research article issn : 1936-6612 the roles of teacher ...

1 downloads 0 Views 763KB Size Report
regulation; and (3) the interaction between teacher-training programs and self-regulation on competence in teaching science among elementary student ...


ISSN : 1936-6612

Copyright © 2008 American Scientific Publishers Letters All rights reserved Printed in the United States of American

Advanced Science Letter Vol 24 Number 10 (October 2018)

THE ROLES OF TEACHER-TRAINING PROGRAMS AND STUDENT TEACHERS’ SELF-REGULATION IN DEVELOPING COMPETENCE IN TEACHING SCIENCE Mohamad Syarif Sumantri1,, Prayuningtyas A.W², Reza Rachmadtullah3, Ina Magdalena 4 1 Elementary Teacher Education Program, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia ³Post Graduate Elementary Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia ³Post Graduate Elementary Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia 4 Elementary Teacher Education Program, Universitas Muhammadiyah Tangerang, Indonesia ³ The objective of this research is to determine the effect of (1) teacher-training programs (2) student teachers’ selfregulation; and (3) the interaction between teacher-training programs and self-regulation on competence in teaching science among elementary student teachers. The study was conducted in an elementary school-teacher education program with a sample of 44 student teachers. The research findings are as follows: first, the student teachers who participated in the reflective teaching program showed greater science-teaching competence than those who participated in the microteaching program; second, the science-teaching competence of student teachers with high levels of self-regulation is improved by the reflective teaching program; third, student teachers with low levels of self-regulation benefitted from the microteaching program; fourth, there are interactions between teacher-training programs and self-regulation that have different effects on competence in teaching science at the elementary). Keywords : Competence in teaching science, elementary school, microteaching, reflective teaching , self-regulation

1. INTRODUCTION The poor quality of basic education in Indonesia has long been recognized, but the underlying factors are not clear. One indicator of good basic education is student achievement. The main factor thought to influence a student’s achievement is his or her teacher. Teacher quality – specifically, teachers’ classroom teaching skills and subject mastery - has received considerable attention, but in reality, it has not been shown to have a significant impact on student achievement. A study conducted by Ertikanto, Viyanti & Wahyudi (2011) concluded that not all science teachers at the elementary-school levels in Bandar Lampung, Sumatra, were able to convey the concept of scientific inquiry; (1) the teachers’ average subject knowledge score was 36.28 (it should be between 80.0 and 100.0), and only 20% of the 20 teachers surveyed attained a score of at least 62.5; (2) science education at the elementary-school level does not meet the National Education Standards. Most teachers have difficulty teaching science as inquiry. One reason is that they have not mastered the concept of inquiry-based science education. According to a study by Trends International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in 2011, *Email

Address : [email protected]

Indonesia ranked 36 out of 49 countries in science achievement. According to a study by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in 2015, Indonesian elementary school teachers ranked 108 in competence of the 187 countries that received education and training opportunities. Teacher education institutions are important for preparing student teachers and improving their competence through teacher-training programs. Instructional approaches include microteaching activities and teaching experiences in schools. Microteaching goals provide practice for candidate teachers (MacLeod, 1995; Brown, 1975; Madike, 1980; Singh & Sharma, 1987). The purpose of microteaching is 1. To improve student teachers’ selfassessment and teach them to assess others. 2). to improve their self-confidence, 3). improve their teaching methods, 4). To improve their teaching skills, 5) to help them to create new teaching methods, 6). To provide student teachers with opportunities to learn together (Pauline, 1993). In contrast, Gibbs and Taylor (2016) argue that reflective teaching, another method employed by teacher education programs, provides opportunities for students to receive meaningful feedback, encourages them to be more


