The Impact of the Instructional Planning Self-Reflective Tool on Preservice Teacher Performance, Disposition, and Self-Efficacy Beliefs Regarding Systematic Instructional Planning

This study investigated the impact of a self-regulatory tool, the Instructional Planning Self-Reflective Tool (IPSRT), on preservice teachers’ performance, disposition, and self-efficacy beliefs regarding systematic instructional planning. Participants enrolled in an introductory educational technology course were taught how to develop an instructional plan as part of the course. An experimental group was provided with instruction on how to use the IPSRT while engaging in instructional planning. Results indicated that the experimental group demonstrated greater skill acquisition, showed more positive disposition, and reported higher perceived instrumentality of instructional planning. In terms of self-efficacy, no significant differences were found between the two groups. However, further analyses revealed that participants who were initially high in self-efficacy reported significantly lower self-efficacy following the tool intervention; in contrast, participants initially low in self-efficacy showed significantly higher self-efficacy following the tool intervention. Findings are discussed from a social-cognitive perspective. Instructional planning is a method to help teachers systematically design instruction. Numerous instructional planning models have been developed (e.g., Dick & Reiser, 1989; Dick & Carey, 1996; Seels & Glasgow, 1990) with the goal of improving teacher instruction. A systematic approach, which is the focus of this paper, has been shown to be beneficial because it results in effective instruction (Reiser & Dick, 1996). According to Reiser and Dick, a systematic approach to instructional planning consists of the six following phases: goals, objectives, instructional activities, assessment, revision, and implementation. Four key principles underlie these six instructional planning phases: (a) identifying goals and objectives that students will be expected to attain; (b) planning instructional activities that correspond with the objectives; (c) developing an assessment instrument to measure attainment of objectives; and, (d) revising instruction based on student performance and attitudes.