A second apprenticeship of observation: Examining the perceived influence of peer feedback on pre-service teacher development

Abstract

This study examined the perceived influence of peer feedback on pre-service teachers’ (PSTs’) development as teachers. Research has noted the potential benefits of peer feedback, yet little is known about its perceived influence on the development of PSTs in Australian physical education teacher education programmes. Occupational socialisation theory guided the research, which employed a qualitative methodology consisting of an online survey with 52 PSTs, followed by semi-structured interviews with 20 of these participants. Analysis of the PSTs’ reported experiences resulted in the construction of key themes focused on perspective, pedagogy and personal reflection. Findings indicated benefits for PSTs, through both the giving and receiving of peer feedback. The results showed that the peer feedback process was considered important and valued by PSTs. Autonomy and further teaching competence were noted by the participants. From a socialisation standpoint, the peer feedback process should be considered a second apprenticeship of observation that is guided by university espoused pedagogy.

Keywords

Peer feedback physical education pre-service teachers physical education teacher education occupational socialisation theory professional socialisation

Introduction

An integral aim of teacher education programmes is to challenge and develop pre-service teachers’ (PSTs’) deep learning that informs high-quality learning outcomes. Deep learning in PSTs is nurtured through both the observation and enactment of pedagogical approaches that focus on teaching for understanding, enhancing personal understanding, and perceptions of the learning environment (Lynch et al., 2012). Evaluation of these pedagogical approaches observed and practised by PSTs aims to support independent thinking, encourage critical and creative thinking, and shift focus to a deeper approach to learning (Lynch et al., 2012; Mainsbridge et al., 2022). One method to facilitate PSTs’ application of pedagogical knowledge and understanding is through peer assessment (Backman et al., 2024), often referred to as peer feedback or peer review. Peer feedback is a form of peer assessment that involves learners being asked to comment on the performance of fellow learners (Seroussi et al., 2019). Through evaluating the performance of fellow learners, feedback is provided on positive elements of the performance, less than positive elements, and elements that may benefit from change or levels of modification, leading to deep learning rather than relying upon memorisation and recall (Little et al., 2025). Feedback is a key element of student learning, where a student's performance is expected to improve as a result of receiving, understanding and acting on feedback provided (Adcroft, 2011; Cruickshank et al., 2022). In a teacher education context, Wen and Tsai (2008: 56) stated that ‘peer assessment is an effective way to facilitate learning’ and that ‘training in peer assessment can enhance teachers’ ability to design assessments, to communicate with others, and to respect and respond to peers’ opinions in the work field’. Despite these potential benefits, there are few studies specifically focused on peer assessment in physical education teacher education (PETE) programmes.

Some previous research has queried the effectiveness of peer assessment in PETE programmes, reporting that it only supports surface learning and should not replace feedback from the teacher educator (Tait-McCutcheon and Knewstubb, 2018; Patton and Marty-Snyder, 2014). Within a PETE context, recent research by Backman et al. (2024) and Nyberg et al. (2026) identified that peer assessment as an educational method holds learning potential but presents several complex challenges. For example, the interrelationships between PSTs can influence what is communicated and to whom. Against this background, the purpose of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the perceived influence of peer feedback on PSTs’ development as teachers.

Peer feedback

The application of peer feedback has become an increasingly popular feature of teacher education programmes and associated research over the past 15 years. Globally, peer feedback has been used within higher education institutions in Australia, Chile, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Netherlands, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States across learning areas including information technology, literacy, mathematics, religion, science, social studies, and physical education (PE) (Akpinar, 2019; Ayalon and Wilkie, 2021; Cabello and Topping, 2020; Howard et al., 2010; Lee and Choi, 2012; Lynch et al., 2012; Vasquez-Colina et al., 2017; Zwart et al., 2008). Furthermore, Backman et al. (2024) investigated peer assessment in PETE and highlighted activating PSTs as learning resources for one another, along with activating PSTs as owners of their own learning. The dual mechanism of peer feedback being a learning resource for oneself and others facilitates PSTs’ reflection through providing context-specific and structured guidance that enables this to occur.

Reflection, or reflective practice, can be described as an active, deliberative cognitive process that involves a sequence of interconnected ideas including an individual's beliefs and knowledge (Mohamed et al., 2022; Mosston and Ashworth, 2008). Through reflective practice PSTs can identify the factors, assumptions, and consequences that underlie their actions, and cultivate professional competence by rethinking personal strengths, weaknesses, and specific learning needs (Bjorke and Quennerstedt, 2024). The value of reflective practice is evidenced in a Korean study of 10 PE PSTs who engaged in a unit-based microteaching peer feedback process involving reflective journal entries, peer evaluation forms, and participant interviews (Lee and Choi, 2012). The PSTs indicated that peer feedback provided them with structured guidance and multiple perspectives, which helped them engage in holistic reflection on their instructional skills and educational issues more broadly. These outcomes highlight the value of peer feedback in preparing PSTs for the teaching profession, where, ideally, ongoing critical reflection forms part of everyday professional practice.

Peer feedback can be designed to provide viewpoints that resemble professional practice, to involve real-life task performances and to contribute to improving academic skills (Buchanan and Stern, 2012). Experiential learning such as peer teaching, microteaching, work-integrated learning, and school practicum present ideal opportunities for peer feedback as they are active, lived experiences in real time. These pragmatic approaches are framed on the belief that PSTs can be supported in making an effective connection and transition between theory and preparatory practice, leading to meaningful reflection that is grounded in action (Lamb et al., 2012). Across three separate studies conducted in the United Kingdom, peer feedback was adopted within both a buddy peer-review process (Lamb, 2014; Lamb et al., 2012) and a peer-learning process (Lamb, 2015) amongst PE PSTs during school placements. The structure for peer feedback in these studies centred upon PSTs recording each other teaching a PE lesson and immediately afterwards the pair watched the recorded lesson and conducted a joint evaluation.