Adv. Sci. Lett. 24,7019-7854, (2018) active learners and to become more skillful in considering the “what, how and why” of learning activities, and can demonstrate aspects of skillful teaching. Reflective teaching is a learning system in which teachers give students the opportunity to analyze their own experiences and facilitate learning from experience. Reflective learning also encourages students to think creatively and to develop a reflective, questioning attitude and independence. (Everett, 2013; Henning, Petker & Petersen, 2015; Zwozdiak-Myers, 2012). Teaching and learning necessitate feedback from peers or teachers. The teacher's role as a facilitator in the learning process and the feedback he or she provides may be weighted towards guidance or independence. Choi and Anderson (2016), Miller and Brickman (2004). asserted that students need to develop the ability to independently self-regulate, become self-disciplined and learn by themselves. Zwozdiak-Myers (2012) Winchester and Winchester (2014) stated that lecturers must help their student teachers develop self-directed learning abilities. Fichtman and Yendol-Hoppey (2014) stated that learning is an active process in which students construct their own new ideas based on their own knowledge and abilities. Learning also requires students learn to self-regulate their responses to environmental stimuli (Bodrova & Deborah, 2002). Bergsteine and Avery (2014) added that learning continues as long as a student experiences personal involvement, shows self-initiative, and performs selfevaluation. Microteaching is evaluated via direct feedback from lecturers, according to the behaviorism approach (Hortensia, 2007). In contrast to the constructivist view, the behaviorism approach anticipates that students construct new knowledge based on their prior knowledge, mental structures and beliefs. In contrast, Al-Ahdal and Al-Awaid (2014) state that influence of the constructivist theory on the reflective approach encourages students to consider their initial experience, gives them the opportunity to perform self-assessment, and encourages peer-assessment through discussion. Reflective activities are emphasized in the constructivist view, which is based on the belief that knowledge is the result of our own construction (Bergsteine & Avery, 2014). Abdulwahed and Nagy (2009); Kramarski and Michalsky (2010) argue that reflection is a stage of learning based on previous experience, and knowledge is formed through four learning stages: concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation (AE). Teachers are not only the source of information; they also serve as facilitators and advisors (Borich, 2013). Students prefer to learn freely and to prioritize problem solving and practical issues. Adult learning is also influenced by responsibility, independence, selfdirectedness, motivation and physical factors (Galbraith, 2015). Students learn through transformative experience in an active, reflective process (Santrock, 2010). Adult learning is self-directed, and experience is an important component.

The most important role of lecturers is preparing student teachers to work wisely, rather than quickly (Popp, 2015; Brock and Carter, 2016). They must help their students become reflective, lifelong learners. Jonassen (2006) explained that the shift in the learning paradigm from behaviorism to constructivism prompted different views regarding student teacher preparation (Jonassen, 2006). The constructivist view is that students must be given the opportunity to practice constructing their internal reality to solve problems through self-reflection and social negotiation between peers (MacPhail, Tannehill & Karp, 2013). Reflective teaching gives student teachers the opportunity to improve their teaching competency through discussion and correcting each other (Cruickshank, 1999), combining self-assessment and peer-assessment (Chapman, 2015). Reflection is the acquisition of information regarding one’s performance through selfassessments and peer assessments. One factor that can influence learning outcomes is selfregulation. Self-regulation is an individual’s ability to think in ways that allow them to manipulate and change their environment (Sanderse, 2013). A person can control his/her behavior. In general, self-regulation is a person’s ability to change his or her responses in ways that allow them to control impulse behavior, resist temptation, control their thoughts and change their emotions (Cubukcu, 2010). In other words, self-regulation is the ability of humans to respond to their environment by using their mind to control and manipulate their behavior. Self-regulation enables individuals to change their environment so they can achieve their goals (Cubukcu, 2010; Hoops, 2016). It involves controlling one’s own thoughts and behavior. Self-regulation is the ability to control, manage, plan, direct, and monitor behavior to achieve a goal using specific physical, cognitive, motivational, emotional, and social strategies. Considering these concepts, we studied how selfregulation affects the abilities of elementary school science teacher candidates by comparing teacher training methods based on reflective teaching and microteaching. The results of this research are important considerations for preparing prospective elementary school teachers in countries that are relatively similar to Indonesia – that is, multi-cultural countries with many ethnicities and religions. Our findings are unique and present an economical model for ensuring the professionalism of graduates from elementary teaching programs. 2. METHOD The research objective was to determine the effects of teacher-training programs and teacher self-regulation on competence in teaching science at the elementary-school level. This experiment was conducted at the Elementary School Teacher Education Program, University of Muhamadiyah Tangerang, Indonesia, during the 2015/2016 academic year. A 2 x 2 factorial design was used, and each independent variable had two levels. The first independent variable was the focus of the teachertraining programs (reflective teaching vs. microteaching).

