Instr Sci DOI 10.1007/s11251-013-9281-6
Understanding video as a tool for teacher education: investigating instructional strategies to promote reflection Geraldine Blomberg • Miriam Gamoran Sherin • Alexander Renkl Inga Glogger • Tina Seidel
•
Received: 19 May 2011 / Accepted: 22 May 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract There is a general consensus among researchers and teacher educators that classroom video can be a valuable tool for pre-service teacher education. Media such as video are not, however, in themselves effective. They have to be embedded in an instructional program to be useful. Yet, little empirical research examines how specific instructional approaches might effectively exploit the potential of video in teacher education. In this study we explored the use of two video-based university courses, one representing a cognitive instructional strategy integrating video, the other representing a situative strategy. Using data from learning journals we analyzed the effects of the two strategies on pre-service teachers’ (N = 28) ability to reflect on classroom video. We found that the two strategies have distinct impacts on the kinds of reflection patterns that are fostered. Our findings suggest that the learning goal and purpose at hand should determine which instructional strategy should be employed when embedding classroom video into teacher education courses. Keywords Teacher education Classroom video Instructional design Reflection skills Learning journals
G. Blomberg (&) T. Seidel TUM School of Education, Technische Universita¨t Mu¨nchen, Schellingstr. 33, 80799 Munich, Germany e-mail:
[email protected] M. G. Sherin School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, 2120 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208-0001, USA A. Renkl I. Glogger Department of Psychology, Educational and Developmental Psychology, University of Freiburg, Engelbergerstr. 41, 79085 Freiburg, Germany
123
G. Blomberg et al.
Introduction There is a general consensus among researchers and teacher educators that video can be a valuable tool for supporting teacher learning (Brophy 2004; Darling-Hammond 2006; Goldman et al. 2007). Video conveys the complexity and subtlety of classroom teaching as it occurs in real time, with a richness and immediacy that written descriptions or transcripts cannot achieve (Brophy 2004; Goldman et al. 2007). Video can be thought of as a secondhand experience of teaching (Miller and Zhou 2007), allowing one to be immersed in a classroom without the pressure of having to interact (Sherin 2004). These features of video are thought to be particularly useful when considering the preparation of pre-service teachers. Specifically, video can serve as a necessary bridge between theory and practice (Gomez et al. 2008). First, video clips can be used to illustrate particular theories of teaching and learning. Thereby, they can help pre-service teachers acquire well-grounded theoretical knowledge (Darling-Hammond and Bransford 2005; Koster et al. 2005). Second, video offers pre-service teachers opportunities to apply their theoretical knowledge in making sense of classroom practice (Borko et al. 2008; Koc 2011). In fact, when different theories are applied to the same video clip, pre-service teachers can experience the complexity of interpreting classroom interactions. In addition to supporting the link between theory and practice, video typically provides the opportunity for pre-service teachers to observe a wider range of teaching practices than would be possible through live observations alone (Bayram 2012). Thus, video can be a valuable proxy for experiencing diverse teaching styles and student populations. This can help orient pre-service teachers as they develop a concrete idea of what teaching entails (Brouwer 2007). Despite the potential of video, little research has investigated the use of specific pedagogical approaches involving video. This is particularly important given claims that media such as video should be regarded as neutral in character until they are embedded in an instructional program (Clark 1994). Research emphasizes that video is a tool which is defined by the way that it is used (Seago 2004). Similarly, Brophy (2004) describes video as a technology for delivering content, and not as a body of content in and of itself. Some researchers emphasize that video must be used with a clear purpose in mind in order to support learning (Seidel et al. 2005; van Es 2009). In a nutshell, video will only reach its full potential in well-conceptualized learning environments (Krammer et al. 2006). It is, however, an open question which instructional strategies best exploit the potential of video. The current study explores the influence of two pedagogies. Specifically, we examine how video-based university courses which emphasize either situative or cognitive learning principles affect pre-service teachers’ ability to reflect on classroom events. The ability to reflect substantively on classroom events is one of the most commonly targeted skills of video-based (pre-service) teacher education (Borko et al. 2008; Koc 2011; Santagata and Guarino 2011; Sherin and van Es 2009; van Es and Sherin, 2002). Additionally, prior research suggests that both situative and cognitive principles align with the use of video for fostering pre-service teacher learning since they recognize the value of working with authentic, real world scenarios (Gruber et al. 1995; van Merrie¨nboer et al. 2002). In what follows, we first outline the theoretical argument for choosing reflection skills as the dependent variable. Next, we review the two instructional strategies used in this study, highlighting the specific ways they might contribute to video-based learning.
123
Understanding video as a tool for teacher education
Pre-service teachers’ skills in reflecting about classroom events For this study, the ability to reflect on classroom events was selected as the central indicator of pre-service teacher learning. This ability is considered as evidence of one’s skill in thinking productively about instruction (Davis 2006) and it is predictive of how well one will be able to teach students (Kersting et al. 2010; van Es and Sherin 2002). Therefore, the development of the ability to reflect on instruction and to mentally simulate instructional action should be at the center of teacher education (Hiebert et al. 2007). Additionally, a series of experimental studies have revealed that expert teachers systematically differ in the way that they reflect on classroom events as compared with novices (Berliner 1986, 1991; Sabers et al. 1991). For example, experts are able to reason about objects or classroom situations they observe or perceive, whereas novices tend only to describe what they see (Berliner 1986). Similarly, experts classify instructional situations using a high level of abstraction, whereas novices, in general, classify such events based on surface characteristics. In addition, experts reflect in elaborate ways and are able to differentiate between less and more relevant information (Berliner 1991). Novices’ reflections are, in contrast, mainly characterized by detailed descriptions and by a lack of connections among information. Their reflections are not very systemized and do not cover multiple levels. In cases where novices do show more in-depth reflections, these are likely to be rash and generally undifferentiated and judgmental (Hammerness et al. 2002; Berliner 1991). Furthermore, research finds that experts do not simply avoid the most basic reflection strategies in favor of more sophisticated approaches. Instead, they engage in multiple approaches to reflection. For example, they may neutrally describe what they see, but then evaluate and integrate the information. Based on these findings, researchers conceptualize teachers’ reflection skills by distinguishing between different levels of analysis (Berliner 1991; Borko and Livingston 1989; Evertson and Green 1986; Sherin and van Es 2009; van Es 2009). Synthesizing this research, three levels can be differentiated: (1) Description identifying and differentiating between observed events without making any further judgments, (2) Evaluation reflecting on observed events with regard to consequences for student learning including judgments, (3) Integration linking events to professional knowledge and classifying them according to underlying teaching and learning components in making inferences about what took place. Research shows that watching video-taped classroom situations fosters pre-service teachers’ reflection skills about classroom events. When pre-service teachers are provided opportunities to observe teaching through video, they become more reflective and provide more elaborate analyses of classroom situations (Santagata et al. 2007; Star and Strickland 2008; Stockero 2008; van Es and Sherin 2002). For example, teachers participating in a training intervention, in which they watched and discussed video-cases, learned to analyze classroom interactions in a more expert way. In particular, teachers’ reflections moved from a focus on description of ideas and events, to a stance of interpretation and in-depth analysis (Stockero 2008). Similarly, van Es and Sherin (2002) found that the use of video with pre-service teachers fosters greater attention to the details of specific classroom events, rather than attention to more general features of a classroom. Furthermore, Santagata and Guarino (2011) successfully use the interactive online platform ‘‘Lesson Analysis Framework’’ (Santagata et al. 2007) for fostering pre-service teachers’ skills in reflecting on videotaped instruction. It is important to note that without guidance, pre-service teachers find it difficult to identify what matters in videos of teaching and to elaborate on what they see (Berliner 1991; Santagata et al. 2007; Star and Strickland 2008; van Es and Sherin 2002). Exposing
