March 2008

www.wlecentre.ac.uk

Key words:ProfessionalFeedback;ContinuingProfessionalDevelopment;Video-SupportedLearning; Teacher -Teacher Interaction;Face-work.

Project Report

Summary of researchThis study explored how teachersgive other teachers post-observationalfeedback using video-recordings oftheir classroom practices.Adoptingan interactional perspective it wasinvestigated how two pairs of teachersco-constructed accounts of what wenton in video-recorded classes. The focuswas on the teachers’‘face-work’(Goffman 1967): their ways ofsustaining a positive image ofthemselves and each other whilegiving and receiving potentially face-threatening feedback. The analysisshows how two different models forpeer feedback using video-recordingsproduced different kinds of feedback.In the simultaneous model watchingthe video-recording and co-constructingan account of what went on unfolded atthe same time and at the same place,with the teachers being co-present. Inthe successive model watching anddiscussing classroom practice weretemporally and spatially separatedactivities, with the teachers only beingjointly involved in the discussion. Thesuccessive model produced a moreface-threatening account than thesimultaneous model as different levelsof generalization were achieved. Thesimultaneous model produced accountsabout specific teachers and students

and their attributes within the observedlesson. The successive model producedaccounts about specific teachers andstudents and their attributes in theclassroom and beyond. It is concludedthat if teachers’professionaldevelopment is defined as theco-construction of knowledge whichis firmly grounded in but also goesbeyond the specificities of observedclassroom practices a combination ofthe two feedback models is probablymost effective.

KEY FINDINGS

Face-work and Feedback in InteractionAn interactional approach wasadopted to studying feedback usingvideo-recordings. Such an approachdraws on methodologies attending tothe textual fine grain of the moment-to-moment unfolding of teacher-teachertalk-in-interaction. It draws particularattention to the ways in which theaccounts that are being producedare shaped by the teachers’‘face-work’(Goffman 1967): their concern forachieving positive images of oneselfand each other. In a social encounterthe face of participants is under constantthreat (Brown & Levinson 1987). Theiracts–what they say and do–may beseen as a threat to ‘positive face’, that is,the desire to be positioned in terms ofapproved social attributes. Examples ofsuch acts include disapproval, criticism,contradictions, disagreements,challenges. It may also threaten‘negative face’, that is, the desire to beunimpeded by others. Examples of such

Using Video in Teacher - TeacherFeedback:

Developing ProfessionalKnowledge from PeerObservation

March 2008 • www.wlecentre.ac.uk • 2

Project Report

acts include orders and requests,suggestions, advice, remindings,threats, warnings, dares. It is not difficultto imagine face-threatening acts infeedback contexts.What is sometimescalled ‘negative feedback’are actuallythreats of positive face, for instance ateacher telling his colleague that histeaching strategy was unsuccessful. Anact threatening negative face may be ateacher telling his colleague that heshould change his teaching strategy. If itis the addressee’s behaviour that isdiscussed such acts are face-threateningnot only to the addressee, but also to theaddressor. If the addressor fails to savethe addressee’s face he might lose hisown face, for his lack of ‘tact’or ‘savoir-faire’might make him appear ‘rude’,‘offensive’, or ‘intrusive’.

Two Feedback Models InvolvingVideoTwo cases of teacher-teacher feedbackusing video-recordings were studied: Jill& Fiona, and John & Karin. The formershows a simultaneous feedback modelin action. In this model re-playing thevideo-recording and co-constructingan account of what went on happenedat the same time and at the same place,while the teachers were co-present. Thelatter shows a successive feedbackmodel in action. In this model watchingand discussing classroom practice weretemporally and spatially separatedactivities, while the teachers were onlyjointly involved in the discussion. Thestudy yielded three types of data. First,video-recordings of classes run by Jilland John. Second, video-recordings ofJill & Fiona and John & Karin discussingthe video-recorded classes. Third,audio-recordings of interviews with theteachers about the feedback sessions.