Several outcomes were yielded from these studies collectively (Lamb, 2014, 2015; Lamb et al., 2012), including positive reinforcement from sharing feedback with a peer, thus providing motivation towards leading teaching experiences and shaping the learning environment. Such an environment was described as safe, relaxed, equal, pedagogic, negotiated, and one that promoted reciprocal support and benefit. Furthermore, PSTs reported being able to create their own rules and methods for implementing peer feedback, highlighting mutually created spaces that were non-judgemental, conversational, and allowed ownership through autonomy. A distinctive finding from Lamb et al. (2012) was that all PSTs (N = 23) made no mention of any factors that impaired personal relations between peers or that prevented them from producing sound judgements of their peers’ performance. Within educational literature related to peer feedback this is not always the case, as often those receiving feedback from a peer hear only the negative aspects, even when the positives may well outweigh them (Buchanan and Stern, 2012; Cabello and Topping, 2020). Such responses can lead to perceptions of biases whereby those receiving feedback from a peer hear only positive or negative feedback and therefore may form their own conclusions about the information provided that may not be accurate or intended.

According to Akpinar (2019) and Seroussi et al. (2019), it is well established that peer feedback contributes to the teaching profession by building PSTs’ skills such as critical, reflective, and creative thinking, self-confidence, motivation, and communicative skills. In addition, participation in peer feedback has the potential to change one's educational outlook (Bores-Garcia et al., 2020) and can contribute to PSTs exhibiting significant improvements in perceived teaching confidence, teaching competence, and teaching self-efficacy (Eather et al., 2017). Nevertheless, Daniel et al. (2013) found that collaboration and engagement with critique of peers presented some initial problems for many first-year PSTs (N = 65), particularly in providing critique of others’ performance of pedagogical skills and techniques. The need for PSTs to feel a sense of belonging and purpose was challenged by their engagement in critique, as they did not want others to see them as critical, indicating that in providing critical feedback they were themselves doing something ‘bad’. Against this background, the aim of the current study was to explore and deepen understanding of the perceived influence of peer feedback on PSTs’ development as teachers.

Theoretical framework

Occupational socialisation theory (OST) was first conceptualised in the field of PE by Hal Lawson (1983a, 1983b). Lortie (1975), Templin (1979) and Zeichner and Tabachnick (1981) were some of the authors who contributed to Lawson's conceptualisation of OST. From that time, scholars have contributed seminal research that has helped the field of education understand how physical educators view and enact the teaching role (Curtner-Smith, 1997; Graber, 1991; Lux and McCullick, 2011; Richards and Gaudreault, 2017; Stroot and Williamson, 1993; Templin and Schempp, 1989). Lawson (1986: 107) described OST as, ‘all the kinds of socialisation that initially influence persons to enter the field of PE and that later are responsible for their perceptions and actions as teacher educators and teachers’. In the original conceptualisation of OST, three phases of life were identified: acculturation (before formal training), professional socialisation (formal training), and organisational socialisation (career). Recent scholarship has expanded OST to examine advanced degrees (secondary professional socialisation) and careers in academia (secondary organisational socialisation) (Brunsdon and Curtner-Smith, 2022). However, the present study focuses on earlier stages of socialisation as the foundation for subsequent development.

The acculturation phase is an accumulation of an individual's experiences prior to formal training in professional socialisation. Lawson (1983a) describes this as a time when recruits develop their beliefs, values, and understanding of societal norms. These values are shaped by interactions with family members, teachers, coaches, and peers, and by observing cultural norms. This foundation of knowledge can highly influence an individual through all phases of socialisation, especially within the apprenticeship of observation (Richards et al., 2014). Lortie (1975) refers to the ‘apprenticeship of observation’ as the experiences of PSTs watching PE teachers and shaping their understanding of the role of a physical educator. Schempp (1989: 35) describes how the experiences of acculturation and the apprenticeship of observation ‘provide a continuing influence over the pedagogical practices and orientations of PE teachers’. While the recruit's theories on PE are the foundation to which all socialisation phases are filtered through (Richards et al., 2014), they can be subjective in nature. The subjective warrant (Lortie, 1975) is developed through the apprenticeship of observation and is described as an individual's notions of the requirements and abilities one needs to become a PE teacher. This is subjective in nature due to the observation of teaching being only limited to the time a recruit spends in class and often being described as an ‘easy’ profession without understanding its complexities (Flemons et al., 2024). What is most troubling about the subjective nature of socialisation is the extent to which acculturation might negatively impact an individual's experiences in formal training. Curtner-Smith et al. (2009: 222) noted that, ‘most pre-service teachers they worked with had experienced poor PE programs and poor PE teachers themselves’.