123
G. Blomberg et al.
pre-service teachers to videotaped examples of teaching is not effective unless specific support is provided (Llinares and Valls 2009; Santagata and Angelici 2010). However, little research has systematically compared different instructional support strategies for embedding video into teacher education courses.
Instructional approaches of integrating video We selected two instructional approaches to represent two prototypical views on learning: a situative and a cognitive view. These approaches differ in important assumptions about learning, especially in terms of how much complexity within instruction is thought to be appropriate for (beginning) learners (Tobias and Duffy 2009). From a situative view, inert knowledge (Whitehead 1929) should be avoided, that is, knowledge that can be reproduced but not applied (CTVG 1993; Greeno 1989; Renkl et al. 1996; Resnik 1991). Therefore, an attempt is made to match the context of learning to the contexts in which the knowledge will later be applied. According to Gruber et al. (1995) instructional designs aligned with the principles of that perspective are based on the concepts of concrete situations and social cognition. Concrete situations are realized by integrating authentic situations, events, or cases into instruction which act as an anchor to teaching and learning experiences. In doing so, situated learning (SL) presents learners with a high degree of complexity—even at the very beginning of the learning process (Collins et al. 1989). A focus on social cognition is provided through opportunities for participants to work together cooperatively. The idea here is that learning is inherently a social process that takes place as members of a community interact (Lave and Wenger 1991). In addition, motivational-affective aspects of learning are also acknowledged as particularly important (Tobias and Duffy 2009). From a cognitive view, it is emphasized that learning involves the storage and access of knowledge in long-term memory (Anderson 1996). While there is a wide variety of cognitive approaches, one prominent approach dealing with the acquisition of professional knowledge and skills is the four-component instructional design system (4C/ID-model; van Merrie¨nboer 1997; van Merrie¨nboer and Kirschner 2012; van Merrie¨nboer et al. 2002), which refers to the ideas of cognitive load theory (CLT) (Sweller, 1988). Fundamental to this approach is the idea that learning will be hindered by too much information and complexity (Sweller 1988). Thus, instructional programs should be organized in a way that does not overload the learners’ working memory (Kirschner et al. 2006). For example, excessive demands can be reduced by explicit guidance. More specifically, direct instruction with a high amount of scaffolding for problem-solving activities is central. In addition, a central assumption of CLT is that the integration of real-world tasks into the learning environment should be done in a way that avoids cognitive overload (van Merrie¨nboer et al. 2003). For example, Schworm and Renkl (2007) showed that, when observing video, instructional aids such as prompts that direct the learners’ attention may help to decrease overload for pre-service teachers. In this way, 4C/ID recommends that needed information is presented when necessary—before tasks and just-in-time. Additionally, part-task practice offers the opportunity to practice specific skills (van Merrie¨nboer et al. 2002; van Merrie¨nboer and Kirschner 2012). Both approaches—4C/ID and SL—recognize the value of working with authentic, real world scenarios such as video that provide complexity for the learners. However, these two pedagogies use real world scenarios as a valuable resource for learning in different ways.
123
Understanding video as a tool for teacher education
Situated learning aims to immerse the learner in complex situations (CTVG 1993) in order to enable learners to adapt flexibly to continually changing and unpredictable circumstances (Bereiter 2002). Empirical research investigating the efficacy of SL has focused on aspects such as knowledge application in problem solving and has found positive, sustained learning effects (CTVG 1997). In SL, video is used as a problem anchor to elicit learners’ mental action. Video thus represents a complex example from which learners can collectively derive principles or rules. However, video can be overwhelming, particularly for novice viewers (Erickson 2007). When first exposed to (videotaped) classroom situations, novices tend to rather focus on irrelevant features (Fuller and Manning 1973). 4C/ID explicitly attempts to keep complexity manageable by guiding novice learners and may therefore also prove to be quite effective in using video. In line with 4C/ID, video is used as illustration of previously taught principles or rules. 4C/ID thus targets different goals than SL. A stable finding of CLT studies is the positive effect of worked examples. However, in line with most findings supporting CLT, these effects have mainly been found for knowledge and schema reproduction and acquisition in experimental sessions, and not for the application of knowledge to novel complex situations (Sweller and Cooper 1985). Also, a major difference between cognitive and situative approaches is that cognitive approaches place less emphasis on social learning processes. Thus, non-cognitive aspects are not considered to be key learning goals for 4C/ID. There are already a number of video-based programs for teachers that claim to be aligned with the goals of SL (Llinares and Valls 2009; Marsh et al. 2010; Masingila and Doerr 2002; Schrader et al. 2003; Sharpe et al. 2003; Stockero 2008; Wong et al. 2006). Yet these programs often provide few details in terms of how the principles of SL guided the design of the learning environment. In contrast, CLT or 4C/ID is not commonly used in teacher education programs that make use of video. However, Hoogveld et al. (2005) used the 4C/ID model in higher education, and CLT is beginning to be used in conjunction with animated models including video-based programs (Wouters et al. 2007). Furthermore, animated models have been implemented specifically to foster reflection skills (Wouters et al. 2008).
The present study We analyzed the potential of a cognitive and a situative strategy for integrating video into teacher education courses. In particular, we investigated the effect of two learning environments (video embedded by an instructional strategy) with regard to pre-service teachers’ skills in reflecting on videotaped classroom events. For this purpose we developed corresponding video-based university courses, one which was based on the principles of 4C/ID, with the second based on the principles of SL. Because both courses integrated the same videos into the instructional strategy, we expect to learn more about the role of video in teacher learning as well as the particular affordances of video with respect to these two instructional strategies. In doing so we strive to optimize the way in which video contributes to pre-service teacher education. More specifically, we investigated how the different instructional strategies induce different reflection patterns in pre-service teachers. To do so, we analyzed differences in the two groups use of describing, evaluating, and integrating in reflecting on video, at the beginning of their learning process as well as differences in the respective development of
