Background: The importance of clarifying goals and providing process feedback for student learning has been widely acknowledged. From a Self-Determination Theory perspective, it is suggested that motivational and learning gains will be obtained because in well-structured learning environments, when goals and process feedback are provided, students will feel more effective (need for competence), more in charge over their own learning (need for autonomy) and experience a more positive classroom atmosphere (need for relatedness). Yet, in spite of the growing theoretical interest in goal clarification and process feedback in the context of physical education (PE), little experimental research is available about this topic. Purpose: The present study quasi-experimentally investigated whether the presence of goal clarification and process feedback positively affects students’ need satisfaction and frustration. Method: Twenty classes from five schools with 492 seventh grade PE students participated in this quasi-experimental study. Within each school, four classes were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions (n = 121, n = 117, n = 126 and n = 128) in a 2 × 2 factorial design, in which goal clarification (absence vs. presence) and process feedback (absence vs. presence) were experimentally manipulated. The experimental lesson consisted of a PE lesson on handstand (a relatively new skill for seventh grade students), taught by one and the same teacher who went to the school of the students to teach the lesson. Depending on the experimental condition, the teacher either started the lesson explaining the goals, or refrained from explaining the goals. Throughout the lesson the teacher either provided process feedback, or refrained from providing process feedback. All other instructions were similar across conditions, with videos of exercises of differential levels of difficulty provided to the students. All experimental lessons were observed by a research-assistant to discern whether manipulations were provided according to a condition-specific script. One week prior to participating in the experimental lesson, data on students’ need-based experiences (i.e. quantitatively) were gathered. Directly after students’ participation in the experimental lesson, data on students’ perceptions of goal clarification and process feedback, need-based experiences (i.e. quantitatively) and experiences in general (i.e. qualitatively) were gathered. Results and discussion: The questionnaire data and observations revealed that manipulations were provided according to the lesson-scripts. Rejecting our hypothesis, quantitative analyses indicated no differences in need satisfaction across conditions, as students were equally satisfied in their need for competence, autonomy and relatedness regardless of whether the teacher provided goal clarification and process feedback, only goal clarification, only process feedback or none. Similar results were found for need frustration. Qualitative analyses indicated that, in all four conditions, aspects of the experimental lesson made students feel more effective, more in charge over their own learning and experience a more positive classroom atmosphere. Our results suggest that under certain conditions, lessons can be perceived as highly need-satisfying by students, even if the teacher does not verbally and explicitly clarify the goals and/ or provides process feedback. Perhaps, students were able to self-generate goals and feedback based on the instructional videos.
Background: Given the demands posed by excessive practice quantities in modern dance, physical and mental health can be compromised. Therefore, there is a need to consider how quality of practice may be improved and possibly even reduce training times. Sports literature has shown that instructions and feedback given by coaches can have an effect on the quality of training and influence self-regulation and the performance of athletes. However, currently little is known about the use of instructions and feedback by dance teachers. The aim of the current study was, therefore, to examine the type of instructions and feedback given by dance teachers during various dance classes. Methods: A total of six dance teachers participated in this study. Video and audio recordings were made of six dance classes and two rehearsals at a contemporary dance university. The dance teacher’s coaching behavior was analyzed using the modified Coach Analysis and Intervention System (CAIS). Additionally, feedback and instructions were also examined in terms of their corresponding focus of attention. Absolute numbers, as well as times per minute (TPM) rates were calculated for each behavior before, during, and after an exercise. Absolute numbers were also used to calculate ratios of positive-negative feedback and open-closed questions. Results: Most feedback comments were given after an exercise (472 out of 986 total observed behaviors). Improvisation had the highest positive-negative feedback ratio (29) and open-closed questions ratio (1.56). Out of the focus of attention comments, internal focus of attention comments were used most frequently (572 out of 900). Discussion/conclusion: The results make clear that there is a large variability in instructions and feedback over teachers and classes. Overall, there is room for improvement toward a higher positive-negative feedback ratio, a higher open-closed question ratio and producing more comments eliciting an external focus of attention.
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.
