Regarding the impact of each tool on initial motivation/attitude (self-efficacy and disposition), paired t tests indicated significant differences between the preservice teachers' initial self-efficacy regarding instructional planning (M=4.76) and their self-efficacy following use of both the IPSRT (M=6.19), t(41)=4.87, p<.001 and the CPSRT (M=5.93), t(41)=3.88, p<.001.
A repeated-measures MANOVA with tool (IPSRT, CPSRT) as a within-subjects factor and helpful, easy to use, interesting, flexible, and worthy of recommendation as the dependent measures, revealed no significant difference of tool on the composite measures.
Chi-square analyses indicated that the IPSRT was reported as significantly more valuable than the CPSRT for self-monitoring (f=16 vs f=27), c[[eth].sup.2]=5.77.
The results of this study provide validity evidence for the IPSRT as a tool for promoting the development of instructivist instructional plans and the CPSRT as a tool for facilitating constructivist instructional plan development.
Results indicated that there were no significant differences in performance between implementation of the IPSRT versus the CPSRT. This finding shows that both tools enhanced the preservice teachers' performance, even though each differed by design (recipe versus menu format) and purpose (facilitating instructivist versus constructivist approach).
With reference to motivational/attitudinal impact, the composite MANOVA results indicated that there were no overall differences between the IPSRT and the CPSRT. In other words, preservice teachers felt as positive, satisfied, and self-efficacious with their instructional planning performance using either tool.
Specifically, the IPSRT better facilitated self-monitoring and the CPSRT better promoted cognitive flexibility.
In contrast, in support of the constructivist approach, the CPSRT was designed with a more open-ended structure, as illustrated by its "menu" layout, thereby supporting cognitive flexibility.
Finally, in comparing the value of the tools, results showed no significant differences between the two tools, indicating that preservice teachers perceived both the IPSRT and the CPSRT as valuable and helpful devices for instructional planning.
It would also be of interest to evaluate the impact of the IPSRT and CPSRT with more experienced teachers.
Consequently, it is of great interest and practical importance to confirm in this study that either the IPSRT or CPSRT can serve as valuable cognitive tools to facilitate the instructional planning process.
pedagogy of Does CPSRT lead to plans instructional rated as constructivist?