123
G. Blomberg et al.
the two groups over the 3-month period of the course. For this purpose, we tested the following hypotheses: • Description in the beginning: SL learning environments are characterized by indirect guidance and complex video tasks whereas 4C/ID learning environments, especially at the beginning of the learning process, are characterized by direct instruction and close guidance. Against the background that novice teachers tend to just describe classroom situations, we expected the SL group to describe classroom situations when first introduced to classroom video as novices tend to do, and the 4C/ID group to observe classroom video more in an expert way, even when first introduced to the observation task (Hypothesis 1a). • Description development: However, 4C/ID learning environment might cause less sustainability in the learning process, wherefore we expected the relative amount of describing within the 4C/ID group to increase over the course of the term and within the SL group to decrease (Hypothesis 1b). • Evaluation in the beginning: Learning according to SL confronts learners with high degrees of complexity and uses video as an anchor to elicit pre-service teachers’ reflections about what they see while giving, compared to 4C/ID, a lower amount of guidance. Research on teachers’ expertise indicates that novice teachers, in contrast to expert teachers, show the tendency to be quite (unreflectively) judgmental about instruction and therefore to potentially be overwhelmed by classroom video. Thus, we expected the SL group, when confronted with a high degree of complexity and a low level of guidance at the beginning of the term, to display more reflections that tend to be rather judgmental (evaluative) (Hypothesis 2a). • Evaluation development: SL learning environments are also based on social learning processes that confront learners with multiple perspectives. Therefore, we conjectured that when SL pre-service teachers learn multiple perspectives which potentially challenge their own judgments, the evaluating in SL will decrease. In contrast, 4C/ID involves less social learning. 4C/ID learning is based on guidance and patterns as orientation, controlling initial rash judgments. However, because in 4C/ID guidance fades out over time, we expected the 4C/ID group’s evaluations to potentially increase over time (Hypothesis 2b). • Integration in the beginning: 4C/ID learning environments provide direct guidance and structure which might enable novice teachers to focus on relevant features of effective teaching and to identify connections among those features (integrating) from the beginning of the term. Thus, we expected the 4C/ID group to outperform the SL group in terms of integrating reflections at the beginning of the term (Hypothesis 3a). • Integration development: However, direct instruction as offered in 4C/ID risks low sustainability while SL aims to increasingly foster the ability to make connections among features. We thus expected the 4C/ID group to be unable to sustain such high level of reflections (integrating), indicated by a decrease over time, and the SL group’s ability to engage in high-level reflections (integrating) to increase over time (Hypothesis 3b). In order to test our hypotheses and thus to analyze the impact the two learning environments have on pre-service teachers’ reflections, we conducted quantitative analyses of learning journal data. In order to identify different reflection patterns for the two groups we explored differences at the beginning of the term and over time. We modeled longitudinal patterns based on five measurement points over the course of the 3-month term and analyzed those patterns via multilevel modeling.
123
Understanding video as a tool for teacher education
Method Experimental variation of instructional strategies A course entitled ‘‘How to observe teaching and learning with video-based examples’’ was open for registration for second year pre-service teachers in their bachelor degree program to become general secondary school teachers. The study was conducted at a university in central Germany. In Germany, pre-service teachers who want to teach at general secondary schools (Gymnasium) major in two subjects. In addition, they visit subject specific pedagogical classes and general pedagogical classes. The course under study was part of the general pedagogical curriculum. Twenty-eight participants chose the course. They were informed that the course was part of an empirical study, but they were not told about the kind of experimental variation or the research questions. Written consent was obtained from all participants. Within the course, participants were randomly assigned to one of the two different instructional strategies (4C/ID n = 13 and SL n = 15). This was accomplished by splitting the course into two sections, each of which was taught once every other week. Both sections of the course served as an introduction to instructional quality in school teaching. They both used the same videotaped examples of authentic classroom situations to support learning. All video clips illustrated good teaching (not necessarily best practice), practice that pre-service teachers could potentially see as reflecting their own future teaching. The video clips aligned to a common set of core components of effective instruction that the course dealt with successively: clarifying objectives and requirements, initiating and guiding student learning, and developing a positive learning atmosphere. In both the 4C/ID and the SL sections, video clips were used to illustrate how addressing or not addressing these components influenced teaching and learning in classrooms. In order to select the video clips, video pools of German-speaking instruction (e.g. Reusser 2005–2009) were screened and clips were selected with regard to their representativeness of specific teaching and learning components (Seidel et al. 2009). For example, video clips selected to illustrate clarifying objectives and requirements often focused on the beginning of a lesson allowing pre-service teachers to observe how the teacher introduced the lesson goals and oriented students accordingly. In an example of initiating and guiding student learning, the video focused on student group work and the way a teacher scaffolded the learning processes by posing questions and providing feedback. Video clips representing aspects of learning atmosphere generally tackled situations in which teachers had to find a balance between taking the needs of students seriously and still challenging them cognitively by, for example, not giving them direct and easy solutions. In each session of both sections, two to three video clips were incorporated. Participants also received contextual information related to the videos. The two sections differed according to the design principles derived from either the 4C/ID or the SL condition. In the 4C/ID condition, the course aimed to limit the amount of complexity learners faced by providing as much information and guidance as possible and by providing explicit models on which the learners could draw. In a typical 4C/ID session the instructor first offered a theoretical description of the component of instructional quality that would be addressed in a specific session, questions were clarified, and an introduction to the clip was given along with directions concerning what the learners should focus on when observing this component. The learners then received an example observation record (showing how the instructor would observe that clip), the clip was shown, and the instructor explained how she observed it. Finally the learners then wrote an
123
G. Blomberg et al. Table 1 Instructional features of the modules based on the principles of 4C/ID and SL 4C/ID
SL
Learning tasks: video sequences; observation led by specific questions
Authentic complex situations, tasks, and cases (video sequences, open reflection on those sequences, problem-solving tasks)
Supportive information: direct instruction, theoretical input, categories of instructional quality provided, worked examples
Indirect instruction, information is provided more implicitly
Just-in-time information: close teacher–student interaction when working on tasks, monitoring, spontaneous brief input
Cooperative learning (multiple perspectives) through working in groups to reflect on, discuss, and solve problems
Part-task practice: developing routines for making observation protocols for clips
Training transfer of knowledge by problem solving