Professional socialisation is the stage when a recruit enters their formal teacher education programme. During this time, PSTs learn about the espoused pedagogy in the PETE programme through the dialectical process (Schempp and Graber, 1992). When perspectives, founded in acculturation, clash with the espoused pedagogy of PETE, the PSTs are left with changing their perspectives or employing what Graber (1991) calls ‘studentship’. Studentship is described as the act of displaying the approved disposition and pedagogy espoused by the university, while holding an alternative viewpoint unparallel to the institution. Lawson (1983a: 4) describes this relationship as follows: ‘While institutions try to typecast individual actors and actions, people also try to transform institutions. This suggests a social tug of war between institutions and people; each has the capacity to shape the other’. Despite this clash, several studies suggest that PETE has the capabilities of fostering innovative perspectives in PSTs (Curtner-Smith et al., 2009; Graber, 1996). Due to the possible unfavourable experiences in the apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975) and field experiences, PSTs should experience guided observations or apprenticeship-like examinations of teaching that might help disrupt unfavourable experiences during acculturation. Researchers agree that providing PSTs with the opportunity to deliver feedback to peers can be ‘educationally worthwhile’ (Nyberg et al., 2026). These guided experiences might help ‘un-wash’ curriculum and orientations towards PE that clash with or oppose the espoused pedagogy of an institution.

The transition between occupational stages can come with a collision of ideology learned in acculturation (apprenticeship of observation/subjective warrant) challenging the espoused pedagogy within professional socialisation (McEntyre and Richards, 2023; Richards and Gaudreault, 2017). The rationale to utilise OST in this study was derived from the idea of providing PSTs with a second apprenticeship of observation (SAO). The first apprenticeship of observation is unguided within acculturation and can lead to subjective (warrant) theories about the profession of PE. Curtner-Smith (2017) acknowledges that despite having been drawn to the profession, many recruits’ experiences in K-12 PE are not high quality. The idea of the SAO gives students a scaffolded opportunity to observe a classmate or cooperating teacher teaching. Furthermore, peers who have an opportunity to reflect together about proper pedagogy post teaching episode, may have a better chance of updating their warrant. The significance of this study is the SAO and the perceived influence of peer feedback being examined in relation to pedagogical practice and development rather than in specific alignment with assessment.

Methods

Before data collection, this study was approved by the Tasmanian Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval No: H23445). All participants provided informed consent before they began the online survey and before their online interview. A qualitative research design was adopted, consisting of an online survey followed by semi-structured interviews. This approach was employed to obtain the opinions of a larger group of participants through the surveys, before they were elaborated on and more fully explained during the interview phase.

Participants

PSTs studying at a regional Australian university completed a PE pedagogy subject with a peer feedback component in the second year of their four-year undergraduate PETE degree. This subject includes scaffolded opportunities to teach small groups of peers, and role modelling of both positive and constructive feedback on PSTs’ teaching during these opportunities. In the last three weeks of the 13-week semester, PSTs are given the opportunity to teach classes of local school students. These sessions occur on campus during university tutorials and involve multiple primary school classes being taught by PSTs each day. These opportunities are additional to the field experiences in schools that PSTs are required to do throughout their four-year degree. A key component of this experience is that PSTs’ teaching is reviewed by some of their peers who are not teaching at that time. Peer reviewers are specifically allocated to mix friendship groups. They are required to complete a written feedback template while watching their peers teach and then have conversations after the session that include giving and justifying their feedback about their peers’ teaching. All PSTs are given two opportunities to teach a lesson and be peer reviewed (by different peers), and two opportunities to review their (two different) peers’ teaching and give feedback. Subject staff also provide group feedback to all PSTs via email at the end of each teaching day that is not specifically targeted at any one PST.

PSTs complete an end-of-semester evaluation survey that contains questions about their experiences of the peer feedback process. Survey responses in previous years have indicated that PSTs do see benefits in being involved in the peer feedback process; however, the short survey does not allow for in-depth responses or follow-up questions to probe for more information and more specific examples. Consequently, in 2024, the research team extended the end-of-semester evaluation by adding interviews to gain a better understanding of PSTs’ experiences with, and perceptions of, the peer feedback process in their second-year subject.

All second-year PSTs were contacted via email and invited to participate in the study. They were informed that participation was completely voluntary and would not affect their mark for the subject in any way. Fifty-two PSTs (20 female, 32 male) completed the end-of-semester evaluation survey. Twenty of these PSTs (two female, 18 male) also volunteered to participate in the interview phase of this study, following the completion of the semester.

Procedures

Data was collected by a member of the research team (Author 3) who taught at a different university and had no direct knowledge of, or involvement with, the participants or the peer-review process. This approach was adopted to limit the possibility of researcher bias and persuasion from the perspective of one research team member (Author 1) also being a lecturer at the study site. Survey links were emailed to second-year PSTs at the end of the semester (end of May). PSTs had a two-week window in which they could complete the survey, which contained a second link where they could volunteer to participate in the interviews. This survey contained five open-ended questions about PSTs’ experiences during the teaching sessions with local school children. These questions were predominantly focused on the feedback they gave peers and received from peers, and the changes they made to their teaching based on this feedback. For example, ‘What did you learn from reviewing your peers’ teaching?’, ‘What feedback did your peers give you about your teaching?’ and ‘Did this feedback influence your teaching? How?’ Participants took on average 5.22 minutes (SD 1.60) to complete the survey.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in July on Microsoft Teams.

Interview questions included all the survey questions, as well as numerous follow-up questions that were designed to gain more specific examples and in-depth insights about PSTs’ experiences with and perceptions of the peer feedback process. Additionally, participants were asked questions about their experiences as school PE students and the teaching approaches and pedagogies their teachers had used. Interviews ran for an average of 32.31 minutes (SD = 10.13). They were audio recorded and transcribed by the research team before being sent to participants to check. Member checking (Berger, 2015) allowed participants to edit information and add explanatory content to ensure the transcripts accurately represented their views.

