This article was downloaded by: [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile]On: 14 October 2014, At: 09:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Technology, Pedagogy and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpe20

Videopapers as a tool for reflection onpractice in initial teacher educationElisabeth Lazarus a & Federica Olivero aa Graduate School of Education , University of Bristol , Bristol, UKPublished online: 28 Oct 2009.

To cite this article: Elisabeth Lazarus & Federica Olivero (2009) Videopapers as a tool for reflectionon practice in initial teacher education, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18:3, 255-267, DOI:10.1080/14759390903255528

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759390903255528

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Technology, Pedagogy and EducationVol. 18, No. 3, October 2009, 255–267

ISSN 1475-939X print/ISSN 1747-5139 online© 2009 Association for Information Technology in Teacher EducationDOI: 10.1080/14759390903255528http://www.informaworld.com

Videopapers as a tool for reflection on practice in initial teacher education

Elisabeth Lazarus* and Federica Olivero

Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UKTaylor and FrancisRTPE_A_425726.sgm10.1080/14759390903255528Technology, Pedagogy and Education1475-939X (print)/1747-5139 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis183000000October 2009ElisabethLazaruselisabeth.lazarus@bristol.ac.uk

This article will discuss issues concerning the potential of videopapers, drawingon a research project investigating the use of videopapers as a tool for reflectingon practice and as an assignment in initial teacher education. Student teachersengaged in initial teacher education programmes often find it difficult to ‘see’what is going on in their classrooms. They can further experience difficulties inlinking theory and research with observations of experienced teachers and theirown practice. Although the authors already provide opportunities to reflect onpractice underpinned by theory in current classroom-based tasks and assignments,and encourage optional videoing of lessons and seminar presentations, theybelieve that introducing student teachers to videopapers as a learning tool canprovide novice teachers and their tutors with unique, new learning opportunitiesand insights. However, writing a videopaper does throw up new challenges.

Keywords: videopapers; teacher education; technology; reflection on practice

Introduction – video and videopapers

The use of video in teacher education is well established for purposes such as stimu-lated recall, clinical objectification (Tochon, 2001, 2007) and shared reflection by selfor in collaboration with others (Beardsley, Cogan-Drew, & Olivero, 2007) and ingroupings including video clubs (Sherin, 2003, 2007). Video use for mentoring andcoaching purposes, allowing less experienced student teachers or teachers the oppor-tunity of analysing pedagogical approaches in a given context, is also widely prac-tised. In some contexts where the access to classrooms, and hence the observation ofexperienced teachers, is problematic, multi-layered video case studies are performinga very important function in supporting the student teachers’ reflective processes(Newhouse, Lane, & Brown, 2007). Rapid development of digital technologies foranalysis or editing of individual or collaborative practices (Pea & Hoffert, 2007) hasallowed easy access to video as a relatively cheap analytical tool. In Britain theestablishment of Teachers TV (http://teachers.tv) with thousands of commissionedvideo clips of teachers working in a wide range of schools and age phases has helpedspread the use of short videos as a professional development tool for student teachersand teachers alike.

Amongst various ways of using video in teacher education, a new tool, calledvideopaper, looked particularly interesting to us and worth investigating in terms ofits potential in initial teacher education. The idea of videopapers was developed as partof the ‘Bridging Research and Practice’ project at TERC (Boston, MA) to create an

*Corresponding author. Email: elisabeth.lazarus@bristol.ac.uk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pont

ific

ia U

nive

rsid

ad C

atol

ica

de C

hile

] at

09:

21 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

256 E. Lazarus and F. Olivero

alternative genre for the production, use and dissemination of educational research.Videopapers are multimedia documents that integrate and synchronise video, imagesand text in one non-linear, cohesive document (Nemirovsky, DiMatta, Ribeiro, &Lara-Meloy, 2005). They can easily be created via the free software VideoPaperBuilder (http://vpb.concord.org).

Videopapers have been used as a means of bridging theory and practice and thedifferent discourse communities of researchers and practitioners (Barnes & Suther-land, 2007; Olivero, John, & Sutherland, 2004), helping to disseminate researchevidence to a wider audience. It has been noted that the different discourse communi-ties of academic research and clinical practice can be divided by different values andperspectives (Gee, 1996). Beardsley et al. (2007) contend that for some practitioners‘academic discourse lacks the vitality and engagement of the classroom’ whilst forsome researchers ‘classroom based research provides little opportunity to explorebroad themes that inspire intellectual growth’ (p. 479). Beyond offering opportunitiesfor research dissemination in a multimodal way, videopapers have been shown tocombine the excitement and complexity of classroom practice (Olivero & Lazarus,2007, 2009; Smith & Krumsvik, 2007) with reflections on educational theory(academic research), thereby helping to transform teacher education and professionaldevelopment.