observation protocol themselves and shared their ideas in class. In the 4C/ID group the degree of guidance decreased over the term. The section based on the principles of the SL condition confronted learners with greater amounts of complexity. Multiple perspectives on instructional situations were often provided and guidance as well as information were generally offered in an indirect way. In addition an emphasis was placed on cooperative learning and problem-solving. In a typical SL session the pre-service teachers first watched a video clip, discussed it, and derived their own categories related to the component of instructional quality under discussion. After sharing their ideas, the instructor might have added some research-based categories to the pre-service teachers’ ideas. Both sections of the course were taught by the same professor, who had 10 years of experience in teacher education. Based on previous observations, evaluation reports, and informal discussions with the instructor, we did not expect the instructor’s typical teaching style to be more strongly aligned with either of the two instructional strategies, which would have constituted an advantage for one of the approaches. To ensure the fidelity of implementation of the two strategies, ten randomly selected sessions were videotaped. As you can see in Table 1, coding was based on a category system of characteristic elements for the two strategies such as the degree of complexity exhibited in class and the directness of instruction students received. Two ‘‘blind’’ raters (i.e., without knowledge about the assignment of courses to the instructional strategy) as well as the developer of the course (Author 1, with knowledge about the intended implementation) rated the ten videotaped sessions of the two courses. Mean rater agreement (1 = hit, 0 = miss) showed a Cohen’s kappa of .83, which— according to Landis and Koch (1977)—can be considered a high level of agreement. This agreement between raters and developer showed that the treatment conditions were translated into distinct courses that could be distinguished without knowledge of the treatment conditions. Measures Measures on learning prerequisites Beyond socio-demographic data, two additional measures were used to confirm the comparability of the experimental groups and the representativeness of the sample with
123
Understanding video as a tool for teacher education
respect to other students in the teacher education program: A pretest on prior knowledge and a questionnaire on interest in teaching learning processes. Prior knowledge in educational psychology was assessed through a multiple-choice test based on 16 items developed by the fifth author. Test items targeted basic principles of teaching and learning and were developed on the basis of a frequently used German textbook in the field of educational psychology (Krapp and Weidenmann 2006). Each item offered four response options, one or two of which were correct, scores range from ‘‘0’’ (indicating 0 % correct answers) to ‘‘1’’ (indicating 100 % correct answers). Note that the test was originally developed to assess pre-service teachers’ learning outcomes at the end of a university course on teaching and learning. We administered it as a pretest in this study. Used as a pretest, in the present sample the test showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .69. Interest in teaching and learning processes was assessed through a questionnaire based on a scale of Drechsel (2001). The scale consisted of 40 items. Items were rated on a six point Likert-type scale from ‘‘0’’ (very low) to ‘‘5’’ (very high). Cronbach’s alpha in current sample was .93. Measure of reflection skills To gain insight into pre-service teachers’ reflections on instructional quality dealt with in the video-based courses, data from learning journals were analyzed. In general, learning journals are used to assess and/or to foster reflection on specific content. This method is based on the idea that the process of writing makes the learners’ ideas visible, offering a window into the learners’ thinking (Kellogg 1994). A learning journal typically consists of a series of entries where learners apply cognitive strategies to reflect on certain content over a series of time (McCrindle and Christensen 1995). Learning journals have proven to be a useful assessment tool in several contexts such as schools or universities and over several subjects (Cantrell et al. 2000; Conner-Greene 2000; Gilar et al. 2007; Glogger et al. 2012; Loud 1999; McCrindle and Christensen 1995). In the present study, participants wrote down, after each session, their reflections concerning what they believed they might have understood well from the day’s lesson, what they concluded from this lesson, what they did not understand well, and what they might do in order to remediate any problems they had in understanding the lesson (Berthold et al. 2007). The learners were assured that the journals would be analyzed anonymously and thus that their journal entries would not be used to determine their grade. To assure that learners systematically describe, evaluate, and integrate the content of the previous session and to standardize the data, we provided learners with eight previously tested questions to guide their reflections (Nu¨ckles et al. 2009). Sample questions include ‘‘Write what you understood very well in today’s session’’, ‘‘Provide examples (classroom situations, own experiences) that confirm and/or contradict what you learned today.’’ Additionally, we advised participants that each learning journal entry should have a length of at least one and a half A4 sized page, with font size 12, 1.5 spacing, margins 2.5 cm. We analyzed the data from the learning journals by quantitative content analysis (Chi 1997). The first author developed a category system in a cyclical process taking into account the study’s theoretical framework on reflection and the data from learning journals of a former university course. Content analysis included two steps: segmentation and coding. As preparation for the coding, the learning journals entries were first segmented into single statements. Each sentence was regarded as a segment, with sentences defined in a logical rather than in a grammatical way due to the fact that the data revealed that most learning journals entries were written in common speech rather than in grammatically correct sentences. After satisfying training results, the coders segmented the actual learning
123
G. Blomberg et al.
journals. The coders agreed on 96 % of the segments. For the ambiguous 4 % of cases, consensus was achieved through discussion. In the end 2,137 segments were identified. For coding each segment was to be assigned to either one of the three reflection categories (description, explanation, integration) or to a fourth category ‘‘other’’ (including communication with or about the learning journals, headings, and statements concerning writing organization). The category of description included describing the course’s content. Facts were reproduced neutrally without judgments. Examples were ‘‘Today we watched video clips that showed different teachers when dealing with mistakes’’ or ‘‘The first clip today showed a teacher working with fifth graders.’’ The category of evaluation included detailed explanations of content in the session as well as evaluations. These statements went beyond description because the learners engaged with the information and made judgments about the information. Examples were ‘‘I think it is such a challenge to give feedback to students in a way that wrong answers are corrected but that it is constructive at the same time’’ or ‘‘I did not like the teaching style we witnessed in the math clip.’’ Finally, the category of integration involved linking different aspects of content such as linking recently acquired content to former sessions or to their prior knowledge about teaching and learning. When integrating and scrutinizing what they have learned, the learners also make inferences about their own teaching experiences and derive questions or hypotheses. Statements such as ‘‘I think my personal teaching style resembles the teaching style of the second teacher we saw today which I liked a lot; although I still wonder if some students perceive such teaching as too strict’’ or ‘‘The topic of learner support [topic of the session before last session] is linked very closely to the topic of learning climate [topic of last session] because for a good climate is it important how effective the teacher–student interaction is’’ were considered as belonging to the integrating category. A fourth category referred not to the three levels of reflection but to other aspects of the learning journals. The category ‘‘Other’’ included communication that was not of interest for the present context such as communication with, and about the journal: ‘‘My dear diary,..’’ or ‘‘Diary, you might asked yourself why I do not ask when I do not understand something, but I was embarrassed’’ or ‘‘I always have to force myself to write the journal and afterwards I realize that I have really enjoyed it.’’ Statements for text organization as headings (‘‘Diary referring to session one’’, ‘‘Conclusion’’) were also coded into this category. If a segment covered more than one category it was assigned to the most elaborated reflection category covered (considering integration as the most elaborated category). All segments were coded into one of these four categories. The coders reached a satisfactory interrater agreement indicated by a Cohen’s Kappa of .85. Codings which did not match were discussed and then assigned to one category. Procedure Over the 3-month term (including eight sessions of each section) we collected data during and after course sessions. During the first session of each section, all participants completed a questionnaire on socio-demographic data, the pretest on prior knowledge, and the questionnaire on interest in teaching learning processes. In the second session, the participants received an introduction to and training on the use of learning journals. In the third session, the video-based sessions started. Over the term, learning journal entries were written within 1 week after each session (sessions three to seven), resulting in five learning journal entries per participant. They were sent by email to the instructor. If participants missed a session they had to rework it individually with the instructor.