Data analysis

The qualitative data were interpretively analysed, recognising that individual PSTs will have different experiences with, and perceptions of, the peer feedback process. Thematic analysis was undertaken first by Author 1, who completed initial readings of all transcripts and questionnaire responses to develop a better understanding of the data. After preliminary readings, Author 1 reviewed the dataset again and engaged in open and axial coding. Codes were then grouped together into draft themes before the other members of the author team reviewed and provided feedback on the codes and their interrelations during reflexive peer debriefing (Richards and Hemphill, 2018). We were conscious of maintaining a reflexive perspective (Roulston, 2010) throughout data analysis as we all have personal experiences of teaching PE in school settings that may have influenced our interpretation and consequently our findings. Peer debriefing was a key strategy for identifying, interrogating and reflecting on our assumptions during the analysis process. The themes were reviewed and refined across multiple online meetings and email exchanges as we developed our understandings of the PSTs’ experiences and perceptions of the peer feedback process. Indicative quotes are presented in the findings section below. These examples have been chosen for brevity; however, other participants provided similar responses. Interview participants were provided with pseudonyms, whereas anonymous survey participants were allocated a number. The anonymity of the survey data meant that interview participants could not be associated with the survey responses.

Findings

Before detailing the main themes identified in the peer feedback-focused data, it is important to acknowledge the perceived influence of acculturation and present data on the PSTs’ experiences and beliefs regarding PE gained from their ‘apprenticeship of observation’ during their time as school students. The PSTs indicated that their school PE teachers had predominantly used a traditional teacher-centred approach during their school PE lessons. Comments such as ‘warm-up, skills and drills, followed by a game’ (Chris, Rikki) were common. Participants stated that content had progressed from a ‘skill development’ (Zane) focus in primary school to a ‘fitness’ (Rikki) and ‘sport’ (Bella, John, Tom) focus in high school. Some PSTs also recalled that activities such as dodgeball and flags were undertaken multiple times a year, and that this repetition resulted in ‘low participation’ (Bella, Parker) of students less interested in PE.

Regarding their school PE teachers, participants recalled that they were positive, easy going and approachable (Flynn, Rikki, Riley), but also had clear expectations. PSTs recalled that many of these teachers prioritised engaging all students and ensuring they were active during activities (John, Rikki, Will). As numerous participants regarded their school PE teachers as role models (e.g. John, Lance, Parker), this ‘apprenticeship’ is likely to have influenced their engagement in the peer feedback process. Participants showed awareness of this influence through comments such as ‘I think what I learned when I was at school greatly impacts and influences the way that I see myself as being a PE teacher’ (Flynn). Other participants (e.g. Bella, Graeme, Shannon) also noted that what they had learned during their university classes had made them reflect on their school PE teachers with ‘new eyes’ because of the different teaching approaches and theoretical perspectives they had been taught. They stated that they were now approaching their teaching with a more ‘analytical kind of view’ (Riley) that focused on why and how things are done (John), in contrast to the more simplistic expectations of having fun and being active that they said they brought to their high school PE classes as students.

Regarding the peer feedback process, PSTs stated that it positively influenced their development as teachers. For example, participants said it was ‘really useful receiving feedback from multiple people’ (Will) and ‘really beneficial’ (Bella). Participants such as Graeme valued the immediacy of feedback straight after their class when the lesson was fresh in their minds. Similarly, Parker saw benefits in receiving feedback from peers who had been learning together and could comment on aspects of each other's teaching that they knew were still being developed and refined. While PSTs certainly believed receiving feedback could improve their teaching practice (Chris, Shannon), they saw many benefits to giving feedback as well. Additionally, participants stated that they enjoyed the opportunity to gain experience teaching children before going on field experience in schools (Kim, Rikki). Participant data are now presented in themes titled perspective, pedagogy and personal reflection. These three data-driven themes are intended to detail how the peer feedback process contributed to PSTs’ socialisation and development as teachers.

Perspective

PSTs greatly valued the different perspectives and previous experiences their peers brought to the peer feedback process. Shannon said, ‘to have those different perspectives from your peers, they inevitably find with their experiences something that you didn't see, so it's really good’. In addition to the potential for peers to bring different perspectives because of their previous acculturation experiences, PSTs also noted the benefits of peer reviewers being able to observe their lessons from a different viewpoint in the gymnasium. For example, ‘having some extra peer feedback that I couldn't see from a first-person perspective was quite interesting’ (Flynn).

Many comments focused on the value of having different perspectives on lessons that came from the viewpoint of the peer reviewer rather than the teacher. Many PSTs stated that being the peer reviewer had allowed them to see different aspects of the lesson that they would not have noticed if they had been busy teaching. For example:

You could see little things from the sideline more than what you would notice while teaching. I noticed the impact of compliments to students once the compliment was given and teacher moved away. These compliments affected how the student then participated. (Survey Participant 6 (SP6))

You can see things behind the teachers’ backs, students may be doing the wrong thing, you can see time on task, enthusiasm of students and teachers, and some kids need more feedback. (SP10)

You are able to see things that you wouldn’t see as a teacher, like students at the back of a group talking and not listening to discussions, behaviour management strategies that you may not think of. (SP26)

Reviewers incorporated these observations into the feedback they gave their peers about their lesson. Data indicated that PSTs had taken the feedback they received and integrated it into their own teaching pedagogy for their second lesson.

