Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [UTSA Libraries]On: 07 October 2014, At: 11:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
The Journal of ExperimentalEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjxe20
Effects of VideocaseConstruction on PreserviceTeachers' Observations ofTeachingRobert J. Beck a , Alison King a & Sue K. Marshall aa University of California , IrvinePublished online: 01 Apr 2010.
To cite this article: Robert J. Beck , Alison King & Sue K. Marshall (2002) Effects ofVideocase Construction on Preservice Teachers' Observations of Teaching, The Journalof Experimental Education, 70:4, 345-361, DOI: 10.1080/00220970209599512
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220970209599512
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
The Journal of Experimental Education, 2002, 70(4), 345-361
Effects of Videocase Construction on Preservice Teachers’ Observations of Teaching
ROBERT J. BECK ALISON KING SUE K. MARSHALL University of California, Irvine
ABSTRACT. Preservice teachers were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 observation con- ditions: technology-supported practice in observation (TSPO) plus standard class- room placement observation, n = 31, and classroom placement observation (control), n = 31. Over a 10-week term, TSPO students augmented their classroom placement observations of their mentor teachers by engaging in technology-supported con- struction and video analysis of those mentors’ teaching, while control students engaged in only the classroom placement observations. The authors used an online, computer-supported instrument that elicited written responses during observation of 3 different teaching videos to assess the participants’ ability to identify, interpret, and analyze evidence of exemplary teaching. TSPO students significantly outper- formed controls on all 3 video tests. Implications of these findings for teacher train- ing in both traditional and online education programs are discussed. Key words: educational technology, observation of teaching, teacher education, videocases
TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS have traditionally approached the challenge of developing preservice teachers’ understanding of teaching and learning by means of didactic instruction supplemented by classroom observa- tion of expert teachers in action. Recently, the use of case-based teaching and learning has become popular as a means of bridging this instruction about
Address correspondence to Robert J. Beck, Center for Research in Educational Assessment and Measurement, Department of Education, University of California, Irvine, 2001 Berkeley Place, Irvine, CA 92697-5500. E-mail: [email protected]
This research was supported by U.S. Department of Education Grant P342A000136.
345
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
346 The Journal of Experimental Education
teaching and learning and observation of teaching and learning (i.e., bridging theory and practice). Typical cases present slices of life that are authentic, con- crete illustrations of teaching-learning in progress in real classrooms; these vignettes are then written about, discussed, or analyzed. Cases have the poten- tial for bridging theory and practice because they present opportunities for applying theoretical, conceptual, and pedagogical knowledge about teaching and learning to real-world classrooms and explicating such knowledge embed- ded in practice.
Previous research and development with cases have made use of different media, instructional goals, and ways in which learners interact with the cases. We highlight some of these different approaches and then provide a rationale for the approach taken in this investigation: video case construction as a context for rich learning by preservice teachers.
Case-Based Teaching and Learning in Teacher Education
The use of cases in teacher education has intuitive appeal as an instructional practice to better understand teaching and learning because cases are situated in actual classrooms, thus representing a more realistic view of the dynamic com- plexities and ambiguities of teaching than lectures and textbooks. Cases allow prospective teachers to vicariously experience the realities of classroom life from a removed perspective, enabling them (a) to detect specific issues and problems within a complex autheetic context (e.g., Hanington, 1996), (b) to foster critical analysis of such issues and problems (e.g., Lundeberg & Fawver, 1993; Shulman, 1992; Wasserrnan, 1994), (c) to experience teaching-learning problems without risk, and (d) to promote habits of reflection about teaching and learning (e.g., Kleinfeld, 1992; Rickart, 1991).
Research conducted on case-based instruction in teacher education shows that preservice teachers not only prefer learning from cases, as opposed to more tra- ditional lectures (Lundeberg, Matthews, & Sheurrnan, 1996; Van Zoest, 1995) but they also significantly increase their ability to construct theoretical and prac- tical knowledge from cases over time (Barnett, 1991; Lundeberg & Fawver, 1993). Using cases, preservice teachers can learn about classroom management (James, 1991), cultural diversity (Kleinfeld, 1992; Shulman, 1992), motivation (Richardson, 1991), as well as about teaching various subject matter (Lundeberg et al., 1996) including mathematics (Barnett, 1991; Barnett & Tyson, 1993). Studies on preservice teachers’ ability to learn from cases has revealed that they improved their ability to (a) identify instructional problems in cases, (b) consid- er alternative perspectives, (c) base their proposed solutions on multiple sources of evidence, (d) consider consequences of their solutions (Harrington, 1996; Levin, 1997) and identify issues, and (e) generate final solutions and conclusions from videocases (Lundeberg & Fawver, 1993).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Beck, King, & Marshall 341
Videocase Teaching and Learning
Most case researchers use text-based versions of cases; however, there is grow- ing interest in using videocases in teacher education programs (Richardson & Kile, 1999). Some videocases show segments of classroom action followed by videotaped analysis and explanation of what is portrayed (e.g., Desberg & Fish- er, 1996). Others include additional materials such as lesson plans, data on stu- dent and school backgrounds, interviews with parents and such (e.g., Cognition and Technology Group at VanderbiltXTGV, 1990; Lampert & Ball, 1998; Richardson & Kile, 1992).