123
Understanding video as a tool for teacher education
Data analysis Pre-analysis included t tests to compare the two groups with regard to socio-demographic data, prior knowledge, and interest in teaching–learning processes. The learning journal data were used to analyze group specific reflection patterns. These analyses were conducted in two stages. First, the pre-service teachers’ entries were analyzed based on the category system described above. After segmenting the journals and coding the segments, the relative amount of the four categories for each of the five learning journal entries of the 28 participants, resulting in 140 learning journal entries, were computed on the level of each person and on the level of each group (4C/ID or SL). Second, we tested for statistically significant group differences. We carried out multilevel analyses using HLM (Raudenbush et al. 2004). Multilevel analyses are useful, because the data from our repeated measurements (five learning journal entries) can be seen as nested within individual pre-service teachers. The learning journal entries constitute a first level in which we expected a development (decrease or increase of describing, evaluating, integrating). The individual pre-service teachers constitute a second level. If the differences (i.e., variance) between individuals with respect to the level of reflection and its development (i.e., growth) are significant, it is sensible to use multilevel analyses. Differences in the level and in the growth (development over time) between groups can then be tested by entering the condition (4C/ID or SL) as independent variable on the second level, that is, the person level. The number of five measurement points on level one is relatively small but absolutely acceptable for multi-level analyses (Maas and Hox 2005). Note also that most longitudinal studies do not contain more measurement points. In addition, we have to consider the number of units (in our case: individuals) on level 2. Around 30 individuals is a relatively small sample size, but not unusual for two-level models; the parameter estimates are only negligibly biased when sample sizes are small (Maas and Hox 2005). Additionally, using methods without recognizing the nestedness of the data would result in many more statistical problems. Hence, multilevel analyses were most adequate for our study. In our first HLM-model, the null model, we only introduced the dependent variables, the categories of reflection (i.e., describing, evaluating, integrating). These models gave a baseline estimation of the variance components within individuals over time (level 1) and between individuals (level 2) (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). Actually, individuals varied substantially in their mean for each category of reflection (variance component describing: 156.70, v2(27) = 167.10, p \ .001; evaluating: 50.26, v2(27) = 90.26, p \ .001; integrating: 92.05, v2(27) = 115.06, p \ .001). A total of 51 % of the variance in describing, 32 % in evaluating, and 39 % in integrating was between individuals. HLM-analyses were thus sensible to predict the interindividual variance, for example, by the experimental condition 4C/ID or SL. As suggested by Raudenbush and Bryk (2002), we identified which kind of level-1 model fitted the data best before testing our hypotheses. Note that this is done with the whole data set, both treatment groups together. We checked whether the development of reflection is more likely linear (entering a linear time variable, but no quadratic time variable) or if it bends upward or downward (entering both linear time variable and quadratic time variable into the model). Testing the two possibilities against each other revealed that the quadratic time variable significantly explains additional variance, in other words, that the development of reflection is not linear, but bends up- or downwards (i.e.,
123
G. Blomberg et al.
developments get stronger or less strong over the term). Hence, the quadratic time variable was included in all models (for model-fitting reasons. When testing the development of reflections over time, we coded the time variables such that null was the first measurement point (first learning journal entry) because this avoids problems of collinearity between the linear and the quadratic trend (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). When including the treatment variable in the two-level models, the slopes of the regressions from reflection to time were fixed and not randomly varying between individuals. As effect size, the percentage of variance explained by an independent variable relative to the total variance is often reported in studies. In the case of multilevel analysis, reporting effect sizes is not as straightforward. However, following a similar principle, we can report the percentage of variance explained by the treatment and time variables, respectively, relative to the level-1 error variance in the model without the respective variable (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). For testing our hypothesis, we were interested in significant effects (betas) of the instructional strategy (4C/ID vs SL, modeled at level 2) on the relative amount of reflection variables at a certain time point (the level-1 intercept) or on the growth of reflection (slope of the time variable at level 1). Betas in multilevel modeling are intercepts (b0) and slopes (b1) as in regression models—in fact, multilevel equations consist of nested regression equations and the indexing of coefficients is analogous (however, there are no standardized betas, so that betas are not comparable across models). In the following results section, we report only those statistics that are relevant for testing our hypotheses concerning group-specific reflection patterns (that is, we do not report the statistics about the quadratic time variable).
Results Pre-analysis The 13 pre-service teachers attending the 4C/ID section had a mean age of 20.11 years, 56 % were female, and 89 % had practical pedagogical experience. The 15 pre-service teachers attending the SL section had a mean age of 19.92 years, 37 % were female, and 77 % had practical pedagogical experience. The two groups of pre-service teachers assigned to the different instructional conditions (4C/ID vs SL) did not differ statistically significantly in terms of age (t(28) = -.41, p = .68), gender [t(28) = -1.04, p = .30], or prior practical pedagogical experience operationalized as having or not having made internships in kindergarten, pre-school or schools yet [t (28) = .61, p = .55]. Furthermore, all participants scored in the mid range of prior knowledge (4C/ID: M = .45, SD = .09; SL: M = .47, SD = .11) and no significant difference was found between the treatment groups’ prior knowledge scores, t(28) = -.28, p = .47. Likewise, the groups did not differ in their interest in teaching learning processes (4C/ID: M = 3.42, SD = .60; SL: M = 3.78, SD = .45, t(28) = -.25, p = .26). Hence, the two groups were comparable with regard to important learning prerequisites. Group specific reflection patterns Multilevel modeling via HLM (Raudenbush et al. 2004) was carried out in order to test our hypotheses. Against the background of the different ways that the two instructional strategies approach learning, our hypotheses targeted the effect of the instructional conditions integrating video on the type and the relative amount of participants’ reflections.
123
Understanding video as a tool for teacher education
We investigated the impact of the instructional conditions on the pre-service teachers’ reflections at the beginning of the term and on the development of reflection over time. Due to coding, differences in the amount of reflection (coefficient b00) refer to the beginning of the term (measurement point one), the growth rate which can be increasing or decreasing (coefficient b1, slope) equates to the average linear rate of growth during the term (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). Our findings indicate group differences due to the instructional conditions. Table 2 summarizes the key descriptive statistics including the mean number of describing, evaluating and integrating reflection instances for each learning condition at each of the five measurement points. Table 3 provides an overview of the HLM results for the different reflection categories. We expected the SL group to engage in relatively more description than the 4C/ID group at the beginning of the term (Hypothesis 1a). Data did not confirm this expectation with regard to differences in the relative amount of description between the two groups (see the row treatment effect on reflection categories b01, column Describing, Table 3). We further expected different development over time for the two groups in the sense that the relative amount of describing in learning journal entries would decrease over time in the SL group but increase in the 4C/ID group (Hypothesis 1b). In contradiction to our hypothesis, we found an overall significant positive growth in describing (b10 = 2.34, Table 2 Descriptive statistics (in %) of the three reflection categories for each treatment group at each of the five measurement points Describing
Evaluating
Integrating
SL
4C/ID
SL
4C/ID
SL
4C/ID
t1
34.09
23.41
22.08
20.89
33.13
33.96
t2
34.62
36.04
25.11
19.64
31.32
31.87
t3
35.31
41.81
24.98
18.79
31.15
30.18
t4
36.31
40.72
21.69
18.34
32.62
28.89
t5
37.17
32.77
15.24
18.29
35.73
28.00
Values for the category ‘‘Other’’ were not included into this table, wherefore values within each group do not add up to 100 % at each measurement point Table 3 Quadratic model of growth in the three reflection categories, effects of treatment Effect
Describing Coefficient (SE)
Evaluating t ratio
Integrating
Coefficient (SE)
t ratio
Coefficient (SE)
20.09*** (2.11)
9.517
33.15*** (4.25)
t ratio
Mean reflection value at t1, b00
37.13*** (4.31)
Treatment effect on reflection categories, b01
-3.37 (5.12)
-.66
8.32* (3.84)
2.167
-3.31 (4.536)
-.729
Mean growth rate, b10
2.34* (1.10)
2.135
-.65 (.81)
-.807
-1.49 (1.00)
-1.480
Treatment effect on growth rate, b11
-1.57 (1.45)
-1.083
-1.06 (1.10)
-.963
2.14* (1.24)
1.721
8.617
7.797
t1 is the first measurement point, that is the first learning journal entry * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001