Scale of GeneralizationAs the teachers produced their accountsof what went on in the classroom theywere making claims which were more orless ‘wide-ranging’. At times they werevery specific, such as in “maybe youcould have had [the students] discussingsomething”.Or they were making more

general statements, such as “thatenergy that you give off as a teacherinfluences children and how they learn”.These different levels of generality are todo with the ‘scale’of what is claimed tobe true. Lower scale-levels correspondwith specific propositions, higher scale-levels with general propositions. Themore general the proposition is the widerthe temporal and spatial implicationsare.A ‘scale of generalization’can thusbe envisaged with the momentary andthe local and one end, and the timelessand the translocal at the other end. Theteachers’ statements can be placedalong this combined dimension oftime and space.At one extreme theymake statements about specificmoments in the events that unfoldedwithin the time and space of the classthey observed. Towards the otherextreme they make statements whichare claimed to hold truth beyond theclassroom of the observed teacher,with the classroom (like ‘class’; ‘event’;‘moment’) being a unit of (social)space and time (spanning a schoolyear). In Figure 1 three statements areplaced in order of generality.

timeless and translocal

That energy that you give off as ateacher influences children and how

they learn.

Generally you keep quite a stern lookwithin the classroom.

Maybe you could have had themdiscussing something.

momentary and local

figure 1: Scale of Generalisations

March 2008 • www.wlecentre.ac.uk • 3

Project Report

Jill and Fiona’s gravitation point on thescale of generalization turned out to belower than John and Karin’s.Most ofwhat Jill and Fiona say does not gobeyond the lesson that was recorded,such as in “Maybe you could have had[the students] discussing something”or“This group was loving it.” In contrast,John and Karin tend to say thingswhich go beyond the lesson thatKarin sat in on, such as in “Generallyyou keep quite a stern look within theclassroom”or “You cater really well forboys”.

The Impact of the Use of Video onScales of GeneralizationIt seems that the difference in thelevels of generalization achieved in theteachers’accounts is related to the useof video: the simultaneous model triggersaccounts which are more specific thanthe ones produced by the successivemodel. Excerpt 1 illustrates this (in theExcerpts ‘V’ followed by an initial –F-iona;J-ill; J-ohn; K-arin– stands for Video: theseutterances were made in the classroomand are being replayed during thediscussion; xx stands for unintelligibleparts).

Excerpt 1VJ:xx now,what’s about x if someone

had to be xx in the story of Maryand Joseph xx smashing anddashing like this.

F: And I thought your vocabulary wasnice: smashing, dashing.

J: [laughs]F: Yeah but they’re words maybe that

they wouldn’t have used thatthey’ve now got in their vocabularyto use.

J: Mm.J: I was trying to get across the wise

man. That’s what I was trying to getacross. Cos they would have xx.

VJ:xxx you might tell us who x

This is a typical sequence in Jill andFiona’s account: They are in an ‘openstate of talk’ (Goffman 1981), watchingthe video together. At some point

something happens on the video whichtriggers a comment from Jill or Fiona. Inthis case Jill’s use of the words smashingand dashing makes Fiona say“I thoughtyour vocabulary was nice: smashing,dashing.” So the observation of an event,which may have been recurring, at leastin the eyes of Fiona, leads her to make astatement which seems to be about thelesson as a whole: her intonation in‘smashing, dashing’ is clearly suggestiveof examplication. So Fiona ‘upscales’to the level of the lesson, and this moveis transparent; the generalization isgrounded in the replay to which theyboth attend as the generalization isbeing made. Excerpt 2 gives a typicalexchange in John and Karin’s account.

Excerpt 2J: Hello. The first question is, what did

you notice in my gesturesthroughout the lesson and whatwe’ve seen on the video.

K: Okay. Do you want me to start withyour face expressions?