The ‘Bridging Research and Practice’ project conjectured that teachers, research-ers and other communities interested in education could use videopapers to make theirconversations more grounded in actual events, more insightful, and more resistant tooversimplifications (Cogan-Drew, 2007) and that videopapers ‘tend to be accessibleto viewers with diverse purposes and goals’ (Carraher, Schliemann, & Brizuela, 2000,p. 5). What drew us to videopapers as a tool in initial teacher education were the possi-bilities of creating means of representation that capture the language of the practice,that is, the sights, sounds and interactive features of the classroom together withvisual, oral and physical clues (Olivero & Lazarus, 2009). We hoped that videopaperswould add a different dimension where student teachers could watch themselves,write about themselves and show their work to others, and this could contribute towhat Pea and Hoffert (2007, p. 454) call ‘guided noticing’. Although prompts and helpcan be provided by others, the noticing in our case was initially a private activity, anopportunity to reflect on one’s own development and progress.

Developing reflective practice

The ability to reflect on and analyse practice is a fundamental concept we encouragein our initial teacher education programme for modern foreign languages at theUniversity of Bristol and this view is shared by colleagues across different teacherpreparation programmes and research communities (cf. Furlong, 2000; Shulman &Shulman, 2004; Tomlinson, 1995; Ward & McCotter, 2004). We consider that:

three main thinking processes underpin teaching: the intuitive thinking that underliesaction and rapid decision making, the analytical and objective thinking that allowsteachers to plan for learning and the reflective thinking that is crucial to monitoring andlearning from experience. (Atkinson & Claxton, 2000, p. 6)

Our conception of reflective practice is heavily influenced by Dewey (1933) andSchön (1987) and we see school-based mentors and university tutors as significantpartners in encouraging students teachers in these endeavours. Our views of mentoring

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pont

ific

ia U

nive

rsid

ad C

atol

ica

de C

hile

] at

09:

21 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Technology, Pedagogy and Education 257

have evolved over time. Furlong and Maynard’s (1995) model of stages of studentteachers’ development, linked to different forms of mentoring, and how these canencourage levels of reflection, analysis and personal practice, is at their core. We alsobelieve that successful teachers need to be aware of the role intuition plays in theirdeveloping practice (John, 2000; Lazarus, 2000) and that ‘(one) of the most importantpreliminary tasks for educators, in their roles both as learners and teachers is to engagein a process of critical reflection upon their outmoded implicit theories of learning’(Claxton, 1996, p. 55). One way of doing this is for the individual to take a criticallook at their own practice by working with video recordings.

Within the modern foreign languages course at the University of Bristol, studentteachers over the years have been encouraged to develop their ability to reflect criti-cally on practice by initially watching experienced teachers and noting their commentson given observation formats of a quantitative, qualitative and ethnographic nature.These observations are real (taking place in different classrooms) or virtual (on video).The notes are then discussed with relevant others such as experienced teachers,school-based mentors, tutors and fellow students both at school and at the university.The notes have been used in assignments to encourage an engagement with multipleperspectives. Student teachers have been encouraged and expected to draw on practi-tioner-orientated and research-based literature to underpin personal experience andpractice. A well-established mentoring process ensures that student teachers obtaindetailed oral and written feedback from their school-based mentors and theiruniversity tutors.

The project

In our experience, student teachers engaged in initial teacher education programmesoften find it difficult to ‘see’ what is happening in their classrooms. Experiencedteachers can make their work look so effortless and student teachers go through hugehighs and lows after lessons which can make providing feedback and analysis difficultfor the observer. They can further experience difficulties in linking practice, theoryand research. Although our teacher education programme already provides opportuni-ties to reflect on personal practice, alone or with others, and an explicit requirementto engage with educational research and theory, the advent of videopapers appears tous to provide a new and different dimension in teacher education and in theprofessional development of the student teacher.

Videopapers enable the developing teacher to select sequences and ‘moments’ inthe classroom (video clips), link these to children’s work (slides), a personal analysis(text), underpinned by research (text) – all in one place and in one ‘environment’,thereby creating a potentially very powerful digital product which could be anelement of their professional development portfolio. As with all work involvingvideo and learners, ethical considerations are at the forefront, as permission for film-ing and sharing findings needs to be granted by student teachers, pupils, parents andschools.

