deciding perceived task difficulty level showed the great- est difference between the teacher and students. The teacher relied almost exclu- sively on various aspects of student performances. The students used knowledge about their motivation levels and characteristics of the task, in addition to aspects of their performances, when forming their perceptions of task difficulty.

Perspectives of Feedback

The purpose of feedback most often mentioned by the teacher (56% of teacher responses) and the students (60% of student responses) was to improve student performance. They also frequently said that feedback was meant to positively reinforce correct performance (teacher 31%; students 20%). In addition, the students believed that the purpose of feedback was to motivate and encourage them (20%). The students and the teacher often stated that feedback resulted in positive feelings for the student (teacher 59%; students 46%) and that feedback increased student effort at the task (teacher 18%; students 23%).

The direct comparisons of student and teacher perceptions of the purpose of feedback revealed relatively high levels of agreement, with 61 % exact agreements, 26% partial agreements, and only 13% disagreements. The congruency for the feelings produced by feedback was somewhat lower: 42% exact agreements, 23% partial agreements, and 35% disagreements.

Discussion

The intent of this study was to directly compare teacher and student perspectives of some common, task-related events in physical education. While the exploratory nature of this study prevents widespread generalizations from being made, some important trends do appear that have the potential to increase our understanding of teacher and student perspectives.

These students and their teacher clearly held different perspectives of some instructional events, seen especially in the low levels of agreement on their expectations prior to the task and perceptions after the task of task difficulty, perfor-

396 TJEERDSMA

mance, and effort. This supports Hanke's (1987) finding that students and teachers have different perspectives of critical incidents in physical education. The results also support the cognitive mediational model's (Lee & Solmon, 1992) assumption of student and teacher differences of perspectives. The results suggest that teachers and students in physical education may in a sense be experiencing different "reali- ties,'' which, as Hanke (1987) suggested, can hamper communication between them.

One form of communication between teachers and students is grading. Con- sidering the extent to which teacher perceptions of effort are used to grade students in physical education (Matanin & Tannehill, 1994), the extremely low level of agreement between these students and the teacher on perceptions of effort is quite disturbing. These differences in perceived effort may be partially explained by examining the information the students and teacher used in forming their perspectives. The teacher relied heavily on observable phenomena (performance aspects and task-related behaviors) when deciding perceived student effort, while the students appeared to use such external information much less frequently. Even though the category coded most often for the students as well as the teacher was attention/ motivation, student and teacher responses suggested they were considering different aspects of attention. For instance, many of the teacher's comments coded as attentiodmotivation indicated that he was making inferences from what he ob- served (e.g., "Didn't look like he was concentrating"). Many of the students' comments coded as attentiodmotivation, however, suggested that they were attempting to access internal knowledge of this information (e.g., "I was really focused on the task"). Even though the subjects' responses could have been reactions to the videotapes and not recalls of the actual lessons, the students clearly had access to internal information that the teacher did not.

Like the different perceptions of effort, the differences between the teacher and students in their expectations and perceptions of task difficulty and performance may be partially explained by looking at the information each used. As suggested by Martinek (1991), the teacher frequently mentioned student characteristics (typical student effortJmotivation and student ability) in forming his expectations for task difficulty and performance. The students, however, rarely mentioned such characteristics. They preferred to focus on task characteristics, as found by Martinek and Griffith (1994), and how they had performed on similar tasks in the past, as suggested by Good (1987). The teacher relied heavily on the observable aspects of student performance when deciding his perceptions of actual task difficulty and performance, most often commenting on the process of performance ("She was bending her knees"). Although the students also frequently mentioned performance aspects when deciding their perceptions of performance, their observations concentrated on the product of their performance (e.g., "I got it over the net"). Unlike the teacher, performance aspects were used much less by students when deciding their perceptions of task difficulty. Instead, they preferred using knowledge of their own motivatiodeffort and the characteristics of the task, two common attributions (Martinek & Griffith, 1994; Weiner, 1986).

