Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe the patterns of teacher–student negotiation that occurred when preservice teachers (PTs) taught within the teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR) model. Method: The participants were seven PTs enrolled in an elementary early field experience. They taught three to four mini-units of TPSR. Seven qualitative techniques were employed to collect data, and standard interpretive techniques were used to analyze them. Results: Three general patterns of negotiation were identified. In the units taught by two of the PTs, the negotiations became more positive. For three of the PTs, the rates of negotiation were constant. In the units taught by the remaining two PTs, the negotiations became more negative. Key factors influencing the patterns of negotiation were PTs’ comprehension of and comfort with the TPSR model; class size; and students’ age, gender, and skill level. Conclusion: These findings may help faculty develop more nuanced and effective training for PTs learning to teach through TPSR.
Kelsey McEntyre, Matthew D. Curtner-Smith and K. Andrew R. Richards
Donetta J. Cothran
Current conceptualizations of student learning recognize the active, constructivist, and mutually influential nature of student-teacher interactions in the shared class environment. Since students and teachers enter the classroom with potentially different prior experiences and current beliefs, their interpretation of class events may not be the same. Those differences may lead to misunderstandings and conflict; therefore, it is important to examine the student perspective on physical education. This paper offers two examples—curricular values and teaching styles—of student-teacher similarities and differences, and how those similarities and differences impact what does and does not happen in physical education class. A consistent theme across both examples is the importance of both achievement and nonachievement factors, and suggestions are offered for how physical education might better incorporate both factors to increase student learning and student and teacher enjoyment.
Doug Collier and Greg Reid
The purpose of this investigation was to compare two instructional models designed to teach autistic children a bowling task. One strategy (referred to as the extra-stimulus prompt model) used extensive physical, visual, and verbal prompts while the second (referred to as the within-stimulus prompt model) minimized such prompts. With the theory of overselectivity, it was predicted that the within-stimulus prompt model would be the more effective. Both instructional models included a 14-level task analysis of bowling. Subjects were 6 autistic boys between the ages of 7 and 10 years. Group and time series designs were utilized; 3 subjects in each condition performed 332 trials of the task. The dependent variable was improvement on the bowling task as demonstrated by the task analytic level achieved by each subject. The student-teacher interaction was videotaped and assessed for number and types of prompts, reinforcement, and punishment. Nonparametric and visual analyses revealed that the extra-stimulus prompt group performed significantly better in bowling than did the within-stimulus prompt group. No differences occurred in reinforcement or punishment received.
Chad M. Killian, Christopher J. Kinder and Amelia Mays Woods
instructional delivery capabilities of online technology. However, some level of in-person, student-teacher interaction differentiates blended instruction from strictly online instruction. In blended classrooms, delivery of foundational knowledge occurs before class through online instructional videos or
). Seating arrangements, whether student or instructor determined, are related to academic achievement, on-task behavior, and student–teacher interactions ( van den Berg & Cillessen, 2015 ). Therefore, when one attempts to assess learning achievements, the physical setting should be considered. Teachers who
K. Andrew R. Richards and Victoria N. Shiver
) providing counseling time for student–teacher interactions ( Hellison & Templin, 1991 ). Finally, what would go on to become the TPSR lesson format is also introduced with a discussion of structuring lessons in a way that provides for informal interactions as well as the need to set aside time for reflection