The aims of the project

More specifically, the aims of the project were to pilot the use of videopapers as areflective learning tool for student teachers and to investigate advantages and disad-vantages over more conventional use of videos, observation tasks and assignments (in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pont

ific

ia U

nive

rsid

ad C

atol

ica

de C

hile

] at

09:

21 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

258 E. Lazarus and F. Olivero

the context of modern foreign languages [MFL] teacher education). We wanted toinvestigate how well videopapers could work as one of three MFL assignments. ThePGCE1 year is very busy with 24 weeks spent in schools and 12 at the university.Time is very precious and it was decided to make one of the assignments an optionalvideopaper. As we also work with newly qualified teachers and those in the earlyyears of their career, we also wanted to start an exploration of whether videopaperscould feature as a significant element of an emerging new professional developmentportfolio.

The project also investigated how student teachers approached the reading andwriting of a videopaper in comparison to traditional academic texts and how videopa-pers communicated and represented practice; these findings have been publishedelsewhere (Olivero & Lazarus, 2009).

Project design

The project involved a qualitative study of three groups of MFL student teachers whovolunteered to take part in the project from 2005–2007, a total of 18 student teachers.One researcher (Olivero), one teacher educator (Lazarus) and one MSc student(Daniil) who was writing her dissertation on videopapers (Daniil, 2007) were engagedin running the workshops, collecting and analysing the data and ultimately assessingthe finished videopaper. The student teachers were all graduates enrolled on a one-year initial teacher education programme who had varied backgrounds in terms ofqualifications (BA, MA and PhD or equivalent degrees from their home countries).Their experience and confidence in teaching and in the use of technology variedconsiderably. The groups consisted of native and non-native speakers of language(s)covering French, German and Spanish.

The student teachers were asked to create a videopaper instead of a written essayfor one of the units that required them to select and reflect on a key issue or issuesrelated to their practice. They attended a number of workshops focusing on: principlesand potentiality of the software, film editing and building a videopaper. The videopa-pers were then assessed by the unit tutor (Lazarus). The whole process lasted abouttwo months for each group.

Specifically, the assignment requested the students to:

● select a focus for the videopaper;● choose one lesson to be video-recorded;● collect materials from the classroom and from their teaching which could be

added to their videopaper (including PowerPoint presentations, photographs ofpupils’ work, displays, lesson plans, etc.);

● review and edit the video from 50 to 5 minutes;● write text/commentary to the clips, including the wider literature; and● publish the final videopaper.

In order to familiarise the student teachers with videopapers they were asked toread in pairs previously written videopapers by peers from either Bristol or Boston andto reflect on and evaluate what they liked or disliked about the videopapers. Thecritical reading of videopapers from within their own ‘community of practice’ andfamiliarisation with their potential was an important starting point in the reflectiveprocess (Daniil & Olivero, 2008; Olivero & Lazarus, 2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pont

ific

ia U

nive

rsid

ad C

atol

ica

de C

hile

] at

09:

21 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Technology, Pedagogy and Education 259

Data analysis

The data collected included: observations of students reading videopapers, focusgroup interviews on reading and writing videopapers, final individual and group inter-views about the whole process, and the produced videopapers. The analysis of the datafocused on the following areas:

● the process of creating a videopaper;● the relationship between creating a videopaper and writing an essay;● the process of reading a videopaper;● the process of assessing a videopaper, as compared to traditional essays;● student teachers’ perceptions of videopapers as a tool to support self-reflection;● the structure and content of the videopapers; and● comparisons of the videopapers produced by the different groups.

We built a case study around each student, putting together the interview data, thevideopapers, and the observations during the presentations. Information about thestudents’ background, in relation to teaching and use of technology, was also part ofthe case study.

This paper will focus on the advantages and challenges of creating a videopaper,especially in comparison to a traditional essay, and the student teachers’ perception ofvideopapers as a tool to support self-reflection.

Emerging issues

Relationship between text and video

One of the main issues which emerged in the analysis was the relationship betweentext and video both in the creation and in the reading of a videopaper. The studentteachers discussed whether the video could speak by itself or whether it needed thesupport of the text and what should be said in the text. The fact that the structure of avideopaper allows for multiple perspectives (Beardsley et al., 2007; Nemirovsky et al.,2005) made the students reflect on the need to make explicit their point of view onwhat is shown in their chosen clips. They argued over how much contextual informa-tion and description they needed to provide as the video could be seen to do some ofthis work for them.

They felt that the video did not come to dominate the videopaper and that thetextual features were crucial components of it, allowing the writer and reader to moveforwards and backwards between text and video. This fluidity between personalreflection, analysis, teaching resources, lesson plans and moments captured on videomakes this tool, in our opinion, a new mode for reflecting on and representingpractice. Moreover, the ability to link raw data and video with text analysis andobservations in a videopaper enables the ‘reader’ to interact with the content in a waythat is significantly different from reading a traditional linear text (Olivero & Lazarus,2009). The reader becomes a participant who can control what and how the text/videois read/watched and is no longer the passive observer noted by Sherin (2003). Thestudent teachers expected the reader (or themselves as readers) to interact with thevideopaper and think about the evidence provided in the clips.