J: Yeah, that would be good.K: I noticed that generally you keep

quite a stern look within theclassroom.And there are timeswhere you raise your eyebrows aswell. And especially when you’reasking a question and youreyebrow is raising helps thechildren. I noticed, as I was lookingaround, that as your face changed,you eyebrows went upwards. Thechildren, especially the quieterchildren, the children who perhapsneed to come out a little bit morepicked up and they then thoughtthey could go and ask a question.So as your face changed, theatmosphere around the quietermembers of the class xx.

J: Do you think it is important to keepmindful of my facial expressionswhen I’m dealing with boys asopposed to girls?

Where the previous excerpt showedthat to a large extent Jill and Fiona’saccount is dictated by the replay, this

March 2008 • www.wlecentre.ac.uk • 4

Project Report

excerpt shows that John and Karin’saccount is orchestrated primarily byJohn. There is no open state of talk;rather interaction is focused continuously.The answers to these questions are notgrounded in a replay but in a recountproduced by Karin (“I noticed, as I waslooking around…”). The result is anaccount with more generalizationstowards the level of the classroom.Karin tends to start her answers withgeneralizations at this level, and thenbecomes more specific. In this exampleshe kicks off with the statement that“generally you keep quite a sternlook within the classroom”and then‘downscales’ through a shift frompresent tense (“There are times whenyou raise your eyebrow”) to past tense(“…your eyebrows went upwards”) tosupport the generalization.

Face-threatsFace-threatening statements wereusually specific or more general abouttwo different things: about people; andabout their attributes. Being specific

about people means talking aboutindividuals; being more general aboutpeople means talking about socialgroups (e.g.‘teachers’; ‘five-year-olds’).When talking about people, anotherdistinction can be made between theinteractants/teachers and the groupswhich they are believed to be part of andpeople who are not also interactantin the feedback session. Being specificor more general about their attributesmeans narrowing down or widening thetime and space to which the attribute isbelieved to apply (e.g.‘you were verystern there’ vs.‘you are very stern’). Thisis another way of talking about theidentities that are being constructed infeedback sessions: professional/teacheridentities and student/learner identities;identities of self and of others; ofindividuals and of groups; identities ofthose who are participants in theinteraction and those who are not.

The different types of generalizationsused by the teachers who observed theircolleague, Fiona and Karin, are listed in

teacher/student people attribute example

teacher specific general -

teacher specific specific you’ve got quite an assertive tone

teacher general specificsometimes you do need to have a stern

face

teacher general generalthat energy that you give off as a

teacher

student specific generalthey’re all capable of writing and

thinking

student specific specific

they were totally focused on what theywere doing

Ray was a good wise man

student general general the quiet shy little girl

student general specificif you vary your face more then the

child will notice it more when you havea face that looks angry

Table 1: Examples on a scale of generality of people and their attributes

March 2008 • www.wlecentre.ac.uk • 5

Project Report

Table 1.As they are only relatively‘general’or ‘specific’, these examplesshould be read in pairs. For instance,the attribute in,“that energy that you giveoff as a teacher” is more general than theattribute in “sometimes you do need tohave a stern face”.And the student/s in“Ray was a good wise man” is morespecific than the students in “theywere totally focused on what theywere doing”,which in turn is morespecific than the students in “thechild will notice it more when…”.

It is normally more face-threateningto talk about interactants who are co-present than to talk about those whoare not, in this case students and otherteachers. Talking about people’sgeneral attributes is normally more face-threatening than talking about specificattributes. Talking about general groupsof people is normally less face-threatening than talking aboutspecific people. Hence, of all eighttypes of generalizations listed in Table 1it was probably most face-threateningto connect one of the two teachersparticipating in the discussion togeneral attributes. Indeed, the onlyexample found at that level wasproduced by one of the teachers whowas observed, as he was talking abouthimself. And it was probably least face-threatening to connect general studentsto specific attributes. In other words, thelist is ordered from most face-threateningto least face-threatening. The analysissuggests that John and Karin’s talkgravitates more towards the productionof general attributes of John,whereas Jilland Fiona gravitate more towards theproduction of specific attributes of Jill’sstudents. In other words, John and Karin’saccount is more face-threatening thanJill and Fiona’s. Perhaps this is not onlybecause the simultaneous modeltriggers less-face-threatening types ofgeneralizations, but also because Jilland Fiona tend to avoid more face-threats.Gender could well haveplayed a role in this.

