Video conferencing by student teachers: Does it make any

Background: During a nine-week teaching practice, 20 student teachers spent about 1.5 hourseach week videoconferencing with one university faculty member and five student teachers from five differentschools,whiletheother22studentteachersdidnothaveanyvideoconferences. Bothgroupswereencouragedtomakeconsciouseffortintalkingtoschoolpersonnelandotherstudentteachersaboutteachingpracticerelatedissues.

Aims:Thestudyexaminedtheimpactofstudentteachers’talkontheirreportedexperienceofstudentteachingandself-perceivedteachingcompetencies.

Sample:Theparticipantswere44studentteacherswhounderwentanine-weekteachingpracticeindifferentprimaryschools.

Method:Thequestionnairewasadministeredtothe44studentteacherstwodaysbeforetheyreportedtotheirrespectiveteachingpracticeschoolsandtwodaysaftertheycompletedtheirnine-weekteachingpractice.Thereturnratewasabout80percent.Outof44setsofquestionnaires,atotalof35preandpostquestionnaireswerevalidandusedfortheanalysis.

Results: The findings suggested that the student teachers who had weekly videoconference reported morepositiveexperienceoftheirteachingpractice.Self-reportedteachingcompetencieswerehigherinthe post teaching practice questionnaire for both groups and no significant differences were found between thetwogroups.

Conclusion:Thevalue-addedpotentialofvideoconferencingasatechnologyliesinitspossibilityofprovidingnewandalternativeexperiencesforstudentteacherstoengageinconversationsandcollaborativereflection. As videoconferencing removes the barriers of time and space that prevented student teachers frominteractingwithpeersoutsidetheirteachingpracticeschools.

Keywords:preserviceteachereducation,teachingpractice,videoconference

Video conferencing by student teachers: Does it make any difference?

Chun HUUniversity of Sydney, Australia

在實習過程中使用電腦視屏會議對受訓教師的實習經驗及他們對本身教學能力的評估有影響嗎？

呼春澳大利亞悉尼大學

背景：４４名正在接受培訓的教師用九周的時間在不同的小學進行實習，其中２０名參與了每周一次一個半小時的視屏會議，另外２４名則沒有。參加每周視屏會議的包括一名教師學院的教授及五名在其它小學進行實習的受訓教師。教師學院鼓勵所有的實習教師盡量多與他們所在學校的教師交談探討實習中所遇到的問題。

目的：本文分析受訓教師實習期間與其他教師的交談，並探討其是否對受訓教師實習經驗及他們對本身教學能力評估產生影響。

調查對象：４４名在不同小學進行九周實習的受訓教師。

NewHorizonsinEducation,No.53, May2006

Angela F. L. WONGNational Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological

University, Singapore

黃鳳蓮新加坡南洋理工大學國立教育學院

42

Videoconferencingbystudentteachers:Doesitmakeanydifference?

43

調查方法：４４名受訓教師分�在實習��及實習��了同一�調查問�在實習��及實習��了同一�調查問在實習��及實習��了同一�調查問卷。問卷收�率是百分之八十。��十五�實習�及實習�問卷用��分析。��十五�實習�及實習�問卷用��分析。��十五�實習�及實習�問卷用��分析。��分析。�分析。

調查�果：調查發現參加每周視屏會議的實習教師比沒有參加視屏會議的實習教師更高評估他們的實習經驗。實習��,所有的受訓教師對本身教學能力的評估都有提高,是否參加每周一次的視屏會議並沒有影響他們對本身教學能力的評估。

��：視屏會議排除了實習教師因為時間和距離不能與在其它學校實習的同事交流的障礙,為實習教師互相交留經驗提供了新的途徑。

關鍵詞：受訓教師, 實習, 視屏會議

Student teaching practice is an importantstageintheprofessionaldevelopmentofteachers.It provides an opportunity for preservice teachersto apply the knowledge and theories learned oncampus to the real classroom. Student teachinghas been called the most challenging, rewarding,andcriticalstageofteachereducation(Goethals&Howard, 2000) and it is generally agreed that thestudent teachingexperience is thekey for teacherpreparationprograms(Guyton&McIntyre,1990).Becauseitissoimportant,teachingpracticeshouldbe conducted in such a way that student teacherscan continuously learn new knowledge and skillsanddevelopprofessionally.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Teachingisaprofessionwherepractitionersenjoyahighdegreeofautonomyinclassroomsandoftenworkinisolation. However,thecomplexityof teaching demands that teachers work together,collectivelyexaminingnewconceptionsofteachingandlearningandengaginginprofessionalgrowth.Amongthe justificationsfor teachercollaborationisacompellingoneofferedbyShulman(1989):

