| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 體育學系 === 96 === The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of student’s perception of expert and novice teacher feedback to students’ achievement in junior high school physical education class. One junior high school physical education expert and a novice teacher, with 68 eighth grade students in their physical education classes (expert-33 students, novice-35 students) served as the participants of this study. Instruction took place during eight classes of volleyball serve and setting unit. Data were collected by videotaping and audiotaping. The systematic observation instrument used was Fishman and Tobey Teacher Feedback Observation System. A modified “Student Perception of Teacher’s Feedback” Scale was used to investigate the difference of student’s perception in teacher feedback. Dependent t-test was used to determine difference in students’ achievement. Pearson product moment correlation was used to analyze correlation of the teacher feedback and the learning achievement. Individual student’s perception interview was administrated to further understand the consistency of student perceived teacher feedback. Results indicated that: (1) The expert and novice teacher were different in intent and direction feedback categories. (2) The expert teacher provided 510 feedbacks in eight lessons at the rate of 1.41 per minute, which was higher than the novice teacher with a total of 459 times at 1.28 per minute. (3) In student’s achievement, the expert and novice teacher’s students showed improvement in performance, and some feedback categories were significantly correlated with student achievement. (4) In student’s perception, students of the novice teacher scored higher in perceived teacher feedback than the expert teacher’s (the novice teacher’s students M=3.26, the expert teacher’s students M=2.31). (5) In successful rate of practice trial, the expert teacher’s students showed higher performance than novice teacher’s (the expert teacher’s students M=.61, the novice teacher’s student M=.55). These findings have implications for teacher education and physical education teachers, as well as provide insights for researchers.
|
|---|