Atkinson and Claxton, amongst other teacher educators and researchers, havenoted that ‘[p]rofessional practice is characterized by complexity, is dynamic and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pont

ific

ia U

nive

rsid

ad C

atol

ica

de C

hile

] at

09:

21 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

260 E. Lazarus and F. Olivero

interactive and happens in a very specific and constantly changing context’ (2000,p. 6) and found that ‘[i]mages, whether visual or metaphorical, can be used morereadily than verbal reasoning by practitioners’ (p. 6). Our data would indicate thatimages (video) and verbal reasoning (lesson context and analysis, for example) workstrongest in combination.

The difference between creating a videopaper and writing an essay

Assessment in initial teacher education programmes in the past has often entailedtraditional submissions such as essays, observation tasks, portfolios and optionalanalogue or digital video recordings. Videopapers appeared to provide a solution ofenabling the assignment submission to be in one easily accessible format and allmaterials collected in one place. Given the very heavy workload of PGCE students,creating a videopaper could not be an additional activity. We had to consider thatnot all schools, pupils and parents would allow lessons to be filmed and studentteachers could feel threatened by the presence of a video camera. Hence integratingthe creation of a videopaper as an alternative to one of the assignments made sense.One group built their videopapers in the autumn term and two groups in thesummer term. Like colleagues at Tufts University (Beardsley et al., 2007) we foundthat placing the assignment later in the year allowed student teachers greater oppor-tunities to reflect in some depth and to draw on a wider range of experiences,theory and research. This has now been adopted for both traditional essays andvideopapers.

The student teachers decided on issues which they felt were particularly pertinentto them such as the use of the foreign language by teacher and pupils in the lesson;engaging learners through the use of technology in MFL lessons; modelling teachingand learning; using story-telling to teach a particular point of grammar; motivatingboys and challenging learners. The editing process allowed the student teachers to relyless on memory when writing their assignment. For some of them this provided themwith an opportunity to explore different options for future practice, what Sherin calls‘alternate pedagogical strategies’ (Sherin, 2003, p. 14).

The PGCE MFL at the University of Bristol is, in common with similarprogrammes in England, multi-lingual and multi-cultural. An interesting finding thatemerged was exemplified by Olivia:

… for me English is not my first language, [the videopaper] helps me put my messageacross in an easier way, so I can show my tutor what I mean, without 10 lines … youknow the video it helped, helped me explaining my points … (Olivia, Group 3, individ-ual interview)

When reflecting on the difference between creating a videopaper and writing anessay, the student teachers appreciated the possibility of the reader or assessor beingable to see directly as opposed to having to visualise classroom situations. Theymentioned that they felt that an assignment created as a videopaper presented a morerealistic picture of their work and progress:

If you compare it to a normal essay it gives you a realistic dimension because it is notabstract any more; you’re not talking about behaviour management, big theories, hereyou have the reality, practice, it’s not just writing but connecting theories to the practiceand the other way. (Lizzie, Group 2, group interview)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pont

ific

ia U

nive

rsid

ad C

atol

ica

de C

hile

] at

09:

21 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Technology, Pedagogy and Education 261

and was much more involving:

it did bring the classroom much more alive, it was there in front of you, it was not justreading an essay, much more involving. (Helen, Group 1, group interview)

However, they had to be aware of making sweeping generalisations based on theirown experiences:

But you’ve got to be careful that you’re not making big universal claims and that’sperhaps the danger with the videopaper that you’re basing something on your own class-room experience. But then you have to connect it to research and to the results, whatever,that have been found and drawn from the outside. (Lizzie, Group 2, final interview)

The students found that creating a videopaper enabled them to make the connec-tion between theory and practice easier to demonstrate. They believed that theyneeded to be more honest in their evaluations and were less able to manipulate thereader or assessor, as one of the extracts below exemplifies:

Keith: … you [the reader/assessor] are actually there in the classroom and see what ishappening and you can make your own evaluation there honestly, whether [theteaching and learning] is successful or whether it isn’t. While obviously withthe traditional paper [the writer] would steer the reader in the direction youwant.