There are a number of characteristics of video that have the potential to make videocases more cognitively salient and presumably more effective as teach- ing-learning tools than their written counterparts. The video format promotes learning by supporting a viewer’s cognitive processing and development of detailed mental representations in several ways:
1. Authenticity. The spatial and dynamic (moving) quality of video makes scenes richer and more realistic, contributing to the authenticity of what is cap- tured (CTGV, 1990).
2. Dual coding. Videocases can better reveal the ambiguity and complexity of classroom events because so much detail can be shown, thus adding to their apparent authenticity.
3. Interpretation. Events and contexts that are seen as authentic are usually encoded easily into memory because they are believable to the viewer and can therefore be readily connected to prior knowledge in existing mental representa- tions (Baddeley, 1990).
Video’s audiovisual format also allows the viewer to encode the events por- trayed in both visual and verbal modes (see Paivio’s, 1971, dual code theory), unlike written cases, in which only verbal encoding is possible. Dual encoding promotes understanding over and above verbal encoding alone (Clark & Paivio, 199 1). Videocase’s audiovisual format helps viewers develop their own interpre- tation of events. This is in marked contrast to text-based cases in which (to greater and lesser degrees) case users are provided with only the case writer’s interpretation of what to write about and to focus attention on.
Together, these aspects of videocases may promote preservice teachers’ con- struction of meaning about teaching and learning because the videocases have the potential to enhance cognitive processing of what is portrayed. The authen- ticity of scenes, the dynamic moving quality, and the visual explicitness of images are all likely to stimulate preservice teachers in making connections with their prior knowledge, resulting in rich mental representations of the particular classrooms and teaching-learning situations depicted.
We found very little research on the effectiveness of using videocases in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
348 The Journal of Experimental Education
teacher preparation programs. What research exists has generally used the one- group design and was conducted in the researcher’s own classroom to measure changes over an academic term, only occasionally including some form of dis- course analysis of verbal protocols (e.g., Lampert & Ball, 1998; Risko, McAllis- ter, Peter, & Bigeho, 1994). For example, Richardson and Kile (1999) analyzed preservice teachers’ written descriptions of what they observed in videocases early in a semester and again at the end. The researchers found that videocases’ effects on the preservice teachers (a) increased their use of concepts and lan- guage covered in class, (b) decreased their negative judgments about teacher and student actions depicted, (c) helped them view teaching as student centered rather than teacher centered, (d) changed their language use from behavioral to functional descriptions of teacher actions, and (e) changed their descriptions from simple and superficial to deep and rich.
Videocases as Classroom Observation Tools
In reviewing the use of various cases in teacher preparation programs, we found that they are being used in many ways to assist in understanding teaching and learning. In some instances, cases appear to be used indirectly to promote classroom observation of teaching. We speculated that videocases could be used directly and intentionally to develop observational skill of teaching.
Observation of Teaching
Researchers often measure preservice teachers’ understanding of teaching by asking them to provide written observations, analyses, and reflections of what they “read” in observing exemplary teachers in action during their classroom placements. Thus, their observation is the construction of teaching-learning ideas, which are statements that identify, interpret, or analyze evidence of effec- tive teaching that occur during an instructional sequence. Effective teaching can be seen as the ability to use theoretical, conceptual, and pedagogical knowledge (i.e., strategies and methods), and subject-matter knowledge to structure teach- ing-learning situations, solve difficult instructional problems, and reason sound- ly about teaching so as to promote associated student learning. Creating a rich observation of teaching, then, requires an observer not only to identify the strate- gies and methods used but also to look beneath the surface to the principles and procedures underlying classroom teaching and learning (Peterson & Comeaux, 1987). This includes examining the teacher’s purposes, rationales, and expected outcomes (see Berliner, 1986; Carter, Cushing, Sabers, Stein, & Berliner, 1988).