Teachers’ collegiality and collaboration arenotimportantmerelyfortheimprovementofmoraleand teacher satisfaction (whichalways sound likea lame argument in favor of satisfied teachers,regardless of whether they succeed in teachingkids); theyare absolutelynecessary if teaching istobeofhighestorderandthuscompatiblewiththestandards of excellence demanded by the recent

reform(p.167).When teachers collectively make inquiries

abouttheirpractices,theytalktoeachotherabouttheirconcerns,makingsenseof taken-for-grantedassumptionsandreachingcollectiveunderstandingor decisions. Their reflection becomes a jointresponsibility that encourages them to workcollectively toward shared understanding andcommitments (Kruse, Louis & Bryke, 1995).When teachers investigate and critically examinetheirpracticesinacontinuousway,theiractivitiesconstitute the defining feature of a learningcommunity, that is participants' collaborativeendeavors and their shared norms, values andpractices (Van Mannen & Barley, 1984). Aspointed out byWenger (1998), the primary focusof a learning community is on learning as socialparticipation. By discussing issues related toteaching, novice teachers can "offer each othermoral support, intellectual/academic help, andsolid friendship" (Noddings, 1992, p. 179),and they may find resolutions to some of theirdilemmas (Thomas, Wineburg, Grossman, Myhre& Woolworth, 1998). Only when teachers worktogether as learners can they come to understandfirst-handthesortoflearningandteachingentailedbycomplexdisciplinaryreformsthataredesignedforallchildren(Darling-Hammond,1994).

Inateacherlearningcommunity,teachersusecollaborativeconversationsasatoolforlearningtoteach (Hollingsworth,1994)andasamediumforunderstandingexperienceswithintheclassroomanda stimulus toward "transformative social action"

ChunHu,AngelaF.L.Wong

44

(Lather, 1991, p. 72). Through conversations,teachers make sense of what they already know,negotiate ideas and reach new understanding.Learning occurs through conversations about asubject that make knowledge explicit, and theseconversations can be general discussions, focuson a subject, or talk about learning itself (Pask,1975).Learningisareflectivedialogicalpracticeinconversationallearning(Cunliffe,2002;Shotter,1993).Inanattempttomakesenseofexperience,individuals learn not only via internal but alsoexternaldialogues.Byinternalreflectivedialogue,individualsconstructself-managed,meaningfulandpersonallearning.Atthislevel,reflectiveskillsareusedinaconversationalwaytocomeupwithnewmodelsofpersonalunderstanding.Thismayimply“reflection-in-action” (Schön,1987). Byexternalreflective dialogue, individuals share knowledgewith others and meaning is socially negotiated,whichmayimply“reflection-after-action”(Schön,1987). Regardless of the differences in theperceptionsconstructedbyindividuals,knowledgeis shared, meaning is mediated and negotiatedvia social networks, and new understandings aredeveloped.Asconversationalists,studentteacherscanbereflectivethinkerswhoconstantlyconstructtheirunderstandingandalsoshareand learn fromsocial interactions within their specific socio-culturalsettings.

A teacher learning community may takemany forms. Somemaybeahandfulof teachersvoluntarily meeting informally (Helms, 1996).Otherscouldbeamandatedteamorwhole-schoolcollaboration (Hargreaves, 1992). Still otherscould be a network of teachers across schools(Lieberman & McLaughlin, 1996). A teacherlearningcommunitymayengageinstoryswapping,sharing experiences about teaching and students,and another may practice joint work that fostersinterdependence as teachers work collectivelyto solve problems, raise questions, or engage inchangingpractice(Little,1990).