RESEARCH ARTICLE The second independent variable was self-regulation (high vs. low self-regulation). The samples were two classes that were chosen randomly using a simple randomization technique. The treatments were reflective teaching and microteaching. Self-regulation was tested to classify students as having high or low levels of self-regulation. The test results were then ordered from the highest score to lowest score for each class, and the 11 highest-scoring and 11 lowestscoring students were classified as having high and low self-regulation, respectively (44 x 27% = 11). The setting of the experiment was teacher training in which the lecturers used different teaching models. The experiment was carried out for fourteen weeks, after which every subject was given a final test to measure his or her learning outcomes. Data for two outcomes were collected in this study: competence in teaching science and self-regulation. The data on competence in teaching science were collected using observation instruments in the form of rating scales. The data on self-regulation were collected using a Likert scale. Data collection was performed after the treatment ended. The test results then were processed using descriptive statistical analysis and inference. The validity of the instrument was determined using the product-moment correlation formula. After the correlation coefficient of each item was determined, corrections were calculated for each item. The acceptance criteria for the correlation coefficient were based on the table r Pearson product moment with n = 30, and the significance level at p = 0.05. The results of the instrument test showed that five of the 48 items did not meet the requirements; these items were excluded, resulting in a final reliability coefficient rtt = 0.75. The requirement-analysis test was conducted using a normality test (Lilliefors test) and a homogeneity test. (Bartlett's test). The hypothesis was examined using an ANOVA with a 2 x 2 factorial design. A significance test was conducted when the results of the variable analysis showed there was a main effect and interaction between the independent variables. The effects were also assessed using Tukey's test. 3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION The ANOVA results are shown in Table 1 Table 1. ANOVA Components db JK RJK Fhitung Ftable 1 40.09 40.09 7.51 ** 4.08 Between A 1 23.27 23.27 4.36 ** 4.08 Between B Interaction A*B 1 48.09 48.09 9.01 ** 4.07 40 213.46 5.34 Fallacy Total 43 Note: ** = very significant dk = degree of freedom JK = quadratic sum RJK= average of quadratic sum The 2 x 2 variable analysis (ANOVA) described above, yielded the following results:

The Difference in Science-Teaching Competency between the Two Teacher Training Programs These results were based on the ANOVA at α = 0.05, Fcount = 7.51 and Ttable = 4.08. The results are

ISSN : 1936-6612 summarized in Table 1. Thus, Fcount > Ftable, and Ho was rejected. There was a difference between reflective teaching and microteaching in terms of competency in teaching science. The student teachers who participated in the reflective teaching program ( = 31.50; S = 2.32) performed better than those who participated in the microteaching program ( =29.59;S=2.86), as hypothesized. This conclusion was supported by the Tukey’s test results. Table 2. Research design Self-Regulation (B) High (B1) Low (B2)

Teacher Training (A) Reflective (A1) Micro (A2) A1B1 A2B1 A1B2 A2B2

Interaction between Self-Regulation and the Teaching Training Program This result was based on the variance analysis results for the interaction between self-regulation and teachertraining program, the interaction Fcount = 9.01 and the Ftable = 4.07. Fcount > Ftable; therefore, Ho was rejected, and we can conclude that there was an interaction between self-regulation and the training teaching program. A further test was conducted to determine (1) the difference between the outcomes of the reflective teaching program and the microteaching program for students with high self-regulation; (2) the difference between the outcomes of the reflective teaching program and the microteaching program for students with low selfregulation. The test results are summarized in Table 3 Table 3. Tukey’s Test Compared No groups 1 A1B1 and A2B1 2 A1B2 and A2B2