Olivia: Yeah you can manipulate …Keith: in what direction you want them to go. (Group 3, group interview)

They questioned whether written assignments were the best form of assignmentsfor teaching:

an essay is good maybe for certain subjects but for teaching I would see videopaper as areally really interesting tool. You could literally illustrate what you are saying with whatis happening. You could say many many things in a lecture, but the day you enter a class-room it’s completely different. You have a real perception of what you have in a class-room by the video. And you see you have the text to illustrate it. The essay would bemore I’ve got to prove a point. (Laurent, Group 1, individual interview)

Daniil (2007) found that linking the videopaper to an assignment was seen asconstraining by some of the participants as parameters were seen to have been set bythe assignment and the assessor rather than the writer of the videopaper. This is thecase for all assignments and we tried to make the task as open-ended as possible.During the period of the project all assignments at PGCE level were assessed as‘Pass’ or ‘Fail’ and no individual grades were awarded. In order to retain a sense offairness, the same assessment criteria were applied to the traditional essay and thevideopaper. During the workshops it emerged that the engagement with the processof building a videopaper was as important as the final product. As the MFL tutor(Lazarus) attended all workshops, comments on the process as well as the final prod-uct were incorporated in the formal written feedback to student teachers. It was note-worthy that the student teachers were keen to share their experiences with their peersduring the workshops and editing sessions and were keen to read each other’s video-papers. All student teachers gained a pass for both their traditional essays and theirvideopapers. Feedback was given in four broad categories: product, investigation,educational issues and personal learning in line with all other assignments on the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pont

ific

ia U

nive

rsid

ad C

atol

ica

de C

hile

] at

09:

21 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

262 E. Lazarus and F. Olivero

PGCE course. The quality and variety of videopapers were varied, as were thetraditionally submitted assignments.

The challenges of videopapers

Video use raises many challenges (Sherin, 2003, 2007). Seeing oneself in practice isnot an easy process as Olivia and Keith point out below:

Oh my god I thought it was the wrong cassette, that it was not me… but after youknow… emm I know I am a beginner, I know I have to improve myself so I am just likeok that’s me, that’s who I am, what I am doing. It was very interesting in fact… emm Idon’t know… very enriching, when you accept that it’s you, that you’ve got terriblevoice or things like that… it’s ok. (Olivia, Group 3, individual interview)

That again you are seeing yourself, almost naked if you like, in front of… you know youare in the classroom and… and your persona is exposed to what’s going on and… andyou certainly have to actually analyse yourself, for other than somebody else … and youhave at your own strengths and own weaknesses and be quite critical with yourself anddecide this was a good thing, this wasn’t a good thing. I think that can be very difficultsometimes. (Keith, Group 3, individual interview)

During our project the chance to see oneself in practice was too much for oneparticipant who dropped out of the project after his lesson had been videoed. What hesaw on the tape and his view of himself created a dissonance he found too difficult towork with. It is maybe not surprising that this student teacher was unsuccessful in themain teaching practice.

Creating a videopaper was not unproblematic:

It’s like writing the first essay. It’s a completely new way of doing things. (Catrin, Group2, group interview)

Another challenge is that the builder or writer of the videopaper decides on thenarrow slice of classroom life that they want to present to the reader or assessor byediting the clips in ways that they find coherent and useful in supporting their analysisand points of view. This is, however, no different to other forms of edited video use.Huge amounts of discussion and time were spent by the student teachers on decidingwhat they would edit and how much text was needed to complement the video clipsand avoid repetition:

But when we were looking at one of the papers in particular we felt that there was somuch text and explanation that it … actually looking at the clip was kind of superfluousbecause we’d already read exactly what was going to happen in the text. So you’ve gotto be careful that you’re not repeating yourself. That the two complement each otherrather than simply repeat. But I guess there’s a fine line in terms of underpinning an argu-ment. Or even contradicting it, we felt in one case. (Lizzie, Group 2, final interview)

Having to cut down lessons to essential elements was problematic but also encour-aged more detailed analysis:

I think having to condense down 40 minutes into 6 minute or 7 minute clips is reallydifficult and it does really focus your mind on what is essentially important and what isthe message done, you want to get across to people… emm… so yes it did. From the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pont

ific

ia U

nive

rsid

ad C

atol

ica

de C

hile

] at

09:

21 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Technology, Pedagogy and Education 263

point of view that I really have to condense and filter out… the other little bits which Imight have… might’ve liked to have included… just to look at the cold data and saywhat I want you to say while you will be watching me teaching. (Keith, Group 3,individual interview)

Sherin (2003) has also raised other concerns with video that emerged in ourproject, such as the direction of the camera (often static and placed at a particularangle for the whole session) and the camera not always picking up what the writerwants/hopes for. It had been agreed with the student teachers, schools, pupils andparents that the focus in this project was to be the student teacher and that the camerawould be pointing towards the student teacher. This did mean that pupils’ engage-ment, interaction or behaviour were not necessarily captured on film. However, theparticipants felt that their text, analysis, contextual information and explanations couldhelp overcome this. The short clips meant that extracts could easily be viewed againfor clarification. The participants considered that the quality of the videopaper wassignificantly influenced by the positioning and focus of the camera and the quality ofthe sound recording. Time constraints and permissions meant that only one lessoncould be recorded and second takes were not possible.