Rapiddevelopmentoftechnologieshasadded

newavenuesforteacherstoengageinconversationallearning. As a method for engaging studentteachers in sustained and substantive discussion,electronic discourse or electronic discussiongroups and computer-mediated communicationhaveshownpromisesinteachereducation(Killian& Willhite, 2003). In addition to synchronizedand asynchronized online discussions, learnersnow can also get together and discuss issues viavideoconferencing.Videoconferencinghasshownpromiseforuseinruralareastoprovideinteractionsbetween student teachers in the field and theiruniversity supervisors (Venn, Moore, & Gunter,2000), and for pre-service teachers to observehigh school classes and discuss learning theoriesexhibited during the lessons (Knight, Pedersen &Peters,2004).

BACKGROUND

AttheNationalInstituteofEducation(NIE)in Singapore, teaching practice (TP) is organizedunder a partnership model where schools takethe major responsibility of supervising studentteachers’ day-to-day operation. Coordinated bya school coordinating mentor (SCM), the schoolprincipalandcooperatingteachers(CTs)workasateamwithuniversitysupervisorstomentorstudentteachers.Innormalteachingpracticesupervision,NIEsupervisorsneedtoobservestudentteachersintheirrespectiveclassroomsfortwotothreetimes.Priortoclassroomobservations,studentteachersareusuallyrequiredtosubmittheirlessonplansandthismaybefollowedbyadiscussionwithsupervisorsover the telephone. On thedaysof observations,iftimepermits,immediatelyaftertheobservationssupervisors will have a conference with studentteachers which is generally of short duration andconcentrated on relatively low-level factual andprudential discourse (Sharpe, Moo, Crawford &Gopinathan,1994). However, ifsupervisorsneedtogobacktoteachintheuniversityortoanotherclassobservation,suchfeedbackwouldhavetobe


45

verybrieforbepostponed.Asaresult,interactionsbetween university supervisors and students areminimal.Often,studentteachersfeelisolatedandlacksupportfromtheuniversity.

As talk during student teaching is a centralcomponentinteacherreflectivity,studentteachersareencouragedtoengageinactivediscoursewithschoolpersonnelandfellowstudentteachers.Withanaverageof11hoursofteachingperweek(abouttwo hours a day), student teachers should haveampletimefortalkwithotherteachersandstudentteachers in their teaching practice (TP) schools.Themainobjectiveoftheprojectindiscussionwasto explore the feasibilityof usingvideomediatedconferencinginenhancingtheteachingpracticebyimprovingthediscoursesbetweenstudentteachersand university faculty members. It was hopedthat with the help of technology and consciousencouragement of more talk, student teacherswouldspendmoretimetalkingtoeachother,thusenhancing the quality of their teaching practiceexperience.

Traditionally, desktop video conferencingusedISDNtelephonelines.LeasingofISDNlineswascostly.Fortunately,technologicaldevelopmentsprovideduswithanalternative. By the time thisproject started, all schools in Singapore had beenprovided with Asynchronous Digital SubscriberLine(ADSL)gatewayaccessintoSingaporeONE,an ATM network suitable for broadband Internetapplications.SingaporeONEofferedlowcostuseraccessintoasystemalreadydesignedtodistributevideo-on-demand (VOD)multimedia servicesandwith sufficient bandwidth capable of hosting amulti-channel server. Theproject tookadvantageoftheexistinginfrastructureintheschoolsandusedtheCU-SeeMeâsoftwareforvideoconferencing.

This paper reports the findings from onecohort of the participants who used multipointdesktop video conferencing (MDVC) during theirnine-week teaching practice. Its objectives wereto find out (1) whether the MDVC experiencehelped to produce more positive experience ofteachingpractice;and(2)whether therewereany

changestotheparticipants’self-perceivedteachingcompetencies.

METHODOLGY

Thispaperisbasedonthedatacollectedfrom44 Post Graduate Diploma in Education (PGDE)studentsbeforeandaftertheirnine-weekteachingpractice.PGDEstudentsareBA/BSdegreeholderswhoundergo aone-year teacher trainingprogramto become certified teachers. Of the 44 studentteachers,20participatedinthemultipointdesktopvideo conferencing (MDVC) project and 24 didnot. For thepurposeof discussion, the former isreferredtoas theMDVCgroupandthe latter, theNormalgroup.