5.71 ** 0.26 ns

4.26 4.26

Note: **= highly significant (Qcount > qtable) ns= not significant (Qcount < qtable) B1= Competency in teaching science among students with high self regulation. B2= Competency in teaching science among students with low selfregulation A1B1= Competency in teaching science among students with high selfregulation in a reflective teaching program. A2B1= Competency in teaching science among students with high selfregulation in a microteaching program. A1B2= Competency in teaching science among students with low selfregulation in a reflective teaching program. A2B2= Competency in teaching science among students with low selfregulation in a microteaching

The Differences in Science-Teaching Competency between Student Teachers with High Self-Regulation who Participated in the Reflective Teaching Program and Those who Participated in the Microteaching Program The teacher-training program had a significant impact on the science-teaching competency of students with high self-regulation, as demonstrated by an ANOVA with Tukey’s test.

Adv. Sci. Lett. 24,7019-7854, (2018) A comparison of the science-teaching competency of students with high self-regulation involved in the reflective teaching program (A1B1) versus the students with high self-regulation who participated in the microteaching (A2B1) program yielded the following results: Qcount = 5.71, and Qtable = 4.26. In other words, the students with high self-regulation who participated in a reflective teaching program ( = 31.82; S = 2.27) performed significantly better than the students with high selfregulation who participated in the microteaching program ( = 27.82; S = 1.99) in terms of their competency in teaching science. Thus, the hypothesis that students with high selfregulation enrolled in a reflective teaching program would show better science-teaching competency than students with high self-regulation enrolled in a microteaching program was accepted. The Differences between the Influence of the Reflective Teaching Program and the Microteaching Program on the Science-Teaching Competency of Students with Low Self-Regulation The teacher-training program did not affect the science-teaching competence of the students with low selfregulation, as demonstrated using an ANOVA with Tukey’s test. Our comparison of the science-teaching competency of students with low self-regulation in the reflective teaching program (A1B2) with those in the microteaching program (A2B2) yielded the following results: Qcount = 0.26, and Qtable = 4.26. Thus, Qcount < Qtable, and Ho was accepted. In other words, students with low selfregulation who were enrolled in the microteaching program = 31,36; S = 2,50) did not perform better than the students with low self-regulation who participated in the reflective teaching program ( = 31,18; S = 2,44) in terms science-teaching competency. The first, second, and third hypotheses were supported. The fourth, which pertained to students with low self-regulation, was not supported. The average science-teaching competency score of the students with low self-regulation in the microteaching program (31.36) was higher than the average competency score of the students with low self-regulation in the reflective teaching program (31.18); however, the level of significance was low. This finding is not consistent with existing theories and research frameworks and may be the result of flaws in the experimental design. The theoretical framework states that a student with high self-regulation should perform better with reflective teaching instruction because the ability to teach science is influenced by the students' ability to control, manage, plan, direct, and monitor behavior, as teaching requires physical, cognitive, motivational, emotional, and social resources (Miller and Brickman, 2004). Students actively selfevaluate and consistently improve their teaching (Lynch, McNamara & Seery, 2012; Timothy, Dyment & Smith,