To look beneath the surface, preservice teachers need to draw on their existing schemas for classroom teaching and learning, which include their prior knowl- edge, their experience, and their previously acquired conceptual perspectives
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Beck, King, & Marshall 349
such as learning theories, conceptual knowledge about teaching and learning, pedagogical knowledge, and subject matter knowledge. In this sense, observation may be further defined as the recognition, or perception, of something already known in fact. For example, if one is observing a teacher’s use of high-level ques- tioning (e.g., questions seeking explanations), one must have prior knowledge that high-level questioning involves seeking explanations (and that such use of questioning is considered a high-level instructional activity).
One key to training the observational skill of preservice teachers, therefore, is to provide them with the conceptual knowledge about teaching and learning- pedagogical knowledge, subject matter knowledge, teaching strategies, and teach- ing standards-and, thereby, to help them build more sophisticated schemas for encoding and interpreting the classroom events that they observe. Another way to train observation is to provide opportunities to practice observing teachers using their prior knowledge. For example, preservice teachers are routinely required to observe their mentor teachers in action. Another way to train preservice teachers’ observation might be through the construction of videocases.
Student-Constructed Videocases
Although videocases have been used to help preservice teachers develop an understanding of teaching and learning, they have been exclusively used within coursework and have invariably been provided by their instructors. It seemed to us that videocases might be even more effective in bridging theory and practice (i.e., coursework and classroom observation) if preservice teachers created their own videocases from classroom observations of teaching. A review of the litera- ture revealed no empirical research on students creating their own videocases as a way to develop their understanding of teaching and learning (although, of course, preservice teachers often do create electronic portfolios, some of which contain video clips of their own teaching).
We speculated that in recording videocases from their own classroom activity, preservice teachers would have the opportunity to use previously learned theo- ries and concepts to focus or filter their observations and to find evidence of the same theories and concepts that they previously observed in the videos. Case construction would then function as an observation tool, that is, as a general way of constructing meaning about observed teaching and learning.
Videocase Construction as Observation Tool
Videocase construction, used as an observational tool, requires preservice teachers to review their recordings for particular observations that they consid- ered to be examples of effective teaching, according to the theories and concepts they had learned. Thus, they would use their existing classroom teaching-learn-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
350 The Journal of Experimental Education
ing schemas to detect what was going on in the classroom. Also, as a general meaning-making process, videocase construction would require them to make sense of various aspects of their observations in terms of those theories and con- cepts. In these ways, creating their own cases promotes their understanding about teaching and learning in an authentic, personally relevant context.
Video recording of classroom activity allows the case constructor to “cast a wide net” in the initial phase of case construction (i.e., to indiscriminately cap- ture all of what is happening in a classroom and store it for later editing into more focused segments). The sheer amount of verbal and visual detail captured in a video recording-nuances of teacher expressions, student responses, and the like-further enhance its usefulness as a classroom observation tool during the taping stage. Repeatedly reviewing their video recordings during editing fosters preservice teachers’ continued construction of complex and stable mental repre- sentations of their teaching-learning observations.
The Present Study
Our purpose in the present intervention study was to determine the effective- ness of preservice teachers’ use of videocase construction as an observation tool-that is, their ability to identify, interpret, or analyze manifestations of effective teaching in subsequent observations of investigator-provided video clips. The preservice teachers’ process for case construction in the present study was heavily dependent on technology; they constructed their videocases by recording video of their mentor teachers, downloading the video to a computer for editing, reviewing the videos several times on the computer during editing, and online reflection on their final version. Therefore, we refer to the case con- struction process as “technology-supported practice in observation.” Few of the studies reported in the literature on learning with either written cases or video- cases have been empirical, and we found none that used a controlled experimen- tal design. We planned a controlled experimental study to test our hypothesis about effects of videocase construction as observation tools because a true exper- imental design promotes a high degree of confidence in its results.
We expected that preservice teachers whose classroom placement observation was augmented by technology-supported practice in observation of teaching would construct more teaching-learning ideas (e.g., statements that identified, interpreted, or analyzed manifestations of effective teaching) from computer-pre- sented video clips than would students who experienced only the classroom placement observations. Our expectation was based on the differences in cogni- tive processing that would be afforded by the two observation contexts.