Onceaweek,studentteachersintheMDVCgroupusedmultipointdesktopvideoconferencing(MDVC) to conference with their peers in otherschoolsandauniversityfacultymemberwhowasalsotheresearcher.Eachconferencegroupconsistedofuptofiveparticipantsatfivedifferentlocations(schools). Eachconferencewas scheduled for anhourandahalf,ofwhichthefirst10minuteswereusuallyspentonadjustingthesystemfollowedbyanhour’sdiscussiononpre-arranged topics. Thelast 15 minutes of the conference were used foragenda-freeconversationsamongstudent teachersand the university faculty member would log offatthistime.Suchanarrangementenabledstudentteachers to have some more casual conversationswithoutthepresenceofafacultymember.

The first conference was used for icebreaking activities. Student teachers took thisopportunity to get to know one another. It wasat this initial meeting that the university facultymember introduced some protocols necessary forsuccessful video conferencing, such as raising athumbtomean“Icanhearyouloudandclear”andthumbsdowntomean“Icannothearyou”.Also,atthissession,participantsrefreshedtheirknowledgeof theCU-SeeMeâsoftware that theyhad learnedatabriefingpriortotheirteachingpractice.


46

Once participants became comfortable withtalkingintothemicrophoneandseeingthemselvesonthescreen,thefocusesoftheconferencesshiftedto teaching related issues. In the early phase ofthe project, the conferences were solely on thediscussionsonexpectedteachercompetencies,suchasplanninganddevelopinglessons,communicatingwith students, and managing student behaviors(Sharpe,Hu,Crawford,Moo,Gopinathan&Wong,2000). In these sessions, the participants sharedideasandexperiencesondifferentaspectsoftheirteaching, such as writing instructional objectives,choosingappropriateactivities,employingdifferentinstructional strategies, and the issues related toclassroommanagement.

Subsequently,videostreamingwasaddedtorealtimeconferences(Hu,Sharpe,Crawford,Moo&Wong,2003).Eachstudentteacherrecordedpartoftheirclassroomteachingwiththehelpofeitherapeerortheircooperatingteacher(CT).Thepurposeofclassroomvideoclipswastodemonstrateoneofthe three teaching skills, (1) lesson introduction,(2)questioningandexplaining,and(3)smallgroupteaching. Student teachers thenedited thedigitalvideo clips with the help of the school technicalassistant.Eacheditedvideoclipranforaboutthreeminutesandwasstreamedduring theconferencesfor student teachers to view and discuss (Figure1).

Figure 1. Discussing video clips during videoconferencing.

To enrich the student teachers’ experience,three curriculum subject faculty members wereinvited to join in the video conferences with thestudentteachers.Eachofthethreesubjectexpertshad one session with the student teachers onMathematics, English and Science respectively.Duringthesesessions,theparticipantstalkedaboutthe problems encountered in teaching a specificsubject and the strategies attempted. The studentteachersaskedtheexpertsquestionsandtheexpertsprovidedsuggestionsandsometimesprintorweb-based resources. As for the student teachers inthe Normal group, they underwent their 9-weekteachingpracticeaspernormal.

A 47-item questionnaire was designed toassess the student teachers’ perceptions of theirteaching practice on two aspects, (1) overallexperience of their teaching practice (23 items)and (2) self-perceived teaching competencies (24items). Under the overall experience of teachingpractice, the items were categorized into foursections,(a)interactionwithuniversitysupervisor,(b) interaction with fellow student teachers, (c)personalroleinateacherlearningcommunity,and(d)overallevaluationofteachingpractice.Underthe self-perceived teaching competencies, theseitemsweredesignedtoassessthestudentteacher’sattitudes, skills and knowledge. The wording ofthepreandpostquestionnairewasidenticalexceptthatdifferenttenseswereused.AcopyofthepostquestionnaireisprovidedinAppendix1.