Other sources of information to form expectations and perceptions suggested by the literature did not emerge in this study. Student gender and race, student records, and talks with other teachers (Martinek, 1991) were not mentioned by this teacher, and these students rarely mentioned information from peers, teachers, par- entsfguardians (Good, 1987), ability, or environmental aspects (Martinek & Griffith, 1994; Weiner, 1986). In this study, the teacher and students were asked to reflect


on their expectations and perceptions of specific tasks; perhaps student gender and race, student records, talks with other teachers, and information from peers, the teacher, and parents are used by teachers and students to decide more global expectations for student physical education performance. Although these students seldom directly mentioned their ability level as the basis for their perceptions of task difficulty or performance, they may have been implying an ability level in their frequent use of performance aspects, particularly the product of the performance (e.g., "I got it over the net"). With the exception of one student (the low ability, low motivated female), environmental aspects were rarely used as a basis for student perceptions. This suggests that most of these students accepted respon- sibility for their performance; they did not place blame on or give credit to situational features (e.g., partner or teacher) for how they did on a task. The use of primarily cooperative tasks and the overall positive atmosphere created by this teacher may have contributed to such student perceptions.

Some interesting trends emerged in the direction of disagreements on the Likert scale responses. This teacher often believed that the students gave more effort and performed better than the students did. In addition, the teacher often expected the task to be harder for the students than the students did. There are several potential explanations for these differences. Perhaps the teacher's high performance perceptions reflect lower performance standards than the students. It is also reasonable to suggest that the students' lower perceptions of effort serve to protect their self-image: If I perform well and I say I did not try hard, that means I am pretty good; if I perform poorly and I say I did not try hard, then I still could be good (Weiner, 1986). On the other hand, perhaps this difference in effort perceptions reflects this teacher's positive attitude or the different sources of information used by the teacher and students to form their perceptions of effort. In addition, the tasks used in this study were highly complex motor skills, and these students were beginners. Maybe this teacher's high expectations of task difficulty mean he had difficulty accurately judging student ability levels and providing developmentally appropriate tasks. Such ideas, of course, are merely speculation; clearly this area requires further study with other students and teachers.

The data on feedback reflected more agreement than other data. When the percentage of exact and partial agreements are combined, there is considerable similarity between these students and their teacher on the purpose of skill-related feedback and the feelings produced by such feedback. This high level of congruency, combined with their positive responses to feedback, is quite encouraging. However, it does little to explain how feedback could mediate student achievement, as suggested by Lee et al. (1993). Student responses clearly mirrored the type of instructional climate promoted by this teacher. This teacher's skill development focus is reflected in the high percentage of responses claiming that the purpose of feedback was to improve student performance and reinforce correct performance. Moreover, this teacher's positive, cooperative atmosphere is seen in the high percentage of responses which stated that feedback resulted in positive feelings and an increase in effort. Whether other students and teachers see the purpose of feedback similarly and perceive parallel reactions to feedback is unclear in the literature.

Within the limitations of this exploratory study, the results suggest some important implications for researchers and practicing teachers in physical education. Researchers should start conducting simultaneous examinations of student and teacher perspectives of instructional events. Since student and teacher per-

398 TJEERDSMA

spectives do differ, simply examining one perspective or the other provides an incomplete picture of the instructional process. Practicing teachers should at least be aware that their perspectives of physical education events may differ from their students' perspectives. Such awareness should lead to attempts to understand student perspectives; in other words, try to find out what students are thinking. For instance, students could keep a journal of what they experience during lessons. Students could also be questioned directly during the lesson about their perspectives: "Sharon, how do you think you did on that last attempt?" "Sally, how hard do you think this task will be for you?' or, "Kevin, how hard would you say you tried on that task?'

Besides attempting to understand student perspectives, teachers should also take steps to increase the congruency between their perspectives and their students' perspectives. For example, student grades are frequently based on the teacher's perception of student effort (Matanin & Tannehill, 1994). To enhance the probability of comparable perceptions, students could be told how the teacher de- termines student effort level. The teacher in this study, who relied heavily on observable behaviors, could have described to the students the behaviors he used to determine effort: going after the ball right away, not complaining or wasting time, and the like. This teacher looked primarily at process aspects of performance to decide his perceptions of actual performance, whereas the students used product characteristics. Perhaps the teacher could have enhanced the congruency between his and his students' perceptions of performance by more clearly focusing on a few basic cues throughout the unit, repeating those cues continually in feedback, and demonstrating successful and unsuccessful performances (based on process characteristics). Making explicit to students how the teacher decides student effort level, task difficulty level, and performance level could be a key to greater sirnilar- ity in perspectives and so better communication.