RESEARCH ARTICLE 2015; Pennington, 2015). Conversely, students with low self-regulation should perform better in a microteaching program because of the emphasis on teaching skills using a procedural and technical approach and feedback from lecturers. Students with lower self-regulation tend to be passive and less critical; therefore, they benefit from feedback from lecturers rather than self-evaluation. Lecturer feedback gives students a better understanding of their learning and teaching (Downs & Wilson, 2015). Overall, reflective teaching led to better outcomes than microteaching. For students with high self-regulation, lecturers should provide reflective teaching programs. For students with low self-regulation, lecturers can use both types of training programs. However, microteaching produced better results for this group of students. The advantage of a reflective teaching strategy is that it provides students opportunities not just to practice teaching skills to teach but to master the teaching materials. Reflective teaching is used to improve performance and encourage continuous learning. The emphasis is on how students learn rather than what is learned (Nyaumwe & Mtetwa, 2011). Reflective teaching improves teaching competency and provides students the opportunity to understand learning as a whole, how and why to manage learning, and the information presented. With reflective learning, students explore learning from two perspectives: that of the lecturer and that of the other students, and they learn to apply theory to teaching practices (Fichtman & YendolHoppey, 2014). Three main questions are used in reflective teaching: “Which teaching model am I using?”, “How does it apply to specific teaching situations?” and “How well is it working?” (Cruickshank, 1999; Dervent, 2015; Gallego, 2014). Thus, reflective teaching can improve the teaching competency of student teachers, as stated in ZwozdiakMyers (2012), and can improve the mastery of didactic teaching materials. Microteaching primarily emphasizes teaching competency. Educational institutions that train elementary-school teachers are responsible for the teaching competence of their graduates. Indeed, the new paradigm of learning holds that students learn actively by constructing knowledge and skills, while lecturers serve as supervisors, motivators, facilitators and sources of inspiration. Reflective activities can encourage students to understand good teaching (Gallego, 2014). In a reflective teaching environment, self-evaluation had positive effects on the outcomes of a civic education program (Titin, 2013; Akşit, 2016). Lynch et al. (2012) found that reflective teaching can create a fun learning environment and encourage students to think critically. Reflective activities help student teachers develop the ability to think deeply. Student teachers should be encouraged to reflect on their work and conduct self-evaluation to help them apply their learning (McCann, Johannesse, Kahn, Smagorinsky & Smith, 2005), Gutierez (2015). Professional teachers benefit from self-reflection on their teaching (Liu, 2013).

RESEARCH ARTICLE Peer feedback creates a drive for self-regulation and selfmonitoring in students. Extrinsic feedback helps learners acquire domain knowledge and monitor their own learning. Interviews with the participants in this study revealed that they felt that feedback was beneficial to their learning and viewed it as a tool for enhancing their learning. They were also willing to adjust their domain knowledge according to the suggestions of their peers. CIL (2014) stated that it is necessary to enable student teachers to develop the skills to self-evaluate their learning. The first is to familiarize the student with managing learning through reflective action. This competence will be helpful when the student teachers became elementary school teachers because they will continuously improve their performance (Bush, Rudd, Stevens, Tanner & Williams, 2016). Many benefits can be gained from reflective teaching: improved practices in the future, honesty with oneself, the ability to work with others, and practices based on current research; furthermore, reflective teaching develops critical thinking that can build problem-solving skills, improve confidence, and encourage student teachers to explore and find justifications for their actions (Standal & Moe, 2013; Nyaumwe & Mtetwa, 2011; Coskun & Murat, 2010). Microteaching works as a focused instrument that helps students develop essential teaching skills safely and effectively at any age. This paper describes microteaching as an efficient technique for effective teaching. Learning is a change in behavior brought about by activity, training, or experience at any age. When the learner is more experienced, learning is more effective. The most important quality of participants in microteaching sessions is the ability to give and receive constructive feedback with an open mind and to achieve appropriate teachinglearning goals. In addition, microteaching methods increase the self-confidence of the student-teacher in an atmosphere of friendliness and equanimity (Remesh, 2013; Singh & Sharma,1987; MacLeod, 1995; Paintal, 1980). However, our study found no significant differences between the science-teaching abilities of students with low versus high self-regulation after microteaching training. This research is expected to be useful for encouraging students teachers to be open to change and willing to learn and to accept new values. Therefore, it is appropriate for teacher training programs to adopt the paradigm that in teaching, the teacher should act as a researcher. Training in this model is needed to help student teachers develop critical thinking, self-awareness and analytical skills that are critical to their basic education.