Both kinds of observation experience, classroom placement and videocase construction, are likely to enhance preservice teachers’ understanding of teach- ing and thus their ability to generate teaching-learning ideas from subsequent
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Beck, King, & Marshall 35 1
observation experiences, including observing new video clips. From an informa- tion-processing, connectionist-constctivist perspective, both kinds of observa- tion provide the opportunity for preservice teachers to use their existing schemas about teaching and learning to identify and interpret manifestations of effective teaching in events observed. Also, both kinds of observation help preservice teachers connect the classroom material they observe (live or on video) with their existing knowledge structures about teaching, thereby constructing highly elab- orated and richly integrated mental representations of classroom teaching-learn- ing. Such richly integrated mental representations of effective classroom teach- ing could be used to make meaning from later observation tasks.
However, unlike classroom observations that cannot be rewound and replayed, the medium of video allows users to replay the videocases and to locate selected sequences. This enables videocase makers to review their video as often as need- ed during editing. While repeatedly reviewing a videocase could increase the amount of cognitive processing of recorded material, such exposure could also provide videocase constructors with opportunities for different kinds of process- ing, because each viewing might expose new insights. On each viewing, a video observer’s attention could focus on different events and actions that they may not have previously seen, especially if they apply particular “lenses” (like their schemas for teaching strategies, student engagement, etc.) for those repeated viewings. Stopping the tape or reviewing it would also provide time for thinking and analysis about those events, issues, and insights discovered. These different kinds of processing could result in richly elaborated mental representations of teaching and learning, leading to better understanding, which could promote transfer to a new task. Researchers on written cases have shown that repeated exposure to a case improves preservice teachers’ knowledge, reasoning, and metacognition about that case (Lundeberg et al., 1996). As videocase makers construct multiple representations of specific instances of teaching, they may begin to develop more extensive and integrated mental models of classroom teaching-learning in general. With better mental models to draw on, the video- case makers would be more likely to engage in the kind of flexible understand- ing that enables them to use these mental models in decision-making on a later observation task. That is, they would be more likely to be capable of transfer. Thus, both the quantity and quality of cognitive processing of specific video seg- ments could be expected to enhance their observational performance on similar videos over and above that of preservice teachers who experienced only the live classroom observations.
On the other hand, although preservice teachers who constructed their own videocases may enjoy some cognitive processing advantages over live observa- tion, they might also experience some possible limitations. Identifying particular segments of a single recorded observation and focusing heavily on it may pro- vide the videocase makers a decontextualized, isolated sample and hence may
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
352 The Journal of Experimental Education
preclude their experiencing the observation as a continuous flow of events with- in a complex context. This lack of continuous flow of classroom episodes for the videocase makers could erode their perception of authenticity, which is crucial to encoding their observation experience. In contrast, preservice teachers whose observation experiences are all live in the classroom would perceive only the nat- ural ongoing flow of an authentic teaching-learning experience tied to its con- text. Furthermore, the videocase construction group might also suffer boredom from repeated, intensive exposure to the same material, thus negating any cogni- tive processing advantage that they gain from repeated exposure to segments of classroom life.
Method
Sample and Design
The participants were students (N = 62) enrolled in the first term of a three- term elementary teacher preparation program at an urban university. Participants were randomly assigned to two conditions: technology-supported practice in observation (TSPO; n = 3 l), and control (n = 3 1). Twenty-eight of the partici- pants in each condition were female. Ethnicity of the sample was 50% White, 33% Asian, and 17% Hispanic. The study ran for one 10-week quarter term.
Procedures
Preservice teachers in both conditions were randomly assigned to placements with mentor teachers in elementary classrooms in nearby schools. These place- ments, a major part of the initial teacher-preparation experience, were designed to develop preservice teachers’ skills of observation and analysis of teaching in a field setting. All preservice teachers observed their mentor teachers 4 mornings per week over the 10-week quarter; each listed the classroom activities they engaged in and answered two general observation questions on the same field report.
In addition to their fieldwork, the preservice teachers in the control and the experimental groups attended the same classes on campus taught by the same teachers, including a technology course lecture that met for 1 hr 30 min per week. The experimental and control groups attended separate sections of the lab com- ponent of the technology course, also for 1 hr 30 min per week. Thus, all aspects of courses, teachers, and amount of time spent in technology-related activities were the same for both groups. The only difference between the groups was their activities during technology lab.
The control group’s experience during their technology lab consisted of stan- dard technology activities applied to the content of their other coursework. They
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Beck, King, & Marshall 353
used spreadsheets for managing grades and budgets, developed databases of teaching resources, constructed their own professional websites, collected and shared research via the World Wide Web, and used publishing software to create a newsletter.
Treatment
The TSPO group’s experience during their technology lab was focused on using technology to extend their skills of observation and analysis of teaching beyond their teaching placement. Their technology-supported observation activ- ities consisted of constructing their own videocase and engaging in a related e- mail discussion.