Pedagogy

Participants could recall the conversations they had with their peer reviewers and the influence that this feedback, both positive and constructive, had on the planning for and teaching of their lessons. Some specific examples of feedback PSTs received from their reviewers included strategies to improve behaviour management (Lance), teacher positioning (SP42), and clarity of instructions (SP4), as well as the importance of building relationships with students during the lesson rather than just trying to ‘cram in’ too many activities (Jay). While no participants indicated they were uncomfortable with the feedback they received, a small number of participants (John, Tom) noted that the usefulness of the feedback was dependent on the specific peer giving it. John stated that while the feedback he received was helpful, it was a bit broad, and he preferred the more specific feedback he received from staff who had ‘already done the work’ and he therefore perceived as more knowledgeable.

While peer feedback was perceived as beneficial to the PSTs teaching the lesson, it was clear that reviewers also incorporated their observations into their own pedagogy. Will stated, ‘I really enjoyed seeing how other people teach and taking parts from each person to implement in my own teaching’. Zane made similar comments: ‘being able to watch others teach and pick up things that they do that you can give them feedback on and then you can bring it into your own teaching. I found that very valuable’. Some explicit examples of reviewer observations that influenced their own teaching included: ‘the impact body language has on student engagement’ (SP11), ‘the effect of equipment control on overall class experience’ (SP16), and ‘the importance of making sure all students were listening before giving instructions’ (SP32). Participants such as SP31 noted that observations of both successful and less successful lessons resulted in them adapting their lesson planning and teaching pedagogy, ‘due to seeing another group doing it in a more successful way or changing something in my lesson due to seeing how negatively it may have impacted another lesson’. This application of feedback was perceived to have improved the quality of teaching across the lessons with local school children.

Personal reflection

Being involved in the peer feedback process resulted in PSTs critically reflecting on their own teaching and their own beliefs about what ‘good’ PE teaching looked like. The requirement to give both written and verbal feedback encouraged more in-depth conversations with their peers. Knowing they would be discussing and justifying their feedback caused reviewers to think about why they had given specific feedback and how they would have done things differently if they had been the teacher:

I think you gained quite a lot from trying to give feedback, nearly more than from getting feedback from others. When you actually try to give feedback to people it gets you thinking a bit more on how you want to approach teaching and gets you to analyse how you want to go about it. (Riley)

Having to justify my peer feedback made me think more about why I wrote it and if I did the same things (good and bad) in my lesson. We had some good peer discussions about my feedback and ideas for ways things could be improved in the future which were much better when we had a real lesson fresh in our minds. (SP27)

PSTs expected to benefit from peer feedback on their teaching, but many participants appeared surprised at the amount of learning and personal reflection they did while reviewing and giving feedback. SP40's comment that ‘you don’t realise how much you take in when just observing and seeing things in a different way to when you are teaching’ was reflective of many other participant responses.

Reviewing their peers’ teaching placed PSTs in the position of evaluators/assessors of teaching practice. Although positive and constructive feedback was role modelled and practised throughout the semester, some PSTs were still initially uncomfortable with being placed in the position of reviewer. Rikki recalled that ‘everyone was so nervous to give each other feedback because no one wanted to be nasty’, and Bella said she ‘felt bad giving feedback’. Other participants such as Charlie believed some of his peers were reluctant to make judgements on other people's teaching when they were still developing their own teaching pedagogy. However, after participating in the peer feedback process, PSTs stated that they were much more comfortable giving feedback and wanted to ‘help my peers be better’ (Rikki). Participants such as SP4, SP30 and SP52 said that learning how to give and use constructive feedback effectively had been a key outcome of the class for them.

Discussion

The aim of this article was to gain a deeper understanding of the perceived influence of peer feedback on PSTs’ development as teachers and to examine the idea of an SAO. Analysis of our data indicated a predominantly positive influence, as well as evidence of the continuing impact of PSTs’ acculturation experiences on their development as PE teachers.

Participants stated that their school PE teachers had predominantly taught them via traditional teacher-centred approaches. This finding is unsurprising, as research (e.g. Cruickshank et al., 2025; Pill et al., 2023) has found that many Australian PE teachers prefer to use traditional teacher-centred approaches to teaching PE that primarily focus on the development of correct techniques. Their lessons are usually structured around a warm-up, skills and drills, followed by a game. Many PE teachers internationally have the same preference (e.g. Beni et al., 2022; Killian et al., 2022). As numerous participants regarded their school PE teachers as role models, it is likely that their acculturation experiences and their first apprenticeship of observation continued to influence their teaching beliefs during their professional socialisation at university (Curtner-Smith et al., 2009). Shannon's comment about his peers seeing different things because of their previous different experiences does not specifically use the word ‘acculturation’; however, it does infer that the different experiences his peers had before they arrived in the subject may have affected the feedback they gave. Data indicated that peer feedback was likely to have a higher focus on elements such as school student engagement because of their acculturation experiences. Research (e.g. Cruickshank et al., 2021; Sliwa et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2024) has identified student engagement as a problem for PE teachers, as some students do not connect with or enjoy PE content, which can affect their effort and behaviour. PSTs being given feedback on the engagement of students in their classes, and suggestions for improving it, is likely to positively influence their development as teachers. Furthermore, discussions about student engagement could be coupled with lessons at the universities focused on management, transitions, and academic learning time.

