The demographic data of the pre-service teachers participating in the study are presented in the table. The sample consists of a total of 135 pre-service teachers, with varying levels of practice and gender representation.
Table 1
Demographic Data of Pre-service Teachers
Levels Pre-service Teachers’ Practice | Frequency | Percent |
| Early Grade | 23 | 17.0 |
Upper Primary | 52 | 38.5 |
Junior High | 60 | 44.4 |
Total | 135 | 100.0 |
| Gender |
| Male | 69 | 51.1 |
| Female | 66 | 48.9 |
| Total | 135 | 100.0 |
From Table 1, the pre-service teachers' practice levels are categorized into three groups: Early Grade, Upper Primary, and Junior High. Among these, the largest group is the Junior High level with 60 participants (44.4%), followed by the Upper Primary level with 52 participants (38.5%), and the Early Grade level with 23 participants (17.0%). In terms of gender distribution, there were 69 male participants (51.1%) and 66 female participants (48.9%), making it a fairly balanced representation of genders within the sample.
In a nutshell, the sample consists of pre-service teachers with varying levels of practice, predominantly at the Junior High level. The gender distribution within the sample is relatively balanced between male and female participants. This demographic information provides an overview of the composition of the participants and sets the context for further analysis and interpretation of the study's findings.
Pre-service Teachers’ Application of Gagne Instructional Plan
The study aimed to assess the teaching practices employed by the instructor across various aspects of effective pedagogy in Gagne’s nine events of instruction. Teachers responded to a five-point Likert-type scale between strongly disagree to strongly agree (1–4). In this, a criterion threshold of 2.50 was established (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10/4 = 2.50). based on this 2.50 threshold, mean scores above are accepted as agreed and mean scores below are accepted as disagreed. Table 2 presents the results.
Table 2
Pre-service Teachers’ Application of Gagne Instructional Plan
Statements | Mean | SD | Decision |
Gain attention of the students |
1. I do start my lesson through using a surprising event | 2.73 | 1.13 | Agreed |
2. I do start my lessons by posing thought provoking questions to students. | 2.98 | 1.37 | Agreed |
3. I do start my lessons by giving students the opportunity to ask themselves questions as well as answering them. | 2.72 | 1.21 | Agreed |
4. I start my lessons by drawing from previous knowledge and current feelings of students. | 1.51 | .85 | Disagreed |
Inform students of the objectives |
1. I make clear to students the required performance in a lesson. | 1.99 | 1.09 | Disagreed |
2. I make clear to students the criteria for standard performance in a lesson. | 2.38 | 1.11 | Disagreed |
3. I allow students to set criteria for standard performance in a lesson. | 3.00 | 1.32 | Agreed |
4. I take into consideration course objectives on assessment prompts in a lesson. | 1.96 | 1.52 | Disagreed |
Stimulate recall of prior learning |
1. I teach by building on students’ previous experiences in a lesson. | 1.39 | .67 | Disagreed |
2. I teach by probing students on their understanding of previous concepts in a lesson. | 1.56 | .79 | Disagreed |
3. I teach by relating previous course information to the current topic in a lesson. | 1.64 | .81 | Disagreed |
4. I teach by allowing students to incorporate prior learning into current activities in a lesson. | 1.85 | .89 | Disagreed |
Presenting the content |
1. I teach by presenting the same content using several mediums (video, demonstration, group work) in a lesson. | 2.33 | 1.04 | Disagreed |
2. I teach by using a variety of media to engage students in learning concepts. | 2.47 | .99 | Disagreed |
3. I teach by incorporate active learning strategies to keep students involved in a lesson. | 2.00 | .91 | Disagreed |
4. I teach by providing access to content on blackboard so students can access it outside of class in a lesson. | 2.12 | 1.00 | Disagreed |
Provide learning guidance |
1. I teach by providing instructional support as needed (e.g., scaffolding). | 2.19 | .95 | Disagreed |
2. I teach by modelling varied learning strategies (e.g. mnemonics, concept mapping, role-playing, visualizing). | 2.13 | .88 | Disagreed |
3. I teach by using examples and non-examples to help students see what to do and see what not to do. | 1.97 | .93 | Disagreed |
4. I teach by providing case studies, visual images, analogies, and metaphors to help students connect with new concepts. | 2.47 | 1.08 | Disagreed |
Eliciting performance (practice) |
1. I teach by facilitate student activities through deep-learning questions, collaborating with their peers, facilitating practical exercises. | 2.41 | 1.03 | Disagreed |
2. I teach by providing formative assessment opportunities through written assignments, individual or group projects, presentations. | 1.62 | .83 | Disagreed |
3. I design effective quizzes and tests in ways that allow students to demonstrate their comprehension and application of course concepts. | 1.91 | .95 | Disagreed |
Provide feedback |
1. I inform students that they did what they were supposed to do after a lesson. | 2.48 | 1.13 | Disagreed |
2. I apprises students of the accuracy of their performance or response but does not provide guidance on how to progress after a lesson. | 3.31 | 1.44 | Agreed |
3. I direct students to find the correct answer but does not provide the correct answer after a lesson. | 3.22 | 1.29 | Agreed |
4. I provide students with suggestions, directives, and information to help them improve their performance after a lesson. | 2.04 | 1.09 | Disagreed |