5. CONCLUSIONS Based on these results, we concluded that: 1 Overall, the students in the reflective teaching program had higher competence in teaching science than the students in the microteaching program. Thus, reflective teaching was more effective than microteaching for improving competence in teaching science. 2 The students in the reflective teaching program who had high self-regulation showed higher competence in

ISSN : 1936-6612 teaching science than the students in the microteaching program who had high self-regulation. Thus, for students with high self-regulation, science-teaching competence can be improved by reflective teaching. 3 There was no difference in competence in teaching science between the students with low self-regulation in a reflective teaching program and those with low selfregulation in a microteaching program. Thus, the science-teaching competence of students with low selfregulation can be improved by both reflective teaching and microteaching. 4 Students with low self-regulation in a reflective teaching program did not perform better than students with low self-regulation in a microteaching program. REFERENCES [1] Abdulwahed M & Nagy ZK 2009. Applying Kolb's experiential learning cycle for laboratory education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98:283-294. [2] Akşit F, Cokamay G & Demir E 2016. Implementing portfolios in teacher training: why we use them and why we should use them. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 16:115-132. [3] Al-Ahdal AAMH & Al-Awaid SAA 2014. Reflective teaching and language teacher education programmes: A milestone in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5:759. [4] Bergsteiner H & Avery GC 2014. The twin-cycle experiential learning model: reconceptualising Kolb's theory. Studies in Continuing Education, 36:257-274. [5] Bodrova E & Deborah JL (Eds.) 2002. Tools of the mind. The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [6] Borich GD (Ed.) 2013. Effective teaching methods: research-based practice. New York: Pearson Education. [7] Brock ME & Carter EW 2016. Efficacy of teachers training paraprofessionals to implement peer support arrangements. Exceptional Children, 82:354-371. [8] Brown G (Ed.) 1975. Microteaching: A programme of teaching skills. London: Methuen. [9] Bush SD, Rudd JA, Stevens MT, Tanner KD & Williams KS 2016. Fostering change from within: influencing teaching practices of departmental colleagues by science faculty with education specialties. PLOS ONE, 11:e0150914. [10] Chapman O 2015. Reflective awareness in mathematics teachers’ learning and teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11:313324. [11] Choi Y & Anderson WJ 2016. Self directed learning with feddback. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45:32-38. [12] ÇİL E 2014. Teaching nature of science to pre-service early childhood teachers through an explicit reflective approach. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 15:21. [13] Coskun E & Murat A 2010. Evaluation of learning and teaching process in Turkish courses. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2:387-407. [14] Cruickshank DR (Ed.) 1999. Reflective teaching. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa. [15] Cubukcu F 2010. Learner autonomy, self regulation and metacognition. International Electronic Journal Environmental Education, 2:54. [16] Dervent F 2015. The effect of reflective thinking on the teaching practices of preservice physical education teachers. Issues in Educational Research, 25:260-275. [17] Downs CT & Wilson A-L 2015. Shifting to active learning:

Adv. Sci. Lett. 24,7019-7854, (2018)


[19] [20]

[21] [22]

[23] [24] [25]



[28] [29]

[30] [31]

[32] [33]