Making videocases involved recording, editing, interpreting, and analyzing short video clips of teaching-learning. Each member of the TSPO group record- ed a single ordinaq classroom lesson of his or her mentor teacher, edited out specific sequences for consideration, and repeatedly reviewed 2- to 7-min sequences while applying various perspectives. To capture a spontaneous account of classroom teaching-learning, the classroom lessons were not pre- pared with videotaping in mind. A hand-held Cannon ZR-10 digital camera was used for recording because it was considered to be relatively unobtrusive. Stu- dents edited the videotapes on Macintosh G3 computers using Apple’s iMovie 2.0.3 software. Videocase makers were instructed to include segments of the les- son that exemplified aspects of teaching-learning that related to five observa- tional frames in the final version of their edited tape: (a) teacher strategies, (b) student learning or understanding, (c) teacher-student interactions, (d) stu- dent-student interactions, and (e) professional standards (the California Stan- dards for the Teaching Profession).
Videocase makers viewed the final edited set of video clips of their mentor teacher, then wrote their reflections on how the clips were related to one or more of the five observational frames. They typed their responses on a computer, using a format that prompted them for the five frames and allowed them to simultane- ously view their video clips in an on-screen box. The filming and editing part of this videocase construction activity extended over several lab sessions, and the online reflection part occurred during one lab session as students were ready for that part of the activity.
The TSPO group also participated in a related group e-mail electronic mailing list discussion about their classroom observations and how those observations related to their coursework and experiences. The 31 participants were assigned to one of four e-mail groups. They learned and refined the necessary skills for par- ticipating in an e-mail discussion during the technology lab but posted and responded to the e-mails outside of class. The e-mail activity continued through 8 weeks of the 10-week quarter.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
354 The Journal of Experimental Education
Measurement
The participants’ ability to identify, interpret, or analyze elements of effective teaching as observed in videocases was assessed by the Video Observation Test during the last class session of the quarter. The Video Observation Test consists of computer-displayed video clips with accompanying prompts to elicit written responses. Preservice teachers in both the TSPO and control groups completed this assessment individually by computer, submitting their written responses electronically.
The three videos used in this test presented instruction in three classroom set- tings: a second-grade, whole-class language arts lesson; a fourth-grade, whole- class math lesson; and a small-group, integrated science lesson. These videos were selected from the California Learning Interchange (2000) and from video taken in classrooms in our affiliated local professional development schools. These videos were selected because they exemplified best practices of teaching and portrayed a range of grade levels and subject areas appropriate to elemen- tary-level preservice teachers. Two of the videos used a sequence of two video clips showing the beginning and ending of the lesson, with the break between clips representing the passage of time during the lesson. On-screen instructions (a) provided a brief context for the instructional segment (e.g., grade level, pur- pose of the lesson), (b) asked students to play the video and write about anything that helped explain the teaching and learning that is going on in the video, (c) asked students to consider both the teacher and the students when identifying any behaviors in the video that illustrate good instructional practice, (d) instructed them to go beyond literal descriptions of what the teacher and students are doing, (e) prompted them to draw on ideas learned in their coursework in responding to the video, and ( f ) asked students to respond in as much detail as possible within the suggested time.
The video test satisfied several of the criteria for performance-based assess- ment (cf. Reeves, 2000):
1. The video segments contained ill-defined but realistic teaching situations that allowed different interpretations;
2. The video segments were concerned with the organization and knowledge in a specific content domain;
3. The video segments had the potential for the interpretation of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge;
4. The task involved problem solving (i.e., interpreting strategies and tactics in instruction);
5. The task involved critical thinking skills in the translation of video record- ed action into verbal concepts and the potential for eliciting pedagogical reasoning.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Beck, King, & Marshall 355
Coding of Online Responses
The first and third authors coded the video observation test responses inde- pendently. Students’ responses were analyzed for their understanding of effective teaching as evidenced by teaching-learning ideas. A written comment was coded as a teaching-learning idea if it represented the student’s interpretations of good instructional practice and was not a literal description of activities in the video- case. Table 1 shows some coding categories that emerged from the data along with examples of preservice teachers’ responses that were considered to be teach- ing-learning ideas from the language arts video. Intercoder reliabilities for stu- dents’ reflections were .98 for language arts, .90 for math, and .98 for science. In some cases, we discussed discrepancies and negotiated agreements on final
TABLE 1 Examples of Coding Categories for Video Observation Test Responses With Examples of Teaching-Laming Ideas
Teaching-learning ideas from preservice teachers’ written protocols on the language arts video test Category of teaching-learning
Use of visual aids
Assessment strategies
Assessing students’ prior knowledge Teacher used KWLa chart to assess prior learning. All of what she has been doing so far is checking the students’ prior knowledge. I feel that this teaches the students in a fun way, and students are more involved in the lesson because they are active. She is creating interest in the subject matter by having them think of questions that they would like to find out answers to and also by having them sing the Itsy Bitsy Spider song. Within the question the teacher draws a picture of the spider instead of actually writing the word out. Uses a graphic organizer to display students’ responses (KWL chart). Asks students what they know, want to know, what they learned. She does a great job with testing their vocabulary by providing the definition and asking students to find the word in the text. This will give her some clues about where gaps in knowledge exist and where she needs to focus her instruction. During the lesson she had control of the class and used great classroom management skills to keep the students interested in the material. In the right clip, she has good classroom management. She asks students to raise their hands before answering her question. Positive reinforcement for her students.