The software to create videopapers, VideoPaper Builder (VPB), has gone througha number of transformations based on feedback from users and researchers. One of thehuge strengths of VPB is that it allows the writer to combine video, text and graphicswhich can be modified at any stage. It is also freely available for anyone to download.No specialist software is needed to read a videopaper. However, all participantscommented that the process of creating a videopaper was much more time-consumingthan writing a traditional essay. The small size of the video window created somefrustration as did audio recordings of insufficient quality. The student teachers suggestedthat transcriptions and subtitles could have been helpful but that they did not have eithertime or the know-how to do this. As with all writing and editing, the author and readerneed to be aware that no writer is unbiased and that the videopaper may miss significantmoments in the lesson which the author has chosen to omit or was unaware of.

Videopapers supporting the reflective process?

Reflecting on your own progress may be desirable but is not always easy:

It’s a process which yes is uncomfortable but I think the more you do it the easier youbecome with it. It’s almost like, I suppose, when you first get in front of the students inthe classroom, it’s a terrifying experience. (Keith, Group 3, individual interviews)

Being able to see the lesson whilst reflecting and writing came up again and againas a theme:

You could actually see what you were talking about whereas if you were writing anessay, it’s quite hard, you know, you have to try and visualise the lessons … and it wasgreat to take a break from typing and just have a look at the clip and you would watch itand think about this is what I’m gonna say. (Brid, Group 1, individual interview)

Daniil (2007) demonstrated that students in our study had particular preferences asto how they read a videopaper and also as to how they hoped others would read theirs.Multiple screenings, pausing, reading and re-reading can allow the individual user thechance to explore the author’s point of view (Carraher et al., 2000). Our student

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pont

ific

ia U

nive

rsid

ad C

atol

ica

de C

hile

] at

09:

21 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

264 E. Lazarus and F. Olivero

teachers would concur with Sherin that ‘[w]atching video affords the opportunity todevelop a different kind of knowledge for teaching – knowledge not of “what to donext”, but rather, knowledge of how to interpret and reflect on classroom practices’(Sherin, 2003, p. 14).

Keith commented that:

I don’t think that there’s any more powerful tool than actually being able to see the selfand to reflect upon at that particular performance at that particular time. (Keith, Group3, individual interview)

And Steve found that:

Yeah, just the combination of having to edit your thoughts into a text and put that to thevideo as well… and that does create, as I said earlier on the… an analytical process,which you might not… It allows the chance to think as well and come up with someideas perhaps emm… whereas if you just watch the video and scribble some stuff down,you might, you might not… (Steve, Group 3, individual interview)

The demands that videopapers places on the writer have been noted by Beardsleyet al. (2007):

The intellectual work the videopaper demands arises from the fact that video, text, andslides must be connected in order for the narrative to emerge. This interconnectednesspushes the author to closely examine the relationship between the images and their text,to think carefully about exactly how to generate meaning from their media. The exact-ness of the medium demands that one makes precise choices in editing and concentrateson discrete themes in the video. (Beardsley et al., 2007, p. 489)

All the participants considered that the workshops, individual and mutual groupsupport were essential for the completion of the videopaper. Most of the editing andwriting was carried out during the joint workshops although a few students installedVPB on their own computers. It was noticeable with all three groups that users lessexperienced in information and communications technology (ICT) spent longer onfilm editing and building their videopaper. They were very proud of their achievementbut, in comparison with more experienced ICT users, produced text of a much moresuperficial nature and a videopaper where the video dominates. Reflection is evidentin all the videopapers the student teachers created (Daniil, 2007; Daniil & Olivero,2008; Lazurus, 2006; Olivero & Lazarus, 2007, 2009) but the level and depth ofreflection is variable.

During the reading of other students’ videopapers it was noted that many questionsstill remained, echoing Nemirovsky et al.’s (2005) findings that there was ‘an ever-present desire to “know more”. No matter how detailed the video portrayal of the class-room is, or the extents of the available background information, participants alwaysfeel that countless questions remain unanswered’ (p. 390). We were not surprised tofind in most of the videopapers created by our novice teachers that the ‘GroundedNarrative’ described by Nemirovsky et al. (2005, p. 365) was most prevalent. In otherwords, descriptions of classroom events were most dominant in the written discourse.