5. I help students to identify learning gaps, performance shortcomings in their own, and peers’ work after a lesson. | 3.41 | 1.36 | Agreed |
Assess performance |
1. I administer pre- and post-tests to check for progression of competency in content or skills in a lesson. | 2.50 | 1.11 | Agreed |
2. I insert formative assessment opportunities throughout instruction using oral questioning, short active learning activities, or quizzes. | 2.20 | .94 | Disagreed |
3. I implement a variety of assessment methods to provide students with multiple opportunities to demonstrate proficiency. | 1.78 | .83 | Disagreed |
4. I create objective, effective rubrics to assess written assignments, projects, or presentations of students. | 2.03 | .88 | Disagreed |
Enhance retention and transfer |
1. I avoid isolating course content, rather I associate course concepts with prior (and future) concepts and build upon prior (and preview future) learning to reinforce connections. | 2.39 | 1.10 | Disagreed |
2. I continually incorporate questions from previous tests in subsequent examinations to reinforce course information for students. | 2.37 | 1.02 | Disagreed |
3. I make students convert information learned in one format into another format (e.g. verbal or visuospatial). | 2.30 | .90 | Disagreed |
4. I promote deep learning, clearly articulate lesson goals, and use specific goals to guide instructional design, and align learning activities to lesson goals for students. | 2.53 | .94 | Agreed |
From Table 2, the responses from the pre-service teachers were evaluated in terms of mean scores and standard deviations. The Likert scale was used to gauge the pre-service teachers’ agreement or disagreement with specific teaching strategies. Specific to attention and engagement of students, the pre-service teachers agreed with the practice of starting lessons with attention-grabbing elements, such as surprising events and thought-provoking questions. Additionally, the instructor acknowledged the importance of allowing students to ask and answer questions, thus indicating a commitment to engaging students right from the beginning of the lessons.
In terms of clear communication of objectives, the results revealed a disagreement in the pre-service teachers’ approach to informing students about lesson objectives and performance criteria. The pre-service teachers disagreed with clearly communicating required performance, criteria for standard performance, and the incorporation of course objectives into assessment prompts.Regarding building on prior knowledge, the pre-service teachers disagreed with the practice of teaching by building on students' previous experiences and connecting previous course information to the current topic. This suggests a divergence from strategies aimed at stimulating recall of prior learning as part of the teaching process.With respect to diverse content presentation, the pre-service teachers showed disagreement with using diverse media and active learning strategies to present content. Furthermore, the pre-service teachers did not prioritise making content accessible outside of class. This suggests a preference for more traditional modes of content presentation.
Based on guidance and support of students, the pre-service teachers indicated a lack of emphasis on providing instructional support, modeling learning strategies, and offering examples and non-examples. This suggests a departure from practices that offer guidance and support to enhance student learning.In terms of eliciting performance and practice of students, the pre-service teachers disagreed with facilitating student activities and providing formative assessment opportunities. Moreover, the pre-service teachers did not appear to design effective assessment tools and tests that allow students to showcase their comprehension and application of course concepts.
With respect to feedback and assessment, the pre-service teachers disagreed with various aspects of providing feedback, including guiding students on improvement, providing correct answers, and helping students identify learning gaps. However, the instructor did agree with apprising students of the accuracy of their performance or response.
Regarding enhancing retention and transfer, the pre-service teachers disagreed with strategies aimed at enhancing retention and transfer, such as associating concepts with prior and future learning, incorporating questions from previous tests, and promoting the conversion of information into different formats.
Conclusively, the pre-service teachers’ teaching practices seem to be more aligned with traditional and less student-centered approaches. The findings suggest a lack of emphasis on strategies that promote active engagement, clear communication of objectives, building on prior knowledge, diverse content presentation, guidance and support, eliciting performance through practice, effective feedback, and enhancing retention and transfer. This evaluation provides insights into areas where instructional strategies could be adjusted to better align with student-centered and evidence-based pedagogical approaches.
Gender Difference in Pre-service Teachers’ Use of Gagne Instructional Plan
The current study aimed to investigate the potential differences in the application of Gagne’s nine events of teaching or instruction among pre-service teachers based on their gender. The nine events included gain attention, inform students of the objectives, stimulate recall of prior learning, present the content, provide learning guidance, elicit performance (practice), provide feedback, assess performance, and enhance retention and transfer. Table 3 presents the results.