Active participation by students
Classroom management and behavior
(ruble continues)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
356 The Journal of Experimental Education
TABLE 1-Continued
Maintaining students’ interest and attention
Strategies to support English learners
Integrated subject matter
Reference to theories about learning
Subject matter instructional strategies
Providing instructionslinformation to foreshadow what’s coming
The instructor introduced the lesson on the Itsy Bitsy Spider with a song and thus grasped the attention of her young students. Uses pictures instead of writing out words, helps ELb students. On the second video, the teacher keeps incorporating other areas of instruction through the reading. Teacher has students sing, which uses Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence of Music. This engages the students by having the students use a variety of multiple intelligences like musical, linguistic, and kinesthetic. Then she had a student match a word to a word that was in the book. She asked the student to spell the word and then used a strategy (that I assume she used previously) to prompt the student when she hesitated with the spelling. She informs the class that they will be learning about spiders. She lets them know that they will be reading the Itsy Bitsy Spider.
~~ ~
“WL = a commonly used acronym meaning “what you already know. what you want to know, what you’ve learned.” bEL = English learners (those who are learning English as a second language).
scores. We tallied the number of teaching-learning ideas observed by each pre- service teacher for each of the three videos.
Results and Discussion
Observation Test Results
We analyzed preservice teachers’ observation of teaching scores on the three videos in a series of two-tailed 1 tests. Means and standard deviations for these analyses are shown in Table 2.
We found statistically significant differences between the TSPO condition and control on all three video tests, t(60) = 4.58, p c .001, for language arts; t(60) = 3.66, p c .01, for math; and t(60) = 3.03, p c .01, for science. The effect sizes were 1.23 for the language arts video, 1.15 for the math video, and .82 for the science video. These results show that preservice teachers who constructed videocases to augment their classroom observations significantly outperformed their peers who experienced only classroom observation in their ability to iden- tify, interpret, and analyze evidence of effective teaching during observation of all three new videos. These findings suggest that videocase construction may be an effective tool for preservice teachers to use in honing their skill in observation of teaching.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Beck, King, & Marshall 357
TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Number of Teaching Ideas That Preservice Teachers in ’ h o Observation Conditions Observed in Three Videos
Video
Observation TSPO Control
(n = 31) M SD M SD
( n = 31)
Language arts 9.16* 3.45 5.35* 3.09 Math 8.97* 3.83 5.W* 2.61 Science 8.32* 3.12 6.19* 2.36
Nore. TSPO = classroom placement observation plus technology-supported prac- tice: control = classroom placement observation. *p < .Ol.
Videocase Construction and Observation
The two groups’ differing ability to identify, interpret, and analyze evidence of effective teaching might be explained by differences in their mental representa- tions of teaching-learning that they developed during their observation experi- ences. Although this study does not provide direct evidence of participants’ men- tal representations, we believe that preservice teachers in the two groups developed qualitatively different mental representations of effective teaching because of their different kinds of observation practice. Although videocase mak- ers had somewhat more cognitive processing of observation than the control group, we argue that differences in outcome are not attributable to quantity of observational experience; rather, that videocase makers were afforded opportu- nities for different kinds of cognition about observation because of the observa- tion tool they used-constructing videocases.