As an initial investigation comparing student and teacher perspectives of task-related events in physical education, it is necessary to verify these results with other students, teachers, and in other content areas. Future research should also examine the impact of different teacher and student perspectives on the teaching-learning process and determine if different perspectives of instructional events by students and teachers actually affect student achievement.

References

Good, T.L. (1987). Teacher expectations. In D.C. Berliner & B.V. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers @p. 159-200). New York: Random House.

Hanke, U. (1987). Cognitive aspects of interaction in physical education. In G.T. Barrette, R.S. Feingold, C.R. Rees, & M. Pikron (Ms.), Myths, models, and methods in sport pedagogy (Proceedings of the Adelphi-AEISEP '85 World Sport Conference, pp. 135-141). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Harter, S. (1981). A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in children: Individual differences and developmental change. In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on childpsychology (Vol. 14, pp. 215-255). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lee, A.M., Keh, N.C., & Magill, R.A. (1993). Instructional effects of teacher feedback in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12,228-243.

PERSPEC7D%S OF TASKS AND FEEDBACK 399

Lee, A.M., Landin, D.K., & Carter, J.A. (1992). Student thoughts during tennis instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11,256-267.

Lee, A.M., & Solmon, M.A. (1992). Cognitive conceptions of teaching and learning motor skills. Quest, 44, 57-7 1.

Magill, R.A. (1994). The influence of augmented feedback on skill learning depends on characteristics of the skill and the learner. Quest, 46,314-327.

Martinek, T.J. (1988). Confirmation of the teacher expectancy model: Student perceptions and causal attributions of teacher behaviors. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59,118-126.

Martinek, T.J. (1991). Psycho-social dynamics of teaching physical education. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.

Martinek, T.J., & Griffith, J.B. (1994). Learned helplessness in physical education: A developmental analysis of causal attributions and task persistence. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 108-122.

Matanin, M., & Tannehill, D. (1994). Assessment and grading in physical education. Jour- nal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 395-405.

Silverman, S. (1994). Communication and motor skill learning: What we learn from research in the gymnasium. Quest, 46, 345-355.

Tjeerdsma, B.L. (1995). The relationships among success rate, motivation rate and perceived competence in physical education. Unpublished manuscript.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer- Verlag.

Appendix

Questions and Closed Responses for Student and Teacher Interviews

Questions asked after observing a task presentation: * Student: How hard did you think this task would be for you? Teacher: How hard did you think this task would be for [student's name]?

Very easy Somewhat easy Somewhat hard Very hard Student: How did you expect to do on this task? Teacher: How did you expect [student's name] to do on this task?

Not very good at all Have some problems Sort of good Very good

Questions asked afer observing student perfomzance on the task: * Student: How hard do you think that task actually was for you? Teacher: How hard do you think that task actually was for [student's name]?

Very hard Somewhat hard Somewhat easy Very easy Student: How do you think you actually did on the task? Teacher: How do you think [student's name] actually did on the task?

Very good Sort of good Had some problems Not very good at all Student: How hard did you try on that task? Teacher: How hard do you think [student's name] tried on that task?

TJEERDSMA

Very hard Pretty hard Somewhat hard Not very hard at all

Questions asked after observing skill-related feedback:

Student: What was the teacher's purpose in saying that to you? Teacher: What was your purpose in saying that to [student's name]? Student: How did it make you feel when he said that to you? Teacher: How do you think it made [student's name] feel when you said that to

himher?

*Closed questions are followed up with open-ended probes designed to elicit the basis for the student's o r teacher's expectation or perception.

Acknowledments

I thank Judy Rink, Tom Martinek, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

comparison of teacher and student perspectives of tasks ... of teaching in physical education,...

Documents