123
G. Blomberg et al.
SE = 1.10, t(26) = 2.135, p = .034, R2 = .04), indicating an increase over the term for both groups. The treatment did not cause a significant difference in the growth (b11). With respect to evaluative reflections (middle column in Table 3), the groups differed significantly in their intercept indicating a significant difference in the relative amount of evaluating at the beginning of the term. In line with our hypothesis (Hypothesis 2a), the SL group actually engaged more strongly in evaluations at the beginning of the term (row treatment effect on reflection categories, b01) than the 4C/ID group did (t1 betacoefficient = 8.32, SE = 3.84, t(26) = 2.167, p = .02, R2 = .01). We furthermore expected the relative amount of evaluation in each group to develop differently over time. We conjectured that the SL group would decrease in their relative amount of evaluations over the term and the 4C/ID group would increase (Hypothesis 2b). Analysis revealed that in terms of the growth rate, both groups tended to decrease their evaluation activities over the course of the term (see mean growth rate, b10), with no statistical significant difference between the two groups (see treatment effect on growth rate, b11). When it comes to reflections that involve integrating, we expected the 4C/ID group to engage in relatively more integrating than the SL group in the beginning of the term (Hypothesis 3a). The two groups did not, however, differ in the amount of integrating activities at the beginning of the term (b01). However, they differed to a statistically significant degree in terms of their growth rates over time (b11 = 2.14, SE = 1.24, t (26) = 1.721, p = .022, R2 = .01). As conjectured (Hypothesis 3b), the SL group’s integrating reflections increased over the term and the 4C/ID group’s integrating reflections decreased over the time: while 4C/ID participants on average integrate 1.48 times less from one learning journal entry to the next, SL participants integrate .65 times more often from one journal entry to the next one.
Discussion Summary of findings We investigated the ways in which two learning environments, based on different instructional strategies incorporating video, support pre-service teacher learning. As both strategies, 4C/ID and SL, value the application of authentic tasks with learners they seemed well-suited to incorporate video. At the same time, however, the principles of 4C/ID and SL called for different strategies in the use of video with pre-service teachers. We explored pre-service teacher learning by focusing specifically on aspects of the pre-service teachers’ reflection skills while attending a video-based course on instructional quality over a 3-month term. We had derived hypotheses from research and tested them via multilevel modeling. Our findings provide insight into group differences caused by the instructional strategies integrating video. In general, the cognitive approach of 4C/ID which offers more direct guidance initially facilitated expert-like reflections. At the beginning of the term the reflection pattern for the 4C/ID group already seemed quite expert-like, with some description, evaluation, and a dominance of integration. However, this reflection pattern was not sustained over time. Related to that, we find it particularly interesting that even in the first learning journal notable differences between the reflections of the SL and 4C/ID group occurred. This result suggests that it may be relatively easy to enable pre-service teachers to reflect substantively
123
Understanding video as a tool for teacher education
on learning, as at the beginning the 4C/ID group is engaged to a large degree in the higherlevel processes of evaluating and integrating. Thus, the complex task of video observation seems like it can be supported with scaffolding. Furthermore, it might be that novice teachers in particular benefit from this scaffolding when first introduced to the task of observing videotaped classroom situations. Pre-service teachers tend to be overwhelmed by the complexity of a (videotaped) classroom and to show difficulties in applying their knowledge to authentic problems (Fuller and Manning 1973). Instructional aids seem to contribute to pre-service teachers’ knowledge application. In the same vein, Glogger et al. (2012) showed when 9th graders write learning journals they benefit from specific prompts. Prompts can overcome the so-called production deficiency (i.e., lack of spontaneous application of a helpful strategy that is already in a learner’s repertoire; Flavell 1978; Flavell et al. 1966). Interestingly, over time, only the SL group was able to maintain a focus on engaging consistently in higher-level categories. Indirect guidance and social learning as offered in SL thus seem to foster the ability to reflect on learning in a sustained way. However, the way SL approaches learning seems to risk a dominance of description and evaluations when first confronting the learners with video. In a nutshell, our findings highlight how important it is to link instructional strategies to pre-service teacher learning outcomes and to do this on a micro-level. Using multiple assessments of reflection based on different measurement points enabled us to discover specific patterns within the learning process of the pre-service teachers and to investigate our research questions at a fine grained level. The two different instructional strategies caused distinct differences in pre-service teachers’ learning. These differences illustrate the important role of instructional strategies when integrating video in teacher education. Specifically, our findings suggest that different strategies for embedding video into teacher education courses may be differentially well suited to support specific learning goals or purposes at hand. In terms of the learning goals of the current study, our findings indicate that when fostering the ability to reflect on classroom events, video-based learning environments designed according to principles of SL might better be suited for fostering reflection in the long run, and cognitive approaches might better be suited when expert-like reflections are demanded within a short period of time. Limitations of the study and implications for future research There are a number of limitations of the current study which we believe are important to discuss. First, there is a diversity of learning goals that are particularly well-suited for the use of video, and others that might be less suited. Specifically, some content is likely easily observed via video (e.g., classroom management, communication patterns), while other content may need to be derived (e.g., internal self-regulation processes), or might even be quite difficult to observe in a single video excerpt (e.g., activation of prior knowledge, longitudinal development). To be clear, this study explored specific learning goals related to developing the ability to reflect on classroom interactions, and we defined this ability in a particular way. There are many different learning goals in teacher education; the advantage of SL to 4C/ID should be understood as applying only to the learning goals studied here. To further study the impact of instructional strategies integrating video on other outcomes will thus be an important approach for further research. In addition, we want to be explicit about the fact that we chose two contrasting examples of instructional strategies for this study but are aware that there exist many strategies for integrating video even within certain paradigms. In practice, the conceptions