Relevance to work-based learningPeer observation and feedback is acommon activity in education.Manyteachers have organized themselves tosit in on each other’s classes as peersand discuss what they observed. Policiesacross educational sectors have startedto support these practices in the light ofcontinuing professional development.Video-recording has come to play animportant role in peer observation. Ithas facilitated reflection on classroompractice not just by the teachersinvolved, but also by colleagues whowere not co-present in the classroom.The recordings enable teachers to co-analyse their teaching in detail, thussupporting an inductive, reflectiveprocess which is often seen as the keyto professional development (Rodgers2002). Teachers themselves have beenreported to see peer observation ascrucial to the development of their ownpractice (GTCE 2006).‘Video clubs’ forteachers who want to discuss theirteaching with colleagues have becomeincreasingly popular in the U.S. andelsewhere (Van Es & Gamoran Sherin2006).While most of these clubs maystill meet face-to-face, teachers alsocreate professional communities onthe web, allowing them to sharevideo-footage and give eachother feedback online.

Use of technologyTwo models for using video technologyin feedback were explored. Both modelsafforded grounded and collaborativework-based knowledge construction.Each of the two models is based ondifferent use of technology andinteractional framing.As a result, theyproduced different types of accountsof what went on in the classroom. In onemodel generalizations gravitatedtowards specific attributes in relationto the students and the time and spaceof the lesson. In another modelgeneralizations gravitated towardsgeneral attributes in relation to theobserved teacher and the time andspace of the classroom or beyond

March 2008 • www.wlecentre.ac.uk • 6

Project Report

(see Table 2).

The two models offer different potentialfor work-based learning.Model 1 offerstransparency of scale shifts.Within thismodel teachers build knowledge onobservations of specific events whichare visible to both.Model 2 offers higherlevels of generalization.Within this modelteachers build knowledge on the basisof more general observations of theclassroom made by one of the two.In other words, the models have theirown virtues: the transparency of scaleshifts and the grounding of knowledgein the specificities of classroom practicesversus more ‘matured’and generalizedknowledge which can be ‘transferred’to other situations.

RecommendationsTeachers should be made aware ofthe implications of different feedbackmodels for learning. Before choosingto adopt a particular model carefulconsideration should be given to thelevels of generalization that one wants toachieve and the aptness of the model formaking such generalizations. If teachersseek to co-construct knowledge which isfirmly grounded in but also goes beyondthe specificities of observed classroompractices a combination of the twofeedback models discussed here may

be most effective.When developingother models for feedback using videoattention should be given not just to thediscussion but also to the replay and themaking of the video. In all these activitieschoices are made which shape thefeedback which is achieved in thediscussion. In order for teachers to getthe kind of feedback they seek theyneed to ‘direct’ these activities andreflect on the technological affordancesthat support the kind of feedback wishedfor. Achieving specific understandings ofspecific events, for instance,may besupported by the zoom function of thecamera and the possibility of rewindingand slowing down the replay, none ofwhich have been used by the teachersin the two cases looked at here. It mightalso be useful to jointly reflect on therole of ‘face’after a feedbacksession–especially when the teachersintend to organize mutual feedbacksessions more regularly.

Impact indicatorsThe impact of the study on teacherswho participated in the study isreportedly high.One of them explainedthat “I have absolutely, in my own mind, Ithink I’ve changed in a profound way.”This may have had a knock-on effectwithin their schools.

mode 1 mode 2

Use of video simultaneously replayingand recounting

successively replayingand recounting

Interactional framingopen state of talkflexible rolesreplay guides

focused interactionfixed rolesobserved teacher guides

Typical generalizationsspecific attributes ofstudents in relation tolesson

general attributes ofobserved teacher inrelation to classroom

Table 2: Two models for peer feedback using video

March 2008 • www.wlecentre.ac.uk • 7

Project Report

Further dissemination will hopefully leadto further development of interactionalapproaches to the study of feedback,complementing research in this fieldwhich is largely based on interviewswith teachers.