Activating PSTs as learning resources for one another can enhance their learning (Sambell et al., 2012; Wiliam, 2011). Aligning with findings from studies such as Holt et al. (2012) and Eather et al. (2017), participants valued the feedback they received from peers immediately after the lesson, and recognised it was delivered as a genuine attempt to help them improve their teaching. PSTs also recognised the benefits of the different perspectives their peers brought to their feedback, such as different teaching beliefs and viewing the lesson from a different physical location in the gymnasium. Although professional socialisation has been described as the ‘least’ potent stage of socialisation (Richards et al., 2014), the positive findings of this study suggest that university supervisors should consider providing PSTs with opportunities for peer review. To reiterate, it is the authors’ hope that by providing an opportunity for an SAO, PSTs will be more likely to update their subjective warrants developed in acculturation.

While receiving feedback can improve teaching practice, many participants also saw many benefits to giving feedback as well. This finding aligns with previous research (e.g. Backman et al., 2024, Chng and Lund, 2018; Lamb, 2014) which has also acknowledged the potential positives of the peer feedback process for both the PSTs giving feedback and the PSTs receiving it. This dual role as givers and receivers of feedback may have enhanced PSTs’ reflective practice and pedagogical skills in areas such as class management and clarity of instructions. It may have also contributed to a spiralling (Carless, 2019) pedagogical awareness within the PETE cohort. For example, PSTs receiving feedback about a successful strategy for engaging students said they were more aware of, and focused on, that strategy in the next lesson they were reviewing. This enhanced awareness increased the likelihood of that strategy being discussed in post session feedback conversations with other peers, who may then also become more focused on it during their subsequent teaching and reviewing. From a socialisation standpoint, this peer feedback process could act as an SAO (Lortie, 1975) and provide an opportunity to break down undesirable pedagogy learned in acculturation. Peer feedback is important for giving students a voice for peer-to-peer reflection without staff present. This gives them an opportunity to have autonomy and freedom to explore how they are applying pedagogy learned at the university. Moreover, this approach maintains accountability while minimising traditional teacher–student ‘studentship’ (Graber, 1991) and promoting the development of less subjective warrants. In line with Eather et al. (2017), multiple teaching opportunities enabled PSTs to apply peer feedback to enhance subsequent lessons.

Some participants in this study experienced the ‘tension’ that previous research (e.g. Kilic, 2016; Wen and Tsai, 2008) has noted PSTs can experience when giving feedback to their peers. This finding highlights the need for supportive environments that encourage honest critique (Brookfield, 1995). Despite some initial discomfort, PSTs reported they became more comfortable providing feedback as the sessions progressed and recognised its value for their professional growth. This also highlights the need to provide PSTs with practice trials within professional socialisation. For instance, within the second year of a PST’s degree, staff could initiate lessons at the university where students can only give positive feedback while observing a peer's lesson. Discussions would need to continue about how to provide more critical feedback and the need to support classmates while they refine their teaching practices.

While no participants indicated they were uncomfortable with the feedback they received, John's comments around the broad and unspecific nature of his peer feedback provide some support for Tait-McCutcheon and Knewstubb's (2018) claim that peer feedback only supports surface learning. Patton and Marty-Snyder (2014) similarly stated that peer feedback should not replace feedback from the teacher educator. Subject staff were aware of the limitations of peer feedback (Kilic, 2016; Wen and Tsai, 2008) and provided feedback to PSTs alongside the feedback they received from their peers. Despite these potential shortcomings, Patton and Marty-Snyder (2014: 30) described peer feedback as a ‘pedagogically sound method to help PSTs gain assessment skills and receive more feedback on their teaching skills’. It is important for PETE providers to develop their PSTs’ abilities to evaluate good teaching practice. Zeichner and Liston (1987) asserted that the ability to think about why and what one does is vital to intelligent teaching practice. Similarly, Eather et al. (2017) stated that engaging PSTs in peer feedback processes could benefit their future teaching, increase their capacity for evaluating and reflecting on their own work, and make them more committed to ongoing learning. Developing these traits could have a positive influence on the learning and engagement of children in their future PE classes.

Limitations

The PETE student cohort at the university in this study is approximately two-thirds male. While the survey respondents in this study are reflective of this ratio, the interview participants are not. Future PETE research should endeavour to include the opinions of more female PSTs. Increasing participant numbers could also involve including more experienced PSTs from later in their degree. The inclusion of PSTs who have had more teaching experiences might allow for insights from participants who have had more peer feedback opportunities in university classes and school field experience contexts. Future studies could also consider observing PSTs’ teaching practices to add further insights.

Conclusion

PSTs in this study perceived that engaging in the peer feedback process was beneficial for their development as teachers. Participants’ development was positively contributed to by both giving and receiving peer feedback that encouraged critical reflection on their current pedagogy and the perceived influence of their acculturation experiences. They stated that their involvement in the peer feedback process in this subject had helped them develop a more analytical lens to view PE, which demonstrated development beyond their approach to school PE classes as students.

To facilitate deeper learning through peer feedback, incorporating the seven recommendations of reflective practice proposed by Bjorke and Quennerstedt (2024) offers a strategic approach to situate PSTs within structured, collaborative learning contexts. Such practice promotes reflection on assumptions and consequences that underlie PSTs’ actions, thus cultivating professional competence by rethinking personal strengths, weaknesses, and specific learning needs during professional socialisation. Consideration should also be given to who the PSTs are observing. It is the authors’ suggestion that PSTs have their SAO with peers, a newly inducted teacher, and a veteran teacher. This approach would give PSTs the ability to visually scaffold the trajectory of their career and development. Additionally, if embedded within PETE programmes, the SAO may contribute to greater wash-in (retention) and continued use of peer feedback and reflective practice throughout organisational socialisation.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Vaughan Cruickshank

Ethical approval and informed consent statement

Before data collection, this study was approved by the Tasmanian Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval No. H23445). All participants provided informed consent before they began the online survey and before their online interview.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Vaughan Cruickshank is a former health and PE teacher who is currently a Senior Lecturer in health and PE at the University of Tasmania, Australia.