123
G. Blomberg et al.
of learning that can be translated to instructional strategies are manifold, and the distinctions between them are often not as clear cut as in our design (Paavola et al. 2004). Also, there have been several attempts to combine cognitive and situative views of learning, such as cognitive-constructivist and socio-situational views, or activating and process-oriented instruction (e.g., Lonka and Ahola 1995; Vermunt 1995). Problem-based learning is the most widely studied example of the successful fusion of cognitive, humanistic, and constructivist approaches (e.g., Hmelo-Silver 2004; Schmidt 2009; Schmidt et al. 2006). Against the background of the present findings, we support the idea of such mixed forms. In future research, it would be interesting to explore multiple instructional strategies representing different realizations of the same approach of embedding video. Also, we would like to discuss a potential prompting effect by the instructor interfering with the treatment effect. To be clear, in both sections video examples were used to facilitate learning. In each section the instructor used one specific learning approach (SL or 4C/ID) for integrating the video clips which differed in the amount of guidance provided and the complexity the pre-service teachers were exposed in order to impact their learning. Very importantly, as a dependent variable the elaboration of reflection (describing, explaining, integrating) from learning journal data were analyzed. When the pre-service teachers were writing their learning journal, the instructor was not present. In line with the view that a video’s purpose becomes defined by how it is embedded, we did not include a control group into the design that viewed the same video clips but without any specific instructional strategy. We believe that such a control group would hardly have been comparable to the groups in our study. However, it is possible that the effect of the two instructional strategies each in combination with videos they embedded might have been confounded with the effect of the video stimuli or the instructional strategy per se. A replication study with experimental variation of the elements of video and instructional strategies would help to provide further information concerning this issue. Furthermore, our empirical study was designed in order to allow the interpretation of our findings on a group level. Studies providing a basis for interpretation at the individual level would add deeper insight into individual learning within the two instructional settings (Kuhn 2007). Such a design would also enable us to investigate the role of prior knowledge in a more systematic way. Our sample was very homogenous with respect to prior knowledge, on average all scoring around the middle of the range. Besides these considerations, we see a further need to extend the present experimental research to a longitudinal study. An extended design would help to assess the effect of the instructional strategies on pre-service teachers’ reflection skills, and show if group differences remain over the end of the term.
Conclusion The use of video in teacher education remains quite popular. Yet video alone does not define a lesson, it must be embedded within an instructional approach in order to foster teacher learning. In this study, we investigated the impact of different instructional strategies in contributing to video-based teacher learning. The differential effects we found underline the need to carefully design video-based teacher education courses and to choose instructional strategies in order to embed video according to the learning goal at hand. Underlying the present study is our perspective that video should be understood as a tool to foster learning and not as a pedagogy itself. Video-based learning environments must be
123
Understanding video as a tool for teacher education
carefully designed, acknowledging the learning goal and target learner group at hand. Furthermore, different instructional strategies must carefully consider how to take advantage of the affordances of video for teacher learning (Goldman et al. 2007; Sherin 2004). For example, video only shows an excerpt from a reality that is based on the focus and the angle of the camera (Krammer et al. 2006). Information captured may be much more limited than what can be seen when it is actually happening in the classroom (Sherin 2004), and some contextual information may not be transported. In fact, standing in a real classroom cannot fully be experienced through video (Roth 2007). Therefore, Miller and Zhou (2007) emphasize the role of instructional strategies since these strategies offer guidance for the viewers and moderate if specific learning goals will be reached by considering the strengths and by coping with the challenges of using the tool video in teacher education. Our study has both theoretical and practical implications. Investigating what pre-service teachers learn as they engage in diverse video-based programs will advance our understanding of the nature of teacher cognition and of the relationship between video and instructional design. In addition, the results of this study will provide valuable information for the design of video-based teacher education for professional development. Acknowledgments This research was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG, SE 1397/2-1/2). We would like to thank all pre-service teachers who participated in this study. We also thank Kathleen Kemter and Anne To¨pfer for their assistance in coding the learning journal data.
References Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51, 355–365. Bayram, L. (2012). Use of online video cases in teacher training. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1007–1011. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.770. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15, 5–13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015007007. Berliner, D. C. (1991). Perceptions of student behavior as a function of expertise. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 26, 1–8. Berthold, K., Nu¨ckles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17, 564–577. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.007. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 417–436. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.012. Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 473–498. doi:10.3102/000 28312026004473. Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2004). Using video in teacher education. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Brouwer, N. (2007). Imaging teacher learning: A literature review on the use of digital video for preservice teacher education and teacher professionalization. Nijmegen: ILS Graduate School of Education. Cantrell, J. R., Fusaro, J. A., & Dougherty, E. A. (2000). Exploring the effectiveness of journal writing on learning social studies: A comparative study. Reading Psychology, 21, 1–11. doi:10.1080/02702710 0278310. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analysis of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 21–29. doi:10.1007/BF02299088. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33, 52–70. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
123
G. Blomberg et al. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Eds.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Conner-Greene, P. A. (2000). Problem-based service learning: The evolution of a team project. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 193–197. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2903_02. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 120–138. doi:10.1177/0022487105 283796. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Franscisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Davis, E. A. (2006). Characterizing productive reflection among preservice elementary teachers: Seeing what matters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 281–301. Drechsel, B. (2001). Subjektive Lernbegriffe und Interesse am Thema Lernen bei angehenden Lehrpersonen [Subjective conceptions of learning and interest in the subject of learning among pre-service teachers]. Mu¨nster: Waxmann. Erickson, F. (2007). Ways of seeing video: Toward a phenomenology of viewing minimally edited footage. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 145–155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Evertson, C. M., & Green, J. L. (1986). Observation as inquiry and method. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 162–213). New York, London: Macmillian Publishing Company. Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J.M.Scandura & C.J.Brainerd (Eds.), Structural/process theories of complex human behavior (pp. 213–245). Alphen aan den Rijin: Sijthoff and Noordhoff. Flavell, J. H., Beach, D. R., & Chinsky, J. M. (1966). Spontaneous verbal rehearsal memory tasks as a function of age. Child Development, 37, 283–289. Fuller, F. F., & Manning, B. A. (1973). Self-confrontation review: A conceptualization for video playback in teacher education. Review of Educational Research, 43, 469–528. Gilar, R., de los Angeles Martinez Ruiz, M., & Caste´jon Costa, J. L. (2007). Diary-based strategy assessment and its relationship to performance in a group of trainee teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 1334–1344. Glogger, I., Schwonke, R., Holza¨pfel, L., Nu¨ckles, M., & Renkl, A. (2012). Learning strategies assessed by journal writing: Prediction of learning outcomes by quantity, quality, and combinations of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 452–468. doi:10.1037/a0026683. Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Denny, S. J. (Eds.). (2007). Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gomez, L. M., Sherin, M. G., Griesdorn, J., & Finn, L.-E. (2008). Creating social relationships: The role of technology in preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 117–131. doi:10.1177/ 0022487107314001. Greeno, J. G. (1989). Situations, mental models and generative knowledge. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 285–318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gruber, H., Law, L.-C., Mandl, H., & Renkl, A. (1995). Situated learning and transfer. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 168–188). Oxford: Pergamon. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Shulman, L. (2002). Toward expert thinking: How curriculum case-writing prompts the development of theory-based professional knowledge in student teachers. Teacher Education, 13, 221–245. doi:10.1080/1047621022000007594. Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 47–61. doi:10.1177/0022487106295726. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266. doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3. Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2005). Training higher education teachers for instructional design of competency-based education: Product-oriented versus process-oriented worked examples. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 287–297. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.002. Kellogg, R. (1994). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press. Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Sotelo, F. L., & Stigler, J. W. (2010). Teachers’ analyses of classroom video predict student learning of mathematics: Further explorations of a novel measure of teacher knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 172–181. doi:10.1177/0022487109347875. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquirybased teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