The data from this study have beenmade available to William Gibson forfurther research and pedagogicpurposes.

Opportunities for bidding for researchgrants for further research will beconsidered.

Potential for further developmentFuture research should not only includemore teachers but also look at their long-term developments. Teachers can beexpected to develop routines to dealwith the issues raised here, and it wouldbe worth investigating if more specificinstructions as to how to use video wouldlet them adopt different feedbackmodels. Further research may also focuson online teacher communities sharingvideo of their own teaching for feedbackpurposes. This constitutes an entirelydifferent social and communicativecontext with its very own potential forprofessional development. Such researchmay benefit from insights in situatedhuman interaction and such notions as‘face-work’ (Goffman 1967),‘politeness’(Brown & Levinson 1987),‘hedging’(Markkanen & Schröder 1997) and‘identity’ (De Fina, Schiffrin, Bamberg2006). Lastly, it seems worth investigatingthe synergies with academic researchmethodologies involving video.Agrowing body of literature focuses onmaking and analyzing video-recordingsof classroom interaction (e.g. Pink 2001),thus reflecting on processes of makingand remaking ‘texts’which can also befound in the context of peer feedback.

Partners involvedI am grateful to the teachers whokindly participated in the study. Ialso owe thanks to Adam Lefstein andWilliam Gibson for their very helpful

feedback, and to Caroline Daly forcoining the idea of looking into the use ofvideo for teachers’professionaldevelopment and supporting therecruitment of participants.

Key literature and weblinks

Blommaert, J. (2007) SociolinguisticScales. Intercultural Pragmatics 4, 1, 1-19.

Brown, P. & S.C. Levinson (1987) Politeness.Some universals in language usage.Cambridge: CUP.

De Fina,A., D. Schiffrin & M. Bamberg(2006) (eds) Discourse and Identity.Cambridge: CUP.

Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual.Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior.Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis. Anessay on the organization of experience.Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford:Blackwell.

General Teaching Council for England(2006) Peer Observation. Publicationcode: P-TP02-0906.

Markkanen, R. & H. Schröder (1997)Hedging: A challenge for pragmaticsand Discourse Analysis. In: Markkanen &H. Schröder.Hedging. Approaches to theAnalysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon inAcademic Texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.(pp. 3-18).

Pink, S. (2001) Doing visual ethnography:images, media, and representation inresearch. London: Sage.

Rodgers. C.R. (2002)Voices InsideSchools. Seeing Student Learning:Teacher Change and the Role ofReflection.Harvard Educational Review,72, 2.

Sherin,M. & E. van Es (2005) UsingVideo to

March 2008 • www.wlecentre.ac.uk • 8

Project Report

Support Teachers’Ability to NoticeClassroom Interactions. Journal ofTechnology and Teacher Education 13, 3,501-517.

Thonus (2004) What are the differences?Tutor interactions with first- and second-language writers. Journal of SecondLanguage Writing, 13, 227-242.

van Es, E.A. & M.Gamoran Sherin (2006)How Different Video Club Designs SupportTeachers in “Learning to Notice”. Journalof Computing in Teacher Education 22, 4,125-135.

Vásquez, C. (2004) “Very carefullymanaged”: advice and suggestions inpost-observation meetings. Linguisticsand Education 15, 33-58.

Waite, D. (1993) Teachers in Conference:A Qualitative Study of Teacher-SupervisorFace-to-Face Interactions.AmericanEducational Research Journal, 30, 4, 675-702.

Wang, J. & Hartley, K. (2003)Videotechnology as a support for teachereducation refortm. Journal of Technologyand Teacher Education, 11, 1, 105-138.