Table 3
Multivariate Tests for significance difference between pre-service teachers’ use of Gagne Instructional Plan and Gender
Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices |
Box’s M | 126.226 |
F | 2.604 |
df1 | 45 |
df2 | 57871.867 |
Sig. | .000 |
Multivariate Tests |
Effect | Value | F | Hypothesis df | Error df | Sig. | Partial Eta Squared |
Intercept | Pillai’s Trace | .965 | 383.456 | 9.000 | 125.000 | .000 | .965 |
Wilks’ Lambda | .035 | 383.456 | 9.000 | 125.000 | .000 | .965 |
Hotelling’s Trace | 27.609 | 383.456 | 9.000 | 125.000 | .000 | .965 |
Roy’s Largest Root | 27.609 | 383.456 | 9.000 | 125.000 | .000 | .965 |
Gender | Pillai’s Trace | .028 | .398 | 9.000 | 125.000 | .934 | .028 |
Wilks’ Lambda | .972 | .398 | 9.000 | 125.000 | .934 | .028 |
Hotelling’s Trace | .029 | .398 | 9.000 | 125.000 | .934 | .028 |
Roy’s Largest Root | .029 | .398 | 9.000 | 125.000 | .934 | .028 |
From Table 3, The Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices indicated a statistically significant difference between the covariance matrices of the dependent variables based on gender, (Box’s M = 126.226, F = 2.604, df1 = 45, df2 = 57871.867, p < .001). With this, an overall multivariate analysis was conducted to assess the effect of gender on the pre-service teachers application of Gagne’s nine events of teaching or instruction. The Pillai’s Trace statistic was employed as the effect size measure, and the results indicated a significant multivariate effect of gender on the combined dependent variables (V = .965, F = 383.456, df1 = 9, df2 = 125, p < .001, partial η² = .965). This suggests that the gender of pre-service teachers has a substantial influence However, further examination of the individual events within the Gagne Lesson Plan revealed that gender had a minimal effect on pre-service teachers’ application of the events (Pillai’s Trace = .028, F = .398, df1 = 9, df2 = 125, p = .934, partial η² = .028). This implies that there is no significant difference between male and female pre-service teachers in terms of applying these instructional events.
The findings of this study demonstrate a significant multivariate effect of gender on the overall application of Gagne's nine events of teaching or instruction among pre-service teachers. However, when considering each event individually, there is no substantial gender-based difference. This suggests that both male and female pre-service teachers exhibit similar levels of competence in applying these instructional strategies.
Difference in Pre-service Teachers’ Use of Gagne Instructional Plan based on the Level they Teach
The present study sought to examine potential variations in the application of Gagne's nine events of teaching or instruction among pre-service teachers, with a focus on the levels they teach—early grade, upper primary, and junior high. The nine events encompass gain attention, inform students of the objectives, stimulate recall of prior learning, present the content, provide learning guidance, elicit performance (practice), provide feedback, assess performance, and enhance retention and transfer. Table 4 presents the results.
Table 4
Multivariate Tests for significance difference between pre-service teachers’ use of Gagne Lesson Plan and the Levels they Teach (Early Grade, Upper Primary, and Junior High)
Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices |
Box’s M | 182.502 |
F | 1.779 |
df1 | 90 |
df2 | 15187.942 |
Sig. | .000 |
Multivariate Tests |
Effect | Value | F | Hypothesis df | Error df | Sig. | Partial Eta Squared |
Intercept | Pillai’s Trace | .959 | 323.798 | 9.000 | 124.000 | .000 | .959 |
Wilks’ Lambda | .041 | 323.798 | 9.000 | 124.000 | .000 | .959 |
Hotelling’s Trace | 23.501 | 323.798 | 9.000 | 124.000 | .000 | .959 |
Roy’s Largest Root | 23.501 | 323.798 | 9.000 | 124.000 | .000 | .959 |
Level | Pillai’s Trace | .144 | 1.074 | 18.000 | 250.000 | .379 | .072 |
Wilks’ Lambda | .861 | 1.068 | 18.000 | 248.000 | .386 | .072 |
Hotelling’s Trace | .155 | 1.061 | 18.000 | 246.000 | .392 | .072 |
Roy’s Largest Root | .097 | 1.354 | 9.000 | 125.000 | .216 | .089 |
From Table 4, the Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices revealed a statistically significant difference in the covariance matrices of the dependent variables based on the levels pre-service teachers teach (Box’s M = 182.502, F = 1.779, df1 = 90, df2 = 15187.942, p < .001). With this, an overall multivariate analysis was conducted to examine the effect of the levels pre-service teachers teach on their application of Gagne's nine events of teaching or instruction. The Pillai’s Trace statistic was employed as the effect size measure, indicating a significant multivariate effect of the levels taught on the combined dependent variables (V = .959, F = 323.798, df1 = 9, df2 = 124, p < .001, partial η² = .959). This suggests that the levels pre-service teachers teach have a considerable impact on their utilization of the Gagne Lesson Plan components.
However, further exploration of individual events indicated a modest effect of the levels taught on pre-service teachers’ application of the events (Pillai’s Trace = .144, F = 1.074, df1 = 18, df2 = 250, p = .379, partial η² = .072). This implies that there might be some variability in how pre-service teachers from different levels apply these instructional events, although this effect is not statistically significant.