Some of the student teachers felt building up a number of videopapers over timewould help them notice their progress more clearly:

I think that if you maybe do two, three or four of them and then you would compare themyou could see maybe if you’ve improved or if things changed, if maybe because you’re

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pont

ific

ia U

nive

rsid

ad C

atol

ica

de C

hile

] at

09:

21 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Technology, Pedagogy and Education 265

in a different environment, in a different school, at a different time with a different classmaybe you see ‘oh my God I managed so well with this group’ and if you look back atone example of a lesson we did and then you see that you actually lost some of the strat-egies and you found like; ‘oh I’m not doing this anymore’ or maybe you say ‘I left thisbehind because now I’ve seen that’s it’s not that useful or anything’. So you wouldmaybe go back and see how you changed. (Christine, Group 1, group interview)

… definitely need reflection about your writing and the video, how to make things rele-vant and clear, so you have to develop your reflection. Emm… so yes this is… that wasvery interesting to write… things that… also if I had filmed myself without any partic-ular purpose for several lessons and then if I had watched them and then analyse them,I guess the Videopaper… I think is very very helpful. And I wish I had [done] that duringthe autumn term so I could see, analyse the progression I have made and… So I couldcompare in fact and have for example two videos for the same [class]. (Olivia, Group 3,individual interview)

Multiple videopapers created over time were not within the scope of this projectbut the potential of videopapers in professional development has stimulated furtherwork with newly qualified teachers, experienced teachers and mentors at the Univer-sity of Bristol (Olivero & Lazarus, 2009; Trahar, 2008). Potentially, if all ethicalissues of privacy and confidentiality were resolved, videopapers could additionally beshared, discussed, analysed by groups beyond the project participants such as othernew teachers and mentors, or new videopapers created in response, opening up profes-sional development opportunities to a wider community.

Conclusions

The student teachers spent a great deal of discussion time and personal reflection timeon considering whether the video or the text could stand alone, and how to gain a usefulbalance without too much repetition. Most were interested in finding out what aspectsof their practice they could showcase as evidence and how to link this to wider educa-tional theory and research. They were taken with the medium as it enabled the readerto ‘see’ into their classroom, noting difficulties and problems without having to imag-ine and visualise. The ‘realism’ enabled by the video and text was valued and connec-tions between theory and practice were made. They felt that they could adopt differentstyles of writing and that videopapers allowed this. The interviews highlightedmultiple perspectives on videopapers as assignments but all felt that videopapersenabled them to reflect more deeply and overtly. They felt that having been readers ofvideopapers first helped them in becoming writers but also that the pressures of thecourse constrained the amount of time they could devote to their videopaper.

The analysis of our data shows that videopapers can help student teachers to ‘learnto notice’ (Sherin, 2003, p. 20) and to shift their analysis from a ‘chronological descrip-tion of a lesson to a description that highlighted key elements of what took place’ (Sherin,2003, p. 20). To conclude, our research has shown that as a tool for self-reflection, video-papers can play a valuable role in an initial teacher education programme.

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to the Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol and to ESCalate,the Higher Education Academy’s Subject Centre for Education, for supporting this work andto Maria Daniil for her help and support with this project.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pont

ific

ia U

nive

rsid

ad C

atol

ica

de C

hile

] at

09:

21 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

266 E. Lazarus and F. Olivero

Note1. Postgraduate Certificate in Education.

Notes on contributorsElisabeth Lazarus is a senior lecturer in education, modern foreign languages at the GraduateSchool of Education, University of Bristol. She has many years experience of working as aclassroom teacher, Head of Department and as an ‘Advanced Skills Teacher’. Her researchinterests focus on how ICT can support teaching and learning processes.

Federica Olivero is a lecturer in education at the Graduate School of Education, University ofBristol and director of the MSc in Education, Technology and Society. Her research focuses onthe use of ICT in teaching and learning and particularly on the use of various forms of digitalvideo as methodological and analytical tools.

ReferencesAtkinson, T., & Claxton, G. (2000). Introduction. In T. Atkinson & G. Claxton (Eds.), The

intuitive practitioner: On the value of not always knowing what one is doing (pp. 1–12).Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Barnes, S., & Sutherland, R. (2007, August). Using VideoPapers for multi-purposes: Dissem-inating research practice and research results. Paper presented at the 12th BiennialConference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction,Budapest, Hungary.

Beardsley, L.V., Cogan-Drew, D., & Olivero, F. (2007). VideoPaper: Bridging research and prac-tice for preservice and experienced teachers. In R. Goldman, R.D. Pea, B. Barron, & S.J.Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 479–493). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Carraher, D., Schliemann, A.D., & Brizuela, B. (2000, March). Bridging out the algebraiccharacter of arithmetic. Paper presented at the Videopapers in Mathematics conference,Dedham, MA.