Chris Mellor is a Visiting Instructor in health, PE and sport sciences at Arkansas State University, USA.

Casey Mainsbridge is currently a Senior Lecturer in health and PE at the University of New England, Australia. He is also a fitness instructor and a former primary school health and PE teacher.

References

Adcroft

(2011) The mythology of feedback. Higher Education Research & Development 30(4): 405–419.

Akpinar

(2019) The effect of peer assessment on pre-service teachers’ teaching practices. Education and Science 44(200): 269–290.

Ayalon

Wilkie

(2021) Investigating peer-assessment strategies for mathematics pre-service teacher learning on formative assessment. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 24(4): 399–426.

Backman

Quennerstedt

Tolgfors

, et al. (2024) Peer assessment in physical education teacher education: A complex process making social and physical capital visible. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education 15(3): 274–288.

Beni

Fletcher

Chróinín

(2022) ‘It’s not a linear thing; there are a lot of intersecting circles’: Factors influencing teachers’ implementation of meaningful physical education. Teaching and Teacher Education 117: 103806.

Berger

(2015) Now I see, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research 15(2): 219–234.

Bjørke

Quennerstedt

(2024) Exploring student reflection in physical education practice. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2024.2438057.

Bores-Garcia

Hortiguela-Alcala

Gonzalez-Calvo

, et al. (2020) Peer assessment in physical education: A systematic review of the last five years. Sustainability 12(21): 9233.

Brookfield

(1995) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass.

10.

Brunsdon

Curtner-Smith

(2022) “I hate that education is a business”: Influence of occupational socialization on sport pedagogy doctoral students’ intended PETE programs. European Physical Education Review 28(4): 923–941.

11.

Buchanan

Stern

(2012) Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the benefits peer review. Journal of Education for Teaching 38(1): 37–49.

12.

Cabello

Topping

(2020) Pre-service teachers’ conceptions about the quality of explanations for the science classroom in the context of peer assessment. International Journal of Math, Science and Technology Education 8(1): 297–318.

13.

Carless

(2019) Feedback loops and the longer-term: Towards feedback spirals. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44(5): 705–714.

14.

Chng

Lund

(2018) Assessment for learning in physical education: The what, why and how. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 89(8): 29–34.

15.

Cruickshank

Hyndman

Patterson

, et al. (2021) Encounters in a marginalised subject: The experiential challenges faced by Tasmanian health and physical education teachers. Australian Journal of Education 65(1): 24–40.

16.

Cruickshank

Mellor

Mainsbridge

(2025) Wash in, but: The influence of contextual factors on preservice teachers’ use of the game sense approach during field experiences. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 1(aop): 1–9.

17.

Cruickshank

Pill

Mainsbridge

(2022) The curriculum took a back seat to huff and puff: Teaching high school health and physical education during COVID-19. European Physical Education Review 28(4): 837–851.

18.

Curtner-Smith

(1997) The impact of biography, teacher education, and organizational socialization on the perspectives and practices of first-year physical education teachers: Case studies of recruits with coaching orientations. Sport, Education and Society 2(1): 73–94.

19.

Curtner-Smith

(2009) Breaking the cycle of non-teaching physical education teachers: Lessons to be learned from the occupational socialization literature. In: Housner

Metzler

Schempp

(eds) Historic Traditions and Future Directions of Research on Teaching and Teacher Education in Physical Education. Morgantown: Fitness Information Technology, 221–225.

20.

Curtner-Smith

(2017) Acculturation, recruitment, and the development of orientations. In: Richards

KAR

Gaudreault

(eds) Teacher Socialization in Physical Education: New Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 33–46.

21.

Daniel

Auhl

Hastings

(2013) Collaborative feedback and reflection for professional growth: Preparing first-year pre-service teachers for participation in the community of practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 41(2): 159–172.

22.

Eather

Riley

Miller

, et al. (2017) Evaluating the effectiveness of using peer-dialogue assessment (PDA) for improving pre-service teachers’ perceived confidence and competence to teach physical education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 42(1): 69–83. 10.14221/ajte.2017v42n1.5.

23.

Flemons

Hill

O’Donovan

, et al. (2024) Recycling and resistance to change in physical education: The informal recruitment of physical education teachers in schools. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 43(1): 21–30.

24.

Graber

(1991) Studentship in preservice teacher education: A qualitative study of undergraduates in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 62(1): 41–51.

25.

Graber

(1996) Influencing student beliefs: The design of a “high impact” teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education 12(5): 451–466.

26.

Holt

Kinchin

Clarke

(2012) Effects of peer-assessed feedback, goal setting and a group contingency on performance and learning by 10–12-year-old academy soccer players. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 17(3): 231–250.

27.

Howard

Barrett

Frick

(2010) Anonymity to promote peer feedback: Pre-service teachers’ comments in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Journal of Educational Computing Research 43(1): 89–112.

28.

Kilic

(2016) An examination of using self-, peer-, and teacher-assessment in higher education: A case study in teacher education. Higher Education Studies 6(1): 136–144.

29.

Killian

Espinoza

Webster

, et al. (2022) Flipping the script: An initial exploration of flipped learning as an enhanced alternative to traditional physical education lessons. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(22): 15188.

