Pre-service teachers were invited to complete a self-reflection survey immediately after completion of their practicum, based on the See Think Wonder Visible Thinking Routine (Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2013). This comprised four guiding questions:
1. SEE (observational) – What did I do?
2. THINK (inner focus) – How do I think I went? 3. THINK (outer focus) – How did the students react?
4. WONDER (transformative) – What might I change in future?
The four questions relate to the four areas of coding in Bandura’s Guide for
Construction of Self-efficacy Scales, namely: multi-causality (think – inner/outer focus);
domain specification and gradations of challenge (see – observational); and perceived collective efficacy (wonder) to substantiate or otherwise the video findings and provide a degree of context validity. Written responses were coded according to strong/convincing, positive, timid/doubtful and inconclusive. For example, strong responses contained words similar to “will do”, positive responses contained words similar to “can do”, and timid responses contained words synonymous with “may do” (Bandura, 2006, p. 2).
36%
16% 48%
Professional and organised
manner
Low Moderate High
133
6.4.1 Domain Specification and Gradations of Challenge (Observational)
The first question asked: What did I do? (See - observational). Responses were coded according to whether participants were specific about what they were trying to achieve (domain specification) and the level of difficulty engaged (gradations of challenge), with levels categorised as minimal, low, medium and high. Five of the responses were general in nature and used phrases like “I explored” or “I used”, while four responses were more direct and used general phrases like “I explained the use of the iPad” or “I explained the activity”. Nine responses specifically addressed teaching one or more musical elements, such as “I was quite focused on learning a rhythm” or “I facilitated learning a rhythm”, while six responses related directly to the facilitation of music creation, such as “the students were engaged with learning their notes or worked together to create different sounds and music” (pre-service teacher self-reflections, 2013). An overview of see-observational coded response levels is shown in Figure 47.
Figure 47: See - Observational Coded Response Levels
While most responses indicated participants attempted to teach specific musical elements such as beat and rhythm, the six high-level responses pointed to confidence in extending their knowledge further, and supported the video data of ten pre-service teachers facilitating creative compositional activities, indicating high self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997a, 2006). The 58% of medium to high responses aligned with the video findings and the
AMUSES survey, further confirming evidence of engagement with gradations of challenge in the music teaching practicum setting.
8% 19% 15% 35% 23%
See - Observational
No response Minimal Low Medium High134 6.4.2 Multi-causality (Think - Inner Focus)
The second self-reflection survey question asked: “How do I think I went? (Think - inner focus). Responses revealed participants’ self-belief in their teaching effectiveness, given they had only been equipped with basic music skills during a five-week music module. Responses were coded as low, moderate or high, according to the level participants believed they had attained. Three low responses cited insufficient practicum teaching time: “Time was a factor that didn’t allow me to extend much” and “I felt a little rushed”. Six responses indicated moderate success: “[It went] quite well” and “I felt it went quite well”; while sixteen responses indicated successful teaching: “(I went) very well” and “I am capable enough to teach music to a group of students” (pre-service teacher self-reflections, 2013). An overview of the think – inner focus coded response levels is shown in Figure 48.
Figure 48: Think – Inner Focus Coded Response Levels
The responses indicated most participants held positive self-beliefs in their music teaching ability. This was further explored in conjunction with question 3.
6.4.3 Multi-causality (Think - Outer Focus)
The third self-reflection survey question asked: “How did the children react? (Think - outer focus). To examine the extent of participants’ beliefs about their success, their reflections on student interactions were categorised as low, medium or high. One response implied issues with inoperative technology, but the majority appeared philosophical and enjoyed reasonable success despite any difficulties, even displaying resilience and perseverance indicative of high levels of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994). Twenty-five participants reported high levels of student engagement, for example:
12%
24% 64%
Think - Inner focus
Low Medium High
135
They displayed great teamwork, turn taking and sharing ideas and (Students) were engaged and excited to show me what they could do (pre-service teacher self-reflection, 2013).
The number of responses indicating that the technology itself was a student motivator and iPad/GarageBand technology enabled all children to create basic rhythms regardless of their musical talent concurred with the findings of Jaffurs (2004). Figure 49 shows an overview of think - outer focus coded response levels.
Figure 49: Think – Outer Focus Coded Response Levels
High levels of student engagement coincided with strong responses from participants regarding their teaching effectiveness, suggesting positive teaching experiences for most of them and high ratings for their perceived impact. The results largely confirmed the video evidence and the AMUSES data, showing positive multi-causality indicative of high levels of self-efficacy in the practicum setting.
6.4.4 Perceived Collective Efficacy (Wonder - In Future)
The fourth self-reflection survey question asked: “What might I change in future? (Wonder - in future). Pre-service teachers’ comments indicating motivation and commitment (perceived collective efficacy) were categorised as: 1) inconclusive; 2) low; 3) moderate or 4) high (Bandura, 1994). Three responses were considered inconclusive because they gave no indication of future music teaching intentions; a further three responses lacked strong conviction due to the use of terms such as “may” and “would like to”. Ten responses were rated moderately, as they used terms similar to “will do”; while ten high-rating responses not
4% 0%
96%
Think Outer focus
Low Medium High
136
only committed to teaching music in the future, but also indicated enthusiasm in students’ reactions to the lesson:
Yes I will use iPads in the future because they [students] loved the experience, they were eager to play their own version (pre-service teacher self-reflections, 2013).
Figure 50 shows an overview of wonder – in future coded response levels.
Figure 50: Wonder – In Future Coded Response Levels
The 76% of moderate to high responses show positive indications of motivation, resilience and commitment, and a high level of perceived collective efficacy, again supporting the video evidence and survey findings.