assessment of a first-year biology course in South Africa. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27:261-274. Ertikanto C, Wahyudi & Viyanti, 2015. Increasing teachers inquiry ability with training inquiry ability programmed and teaching science. Jurnal pendidikan IPA Indonesia. Available at 83/4003 Accessed 20 September 2016. Everett MC 2013. Reflective journal writing and the firstyear experience. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25:213-222. Fichtman D & Yendol-Hoppey D (Eds.) 2014. The reflective educator's guide to classroom research: learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Corwin and Publishing House Publisher. Galbraith MW (Ed.) 2015. Adult learning methods: A guide for effective instruction. Melbourne Melbourne, FL: Krieger Publishing Company. Gallego M 2014. Professional development of graduate teaching assistants in faculty-like positions: fostering reflective practices through reflective teaching journals. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14:96-110. Gibbs JC & Taylor JD 2016. Comparing student selfassessment to individualized instructor feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17:111-123. Gutierez SB 2015. Teachers' reflective practice in lesson study: A tool for improving instructional practice. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 61:314. Henning E, Petker G & Petersen N 2015. Universityaffiliated schools as sites for research learning in preservice teacher education. South African Journal of Education, 35:1-8. Hoops L, Yu S, Qianqian W, & Hollyer, V 2016. Investigating Postsecondary Self-Regulated Learning Instructional Practices: The Development of the Self Regulated Learning Observation Protocol, International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 28.75-93. Hortensia VR (Ed.) 2007. A study of degree of effectiveness of microteaching and reflective teaching in training of foreign language teachers. Chile: Universidad de Concepcion. Jonassen DH (Ed.) 2006. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: MacMillan Library. Kramarski B & Michalsky T 2010. Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Learning & Instruction, 20:434-447. Liu EZ-F 2013. Using peer feedback to improve learning via online peer assessment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12:187-199. Lynch R, McNamara PM & Seery N 2012. Promoting deep learning in a teacher education programme through selfand peer-assessment and feedback. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35:179-197. MacLeod G 1995. Microteaching in teacher education. In LW Anderson (ed). International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education. Oxford: Pergamon Press. MacPhail A, Tannehill D & Karp G 2013. Preparing physical education preservice teachers to design instructionally aligned lessons through constructivist pedagogical practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33:100-112. Madike FU 1980. Teacher preparation and student achievement: an experimental comparison of microteaching with a traditional approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72:866-874. McCann T, Johannesse LR, Kahn E, Smagorinsky P & Smith M (Eds.) 2005. Reflective teaching, reflective

RESEARCH ARTICLE learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann. [36] Miller RB & Brickman SJ 2004. A model of futureoriented motivation and self-regulation. Educational Psychology Review, 16:9-33. [37] Nyaumwe LJ & Mtetwa DK 2011. Developing a cognitive theory from student teachers' post-lesson reflective dialogues on secondary school mathematics. South African Journal of Education, 31:145-159. [38] Paintal I (Ed.) 1980. Micro-teaching-A hand book for teachers. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. [39] Pauline RF 1993. Microteaching: an integral part of a science methods class. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4:9-17. [40] Pennington SE 2015. Inquiry into teaching: using reflective teaching to improve my practice. Networks, 17:11. [41] Popp JA 2015. John Dewey’s theory of growth and the ontological view of society. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 34:45-62. [42] Remesh A 2013. Microteaching, an efficient technique for learning effective teaching. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences: :the Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 18:158-163. [43] Sanderse W 2013. The meaning of role modelling in moral and character education. Journal of Moral Education, 42:28-42. [44] Santrock JW (Ed.) 2010. Educational psychology. India: McGraw-Hill Education. [45] Singh L & Sharma R (Eds.) 1987. Micro-teaching – theory and practice. New Delhi: Department of Teacher Education NCERT. [46] Standal ØF & Moe VF 2013. Reflective practice in physical education and physical education teacher education: a review of the literature since 1995. Quest, 65:220-240. [47] Timothy SC, Dyment JE & Smith HA 2015. Students' appropriation, rejection and perceptions of creativity in reflective journals. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27:1-13. [48] TIMSS 2011. International student achievement in the TIMSS mathematics content and cognitive domain. USA: International Study Center School of Education. Lynch School of Education: Boston College. Available at [49] Mathematics_FullBook.pdf. Accessed 13 September 2016. [50] Titin S 2013. Pengaruh pemberian feedback terhadap hasil belajar Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan ditinjau dari sikap Siswa, (Effect of Feedback on learning outcomes of Civic Education, in terms of attitude Students). Jurnal Evaluasi Pendidikan (JEP), 4:147. [51] Winchester TM & Winchester MK 2014. A longitudinal investigation of the impact of faculty reflective practices on students' evaluations of teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45:112-124. [52] Zwozdiak-Myers P (Ed.) 2012. The teacher's reflective practice handbook: becoming an extended professional through capturing evidence-informed practice. New York: Routledge.

Suggest Documents