123
Understanding video as a tool for teacher education Koc, M. (2011). Let’s make a movie: Investigating pre-service teachers’ reflections on using video-recorded role playing cases in Turkey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 95–106. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010. 07.006. Koster, B., Brekelmans, M., Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (2005). Quality requirements for teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 157–176. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.004. Krammer, K., Ratzka, N., Klieme, E., Lipowsky, F., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2006). Learning with classroom videos: Conception and first results of an online teacher-training program. Zeitschrift fu¨r Didaktik der Mathematik, 38, 422–432. doi:10.1007/BF02652803. Krapp, A., & Weidenmann, B. (Eds.). (2006). Pa¨dagogische psychologie [educational psychology]. Weinheim: Beltz. Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42, 109–113. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Llinares, S., & Valls, J. (2009). The building of pre-service primary teachers’ knowledge of mathematics teaching: Interaction and online video case studies. Instructional Science, 37, 247–271. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9043-4. Lonka, K., & Ahola, K. (1995). Activating instruction: How to foster study and thinking skills in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 351–368. doi:10.1007/BF03172926. Loud, B. (1999). Effects of journal writing on attitudes, beliefs, and achievement of students in a college mathematics course (PhD thesis, Boston University, 1999). Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology. European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1, 85–91. Marsh, B., Mitchell, N., & Adamczyk, P. (2010). Interactive video technology: Enhancing professional learning in initial teacher education. Computers & Education, 54, 742–748. doi:10.1016/j.compedu. 2009.09.011. Masingila, J. O., & Doerr, H. M. (2002). Understanding pre-service teachers’ emerging practices through their analyses of a multimedia case study of practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 235–263. doi:10.1023/A:1019847825912. McCrindle, A., & Christensen, C. (1995). The impact of learning journal on metacognitive and cognitive processes and learning performances. Learning and Instruction, 5, 167–185. doi:10.1016/0959-4752 (95)00010-Z. Miller, K., & Zhou, X. (2007). Learning from classroom video: What makes it compelling and what makes it hard. In R. Goldmann, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 321–334). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Nu¨ckles, M., Hu¨bner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19, 259–271. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74, 557–576. doi:10.3102/0034654307 4004557. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6 for windows [computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31, 115–121. Resnik, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking a social practice. In L. B. Resnik, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1–20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Reusser, K. (2005–2009). Videoportal. http://www.didac.uzh.ch/videoportal/. Retrieved 4 June 2010. Roth, W.-M. (2007). Epistemic mediation: Video data as filters for the objectification of teaching by teachers. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 367–382). Mahawah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sabers, D. S., Cushing, K. S., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Difference among teachers in a task characterized by simultaneity, multidimensionality, and immediacy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 63–88. doi:10.3102/00028312028001063. Santagata, R., & Angelici, G. (2010). Studying the impact of the lesson analysis framework on pre-service teachers’ ability to reflect on videos of classroom teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 339–349. doi:10.1177/0022487110369555.
123
G. Blomberg et al. Santagata, R., & Guarino, J. (2011). Using video to teach future teachers to learn from teaching. ZDM the International Journal of Mathematics Education, 43, 133–145. doi:10.1007/s11858-010-0292-3. Santagata, R., Zannoni, C., & Stigler, J. (2007). The role of lesson analysis in pre-service teacher education: An empirical investigation of teacher learning from a virtual video-based field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 123–140. doi:10.1007/s10857-007-9029-9. Schmidt, H. G. (2009). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17, 11–16. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1983.tb01086.x. Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Gog, V. T., & Paas, F. (2006). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 91–97. Schrader, P. G., Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Ataya, R., Teale, W. H., & Labbo, L. D. (2003). Using internet delivered video cases, to support pre-service teachers’ understanding of effective early literacy instruction: An exploratory study. Instructional Science, 31, 317–340. doi:10.1023/A:1024690111227. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for selfexplaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285–296. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99. 2.285. Seago, N. (2004). Using video as an object of inquiry mathematics teaching and learning. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (Vol. 10, pp. 259–285). Amsterdam: Advances in Research on Teaching. Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., Rimmele, R., Kobarg, M., Schwindt, K., & Meyer, L. (2005). Do videos really matter?—An experimental study on the use of video in teacher professional development. In C. P. Constantinou, D. Demetriou, A. Evagorou, M. Evagorou, A. Kofteros, M. Michael, C. Nicolaou, D. Papademetriou & N. Papadouris (Eds.), 11th European conference for research on learning and instruction (pp. 1117–1118). Nicosia: University of Cyprus. Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., Schwindt, K., Stu¨rmer, K., Blomberg, G., & Kobarg, M. (2009). LUV and observe: Two projects using video to diagnose teachers’ competence. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom. Mu¨nster: Waxmann. Sharpe, L., Hu, C., Crawford, L., Gopinathan, S., Khine, M. S., & Moo, S. N. (2003). Enhancing multipoint desktop video conferencing (MDVC) with lesson video clips: Recent developments in pre-service teaching practice in Singapore. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 529–541. Sherin, M. G. (2004). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 1–28). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 20–37. doi:10.1177/0022487108328155. Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 107–125. doi:10.1007/ s10857-007-9063-7. Stockero, S. L. (2008). Using a video-based curriculum to develop a reflective stance in prospective mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 373–394. doi:10.1007/s10857008-9079-7. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59–89. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York, NY: Routledge. van Es, E. (2009). Participants’ roles in the context of a video club. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 100–137. doi:10.1080/10508400802581668. van Es, E., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 571–596. van Merrie¨nboer, J. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills. A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. van Merrie¨nboer, J., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/IDmodel. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 39–64. doi:10.1007/BF02504993. van Merrie¨nboer, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. van Merrie¨nboer, J., Kirschner, P., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5–13. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_2. Vermunt, J. D. (1995). Process-oriented instruction in learning and thinking strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 325–349. doi:10.1007/BF03172925.
123
Understanding video as a tool for teacher education Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York, NY: The Free Press. Wong, S. L., Yung, B. H. W., Cheng, M. W., Lam, K. L., & Hodson, D. (2006). Setting the stage for developing pre-service teachers’ conceptions of good science teaching: The role of classroom videos. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1–24. doi:10.1080/09500690500239805. Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merrie¨nboer, J. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated models: A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78, 645–675. doi: 10.3102/003465430832032. Wouters, P., Tabbers, H. K., & Paas, F. (2007). Interactivity in video-based models. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 327–342. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9045-4.
123