Claxton, G. (1996). Implicit theories of learning. In G. Claxton, T. Atkinson, M. Osborn, &M. Wallace (Eds.), Liberating the learner: Lessons for professional development ineducation (pp. 45–56). London: Routledge.

Cogan-Drew, D. (2007, August). VideoPaper Builder: A case of video-based technology inteacher education. Paper presented at the 12th Biennial Conference of the EuropeanAssociation for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, Hungary.

Daniil, M. (2007). The use of VideoPapers from Modern Foreign Language student teachersas a tool to support reflection on practice. Unpublished Masters dissertation, University ofBristol.

Daniil, M., & Olivero, F. (2008). The use of VideoPapers from Modern Foreign Languagestudent teachers as a tool to support reflection on practice. In Proceedings of the 6thPanhellenic conference with international participation Information CommunicationTechnologies in Education (pp. 429–436). Limassol, Cyprus.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to theeducative process (2nd ed.). Boston: D.C. Heath.

Furlong, J. (2000). Intuition and the crisis in teacher professionalism. In T. Atkinson & G.Claxton (Eds.), The intuitive practitioner: On the value of not always knowing whatone is doing (pp. 15–31). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Furlong, J., & Maynard, T. (1995). Mentoring student teachers – The growth of professionalknowledge. London: Routledge.

Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London/NewYork: Routledge.

John, P. (2000). Awareness and intuition: How student teachers read their own lessons. InT. Atkinson & G. Claxton (Eds.), The intuitive practitioner: On the value of not alwaysknowing what one is doing (pp. 84–106). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pont

ific

ia U

nive

rsid

ad C

atol

ica

de C

hile

] at

09:

21 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Technology, Pedagogy and Education 267

Lazarus, E. (2000). The role of intuition in mentoring and supporting beginning teachers. InT. Atkinson & G. Claxton (Eds.), The intuitive practitioner: On the value of not alwaysknowing what one is doing (pp. 107–121). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Lazarus, E. (2006, November). Using ‘videopapers’ for professional learning and assessmentin initial teacher education. Paper presented at the conference ICT in Teacher Training inChange: Conditions, Visions and Realities, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

Nemirovsky, R., DiMatta, C., Ribeiro, B., & Lara-Meloy, T. (2005). Talking about teachingepisodes. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 363–392.

Newhouse, C.P., Lane, J., & Brown, C. (2007). Reflecting on teaching practices using digitalvideo representation in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,32(3), 1–12.

Olivero, F., John, P., & Sutherland, R. (2004). Seeing is believing: Using videopapers totransform teachers’ professional knowledge and practice. Cambridge Journal of Educa-tion, 34(2), 179–191.

Olivero, F., & Lazarus, E. (2007, August). Using videopapers for professional learning andassessment in initial teacher education. Paper presented at the 12th Biennial Conferenceof the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest,Hungary.

Olivero, F., & Lazarus, E. (2009). Using videopapers to communicate and represent practicein postgraduate education programmes. In R. Krumsvik (Ed.), Learning in the networksociety and digitized school (pp. 153–172). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Pea R., & Hoffert, E. (2007). Video workflow in the learning sciences: Prospects of emergingtechnologies for augmenting work practices. In R. Goldman, R.D. Pea, B. Barron, & S.J.Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 427–460). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teachingand learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sherin, M.G. (2003). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. Advances inResearch on Teaching, 10, 1–27.

Sherin, M.G. (2007). The development of teachers’ professional vision in video clubs. InR. Goldman, R.D. Pea, B. Barron, & S.J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learningsciences (pp. 383–395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shulman, L.S., & Shulman, J.H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271.

Smith, K., & Krumsvik, R. (2007, August). Video-papers: An attempt to closing the notoriousgap in teacher education. Paper presented at the 12th Biennial Conference of theEuropean Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, Hungary.

Tochon, F.V. (2001). ‘Education research’: New avenues for digital video pedagogy andfeedback in teacher education. International Journal of Applied Semiotics, 2(1–2), 9–28.

Tochon, F.V. (2007). From video cases to video pedagogy: A framework for video feedbackand reflection in pedagogical research. In R. Goldman, R.D. Pea, B. Barron, & S.J. Derry(Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 53–66). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Tomlinson, P. (1995). Understanding mentoring – Reflective strategies for school-basedteacher preparation. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Trahar, S. (2008). VideoPaper and assessment. Therapy Today, 19(2), 41–43.Ward, J.R., & McCotter, S. (2004). Reflection as a visible outcome for preservice teachers.

Teacher and Teacher Education, 20, 243–257.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Pont

ific

ia U

nive

rsid

ad C

atol

ica

de C

hile

] at

09:

21 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014