We believe that repeated viewings of the same observation enabled the video- case makers to process the video in many different ways. First, in multiple view- ings of their videocases, the videocase makers could focus their attention on dif- ferent events and actions that they may not have previously noted. This could promote their identification and reflection on those particular events, actions, issues, and problems (cf. Lundeberg et al., 1996, findings of improved knowl- edge, reasoning, and metacognition resulting from repeated exposure to one case). Seeing new events, actions, and issues each time they reviewed their video could have resulted in the videocase makers constructing a variety of connections among concepts observed and between those concepts observed in the videocase and those observed in their regular classroom placements.
Furthermore, during videocase makers’ online reflection session, their inten-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
358 The Journal of Experimental Education
tional use of the observational frames provided them opportunities to extend their construction of meaning of teaching and learning. During the reflection session, videocase makers were prompted by the five observational frames (teacher strate- gies, student learning or understanding, teacher-student interactions, student-stu- dent interactions, professional standards) to think about the events, actions, and issues they observed in their videos. Providing these very specific lenses to prompt reflection on their videos may have helped the videocase makers to see their video recording in new light each time in relation to those five specific cat- egories of material they had learned about in their coursework and may have prompted them to make new connections to each of these five frames of prior con- tent knowledge.
For example, a preservice teacher, using the five observational frames to reflect on the video of her mentor teacher’s math lesson, might first identify the teacher’s strategy in that lesson as an inquiry-based, questioning one, but she might also see that strategy as a way of using ongoing assessment of student learning because asking questions allowed the teacher to check the student’s understanding during the lesson. At the same time, the preservice teacher might also note that the ques- tioning strategy was an example of student-teacher interaction (because of its question-answer format) and that the mentor teacher’s skillful use of questioning also elicited student-to-student interaction through such questions such as “Joe, what do you think of what Mary said?’ The preservice teacher might further inter- pret this strategy as an example of Professional Standard lb (“Use a variety of teaching strategies”). In this example, the preservice teacher is using the observa- tional frames not only to make connections between her mentor teacher’s lesson and her own prior knowledge but also to make different kinds of connections- both to those five categories in prior knowledge and among those categories. Mak- ing many different kinds of connections results in complex, richly integrated knowledge structures.
These cognitive processing experiences may have extended and deepened videocase makers’ understanding of teaching and learning, and consequently increased their ability to identify, interpret, and analyze manifestations of exem- plary teaching during observation beyond that of the preservice teachers whose cognitive processing of observations was limited to their classroom experience. In turn, videocase makers’ increased ability to read teaching-learning ideas in what they observed could have influenced their ability to identify, interpret, and analyze manifestations of exemplary teaching later in the video test situation.
Limitations of the Study
Of course, there may be other possible explanations for the differences in obser- vation performance between those who constructed videocases and those who did not. Although differences between groups cannot be accounted for by familiarity
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Beck, King, & Marshall 359
or practice with technology per se (because the control group used the technolo- gy for the same amount of time), practice effects with videocases could have had some influence on videocase makers’ performance. Unlike the controls, whose first experience with reading videos was on the test, videocase makers spent sev- eral technology lab sessions on making their videocase and were thus quite prac- ticed in doing so by the time of the test. Nor can we rule out the videomakers’ superior performance from the novelty effect of making their own cases, although boredom from viewing their videocase over and over would presumably have can- celled out any novelty effect. It is also possible that videocase makers experienced more cognitive processing of observations because of their use of the related group e-mail discussion. Finally, because the videocases were personally relevant to the preservice teachers who made them and the cases were constructed in a manner that fosters learner autonomy (because videocase makers themselves con- trolled what was selected and focused on for analysis), it is possible that autono- my played some role in the learning effects of case making. Future researchers could isolate the autonomy variable by comparing one condition in which video- cases are provided to preservice teachers for their analysis with a condition in which videocases are self-constructed by preservice teachers and then analyzed. Such a study could also address the question of whether effects in the present study might have been due to the preservice teachers’ practice with videocase analysis rather than to their actually making their own videocases.
We conducted this study with 5th-year teacher credential students, thus limit- ing the generalizability of findings to similar teacher preparation programs. However, there is probably reason to expect similar results with other teacher preparation populations. Because the sample size for this study was small, the study should be replicated with a larger sample. Furthermore, the findings are robust enough that they might warrant attempting student videocase construction in other programs that are heavily focused on developing the ability to observe, such as police training, childcare, and anthropology.
A long-term goal of this project is to assess transfer effects, and to that end we are planning to follow up on the participants of this study into their student teach- ing and 1 st-year teaching experiences.