30.

Lamb

(2014) A training buddy peer-review process within physical education initial teacher education. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies 3(1): 78–79.

31.

Lamb

(2015) Peer-learning between pre-service teachers: Embracing lesson study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies 4(4): 343–361.

32.

Lamb

Lane

Aldous

(2012) Enhancing the spaces of reflection: A buddy peer-review process within physical education initial teacher education. European Physical Education Review 19(1): 21–38.

33.

Lawson

(1983a) Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: Entry into schools, teachers’ role orientations, and longevity in teaching (part 2). Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 3(1): 3–15.

34.

Lawson

(1983b) Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: The subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education (part 1). Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 2(3): 3–16.

35.

Lawson

(1986) Occupational socialization and the design of teacher education programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 5(2): 107–116.

36.

Lee

Choi

(2012) Utilizing peer coaching to facilitate pre-service physical education teachers’ reflection. Asia-Pacific Education Research 22(2): 147–154.

37.

Little

Dawson

Boud

, et al. (2025) What does it take to provide effective peer feedback? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 50(5): 775–786.

38.

Lortie

(1975) Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

39.

Lux

McCullick

(2011) How one exceptional teacher navigated her working environment as the teacher of a marginal subject. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 30(4): 358–374.

40.

Lynch

Mannix

Seery

(2012) Promoting deep learning in a teacher education programme through self-and peer-assessment and feedback. European Journal of Teacher Education 35(2): 179–197.

41.

Mainsbridge

Cruickshank

Patterson

, et al. (2022) Perceived value of work-integrated learning on the teaching efficacy and classroom management of pre-service teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 47(11): 88–102.

42.

McEntyre

Richards

(2023) Implementing lessons learned through occupational socialization theory to influence preservice teachers’ subjective theories. Sport, Education and Society 28(2): 213–225.

43.

Mohamed

Rashid

Alqaryouti

(2022) Conceptualizing the complexity of reflective practice in education. Frontiers 13(1): 1–8.

44.

Mosston

Ashworth

(2008) Teaching physical education (1st online edition). Available at: www.spectrumofteachingstyles.org/ (accessed 5 May 2025).

45.

Nyberg

Quennerstedt

Tolgfors

, et al (2026) Physical education teachers’ experiences of the meaning of feedback in PE. European Physical Education Review 32(3): 239–256. 10.1177/1356336X251340248.

46.

Patton

Marty-Snyder

(2014) Practical applications for using peer assessment in physical education teacher education field experiences. Strategies 27(6): 25–31.

47.

Pill

Penney

Williams

, et al. (2023) A figurational perspective on the influence of the sport education model in Australia. Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich ) 75(1): 50–62.

48.

Richards

Gaudreault

(eds) (2017) Teacher Socialization in Physical Education: New Perspectives. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

49.

Richards

Hemphill

(2018) A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 37(2): 225–231.

50.

Richards

Templin

Graber

(2014) The socialization of teachers in physical education: Review and recommendations for future works. Kinesiology Review 3(2): 113–134.

51.

Roulston

(2010) Reflective Interviewing: A Guide to Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

52.

Sambell

McDowell

Montgomery

(2012) Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. Milton: Taylor and Francis.

53.

Schempp

(1989) Apprenticeship-of-observation and the development of physical education teachers. In: Templin

Schempp

(eds) Socialization into Physical Education: Learning to Teach. Indianapolis: Benchmark Press, pp. 13–38.

54.

Schempp

Graber

(1992) Teacher socialization from a dialectical perspective: Pretraining through induction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 11(4): 329–348.

55.

Seroussi

D-E

Sharon

Peled

, et al. (2019) Reflections on peer feedback in disciplinary courses as a tool in pre-service teacher training. Cambridge Journal of Education 49(5): 655–671.

56.

Sliwa

Nihiser

Lee

, et al. (2017) Engaging students in physical education: Key challenges and opportunities for physical educators in urban settings. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 88(3): 43–48.

57.

Stroot

Williamson

(1993) Issues and themes of socialization into physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 12(4): 337–343.

58.

Tait-McCutcheon

Knewstubb

(2018) Evaluating the alignment of self, peer and lecture assessment in an Aotearoa New Zealand pre-service teacher education course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43(5): 772–785.

59.

Templin

(1979) Occupational socialization and the physical education student teacher. Research Quarterly. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 50(3): 482–493.

60.

Templin

Schempp

(eds) (1989) Socialization into Physical Education: Learning to Teach. New Rochelle: Benchmark.

61.

Vasquez-Colina

Robin Russo

Lieberman

, et al. (2017) A case study of using peer feedback in face-to-face and distance learning classes among pre-service teachers. Journal of Further and Higher Education 41(4): 504–515.

62.

Wen

Tsai

(2008) Online peer assessment in an in-service science and mathematics teacher education course. Teaching in Higher Education 13(1): 55–67.

63.

Wiliam

(2011) What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation 37(1): 3–14.

64.

Williams

Hughes

Velija

, et al. (2024) A systematic review of figurational sociology within physical education research. Sport, Education and Society: 1–17. 10.1080/13573322.2024.2440890.

65.

Zeichner

Liston

(1987) Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review 57(1): 23–48.

66.

Zeichner

Tabachnick

(1981) Are the effects of university teacher education ‘washed out’ by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education 32(3): 7–11.

67.

Zwart

Wubbels

Bolhuis

, et al. (2008) Teacher learning through reciprocal peer coaching: An analysis of activity sequences. Teaching and Teacher Education 24(4): 982–1002.