Background: This follow-up study investigated the year-round effects of a four-week randomized controlled trial using different types of feedback on employees’ physical activity, including a need-supportive coach intervention. Methods: Participants (n=227) were randomly assigned to a Minimal Intervention Group (MIG; no feedback), a Pedometer Group (PG; feedback on daily steps only), a Display Group (DG; feedback on daily steps, on daily moderateto-vigorous physical activity [MVPA] and on total energy expenditure [EE]), or a Coaching Group (CoachG; same as DG with need supportive coaching). Daily physical activity level (PAL; Metabolic Equivalent of Task [MET]), number of daily steps, daily minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), active daily EE (EE>3 METs) and total daily EE were measured at five time points: before the start of the 4-week intervention, one week after the intervention, and 3, 6, and 12 months after the intervention. Results: For minutes of MVPA, MIG showed higher mean change scores compared with the DG. For steps and daily minutes of MVPA, significantly lower mean change scores emerged for MIG compared with the PG. Participants of the CoachG showed significantly higher change scores in PAL, steps, minutes of MVPA, active EE, total EE compared with the MIG. As hypothesized, participants of the CoachG had significantly higher mean change scores in PAL and total EE compared with groups that only received feedback. However, no significant differences were found for steps, minutes of MVPA and active EE between CoachG and PG. Conclusions: Receiving additional need-supportive coaching resulted in a higher PAL and active EE compared with measurement (display) feedback only. These findings suggest to combine feedback on physical activity with personal coaching in order to facilitate long-term behavioral change. When it comes to increasing steps, minutes of MVPA or active EE, a pedometer constitutes a sufficient tool. Trial registration: Clinical Trails.gov NCT01432327. Date registered: 12 September 2011
Supervision meetings give teachers and students opportunities to interact with each other and to co-regulate students’ learning processes. Co-regulation refers to the transitional process of a student who is becoming a self-regulated learner by interacting with a more capable other such as a teacher. During a task, teachers are expected to pull back their support and give opportunities to students to take responsibility. This study aims to explore the shifting patterns of co-regulation, feedback perception, and motivation during a 5-month research project. Participants were 20 students conducting research in pairs and six teachers who supervised these students. Two videotaped supervision meetings at the beginning and end of the research process and questionnaires on feedback perception and motivation were analysed. Results on co-regulation showed a constant and comparable level of regulation at the start and at the end of students’ research projects. Feedback perception did not change, but motivation decreased significantly.
Providing high-quality feedback is essential for improving preservice teacher performance. Rather than post-lesson feedback, immediate performance feedback while teaching is considered effective. This article reports on developing and piloting a standardised tool for synchronous feedback. Eight teacher educators from a Dutch higher education institution were trained to use the tool (based on accepted models of teacher roles, observation criteria and feedback levels) with pre-recorded lessons. Interobserver reliability was good for teacher roles and sufficient for feedback levels. Positive evaluations of the tool and educators’ interest in its application, warrant further research into scalability and effectiveness of synchronous feedback delivery.