Implications for Teacher Education Programs
These findings support the efficacy of using videocase construction by preser- vice teachers as an observation tool in teacher education programs. With the growing use of electronic portfolios for performance assessment in preservice education, videocases constructed by the preservice teachers themselves could become an important component of those portfolios. Programs that incorporate videocase making into electronic portfolios could explore alternative ways for making videocase construction an even more deeply reflective process. For
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
360 The Journal of Experimental Education
example, videocase makers could use specified criteria for selecting video clips (from a longer tape of a lesson) in the initial stages of the construction process and, later on, they could use various other kinds of prompts for reflection. Both the selection criteria and the reflection prompts could be personalized for the learner, thus further promoting preservice teachers’ reflections on their particular videocases and on their understanding of teaching-learning in general.
Videocase construction could probably also be used for staff development with inservice teachers. Traditional teacher education and staff development programs could integrate case making much as it was done in this study; however, other possibilities exist for distance education teacher-preparation programs such as CalTeach (a distance education online teacher-preparation program administered by the California State University System). In programs that are delivered pri- marily online, preservice teachers could construct their videocases from a large resource of Web-based video clips of teaching. Additional prompts and other ways of seeing and reflecting on their cases could be provided by the instructors to students-tailored to their individual needs. Preservice teachers could share their self-constructed videocases in small groups (via chat rooms or e-mail) to promote discussion and extend learning about their observations and reflections.
REFERENCES
Baddeley, A. (1990). Human memory: theory and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Barnett. C. (1991). Building a case-based curriculum to enhance the pedagogical content knowledge
of Mathematics teachers. Journal of Teacher Education. 42(4). 263-272. Barnett, C., & Tyson, P. A. (1993, April). Mathematics teaching cases as a catalyst for informed
strategic inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Berliner, D. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13. California Learning Interchange. “Best Practices Videocases” retrieved Sept. 2000 from
www.gse.uci/cli/. Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P. & Berliner, D. (1988). Expert-novice differences in per-
ceiving and processing visual classroom information. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 25-32. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review,
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbuilt (CTGV). (1990). Anchored instruction and its rela- tionship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher; 19(6), 2-10.
Desberg, P., & Fisher, F. (1996). Using technology in case methodology. In J. Colbert, J. Trimble, & P. Desberg (Eds.), The case for education: Contemporary approaches for using case methods (pp. 39-55). Boston: AIlyn & Bacon.
Hamngton, H. (1996, April). Learning from cases. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
James, F. (1991). An analysis of case-based instruction in teacher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia. Charlottesville.
Kleinfeld, J. (1992, April). Can cases carry pedagogical content knowledge? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1998). Investigating teaching: New pedagogies and new technologies for teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Levin, B. B. (1997. April). The influence of context in case-based teaching: Personal dilemmas, mom1 issues, or real changes in teachers’ thinking. Symposium paper presented at the annual
3, 149-210. Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Beck. King, & Marshall 361
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Lundeberg, M. A., &, Fawver. J. E. (1993, April). Cognitive growth in case analysis. Paper present-
ed at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. Lundeberg, M. A., Matthews, D., & Sheurman, G. (1996, April). Looking twice means seeing more:
How knowledge affects case analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu- cational Research Association, New York.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York; Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Peterson, P. L., & Comeaux, M. A. (1987). Teachers’ schemata for classroom events: The mental scaf-
folding of teachers’ thinking during classroom instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4),
Reeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23( I) , 101-1 I I .
Richardson, V. (1991, April). The use of cases in considering methods for motivating studenrs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Richardson, V., & Kile, S. (1992, April). The use of videocases in teacher education. Paper present- ed at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Richardson, V., & Kile, S. (1999). Learning from videocases. In M. A. Lundeberg, B. B. Levin, & H. L. Hamngton (Eds.), Who learns what from cases and how? (pp. 121-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl- baum.
Rickart, A. E. (1991). Case methods and teacher education: Using cases to teach teacher reflection. In B. R. Tabichink & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry oriented teacher educa- tion (pp. 130-150). London: Falmer.
Risko, V. J., McAllister, D., Peter, J., & Bigeho, F. (1994). Using technology in support of preservice teachers’ generative learning. In E. G. Stertavant & W. M. Linek (Us.). farhways for literacy: Learners teach and teachers learn: The 16th yearbook of the College Reading Association (pp. 155-167). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association.
Shulman, J. H. (Ed.). (1992). Case methods in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Van Zoest, L. R. (1995, April). The impact of small group discussion on preservice teachers’obser-
vations and reflections. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Wasserman. S. (1994). Intmduction to case method teaching: A guide to the galaxy. New York: Teachers College Press.
3 19-33 1.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UT
SA L
ibra
ries
] at
11:
00 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