Thepre teachingpracticequestionnairewasadministered to all 44 student teachers, two daysbefore they reported to their respective teachingpractice schools. The post teaching practicequestionnairewasadministeredtwodaysaftertheycompletedtheirnine-weekteachingpractice. Outof44setsofquestionnaires,a totalof35preandpost questionnaires were valid and used for theanalysis,ofwhich20werefromtheMDVCgroupand15fromtheNormalgroup.Thereturnratewasabout 80 percent. SPSS was used to analyze thedata.


47

In addition to the questionnaire, a talk logwasdesignedforthestudentteacherstorecordtheir“talk”eachday.Theparticipantswererequiredtonotedownthepersonswhomtheytalkedtoduringtheday. All the student teachersalsowereaskedtorecordwhattheyhadtalkedabout,whethertheyhad found ituseful,modesusedandanestimatedduration (in minutes) of each conversation. Tomake a fair comparison, the MDVC group wasaskednottoincludethetimespentonweeklyvideoconferences.Datacollectedfromthetalklogwillbereportedinaseparatepaper.

RESULTS

OverallExperienceofTeachingPracticeThe student teachers, regardless of the

participation in the MDVC project, had highexpectations of their teaching practice (TP).The pre-TP questionnaire showed that theyexpectedtheiruniversitysupervisorstogivethemguidance on teaching methods, offer advice on

classroom management, provide moral support,and provide opportunities to discuss TP relatedissues. Similarly, they expected their fellowstudent teachers to provide feedback on theirteaching, critically review and give guidance ontheir teaching methods, and offer moral support.Theyalsohadhighanticipationof theirroles inateacherlearningcommunity,expectingthemselvesto critically review their peers' teachingmethods,providefeedbackandoffersuggestions.

The results of the post-TP questionnairerevealed that in general the teaching practice didnotmeetthestudentteachers’expectations.Ofthe23 items describing the TP experience, the post-TPquestionnairesawadropinthemeaninallthe23 items reportedbybothgroups (Table1).Sucha finding seems to suggest that either the studentteachers had false expectations of their teachingexperience, or much effort is needed to maketeachingpracticemoremeaningfulandfruitfulforstudent teachers. Further studies are needed toprovidemorespecificexplanationstothefinding.

Table1:ComparisonofPreandPostQuestionnaireinTPExperience

MDVC Normal Pre post Pre Post

Supe

rvis

or

Supervisorgivesguidanceonteachingmethods 5.68 5.05 5.87 5.33

Supervisorgivesguidanceonclassroommanagement 5.84 4.65 5.80 5.53

Supervisorgivesmoralsupport 6.00 5.05 5.47 5.20Supervisor provides opportunities for me to reflect myteaching

5.89 4.85 5.47 4.67 †SupervisorprovidesopportunitiestodiscussTPrelatedissues 5.89 4.70 5.00 4.07 †Supervisoractsasacounselor 5.79 4.25 4.73 4.38

Fello

wT

rain

ees Fellow trainees review and give guidance on my teaching

methods5.35 4.70 4.87 3.20 †*

Fellowtraineesgivemeadviceonclassroommanagement 5.65 5.00 5.33 4.33 †Fellowtraineesprovidemoralsupport 6.15 5.55 5.73 5.73Fellowtraineesgivemeideasonteaching 5.70 5.35 5.53 4.87 †Fellowtraineesprovidemewithfeedbackonmyteaching 5.70 4.35 4.80 3.07 †*

Mys

elf

I critically review and give my peers guidance on teachingmethods

5.60 4.55 4.73 3.00 †*Igivemypeersadviceonclassroommanagement 5.60 4.70 5.00 3.80 †Ioffermypeersmoralsupport 6.00 5.15 5.93 5.40Igivemypeersideasonteaching 5.85 4.90 5.60 4.07 †Igivemypeersfeedbackontheirteaching 5.85 4.25 5.53 3.07 †*


48

Ove

rall

Expe

rienc

e TPpromotescollegialityamongtraineeteachers 5.75 4.90 5.73 4.13 †

TP provides opportunities for collaborative learning amongtrainees 5.85 5.00 5.67 3.73 †*TP helps develop positive attitudes towards discussingproblems 5.95 5.10 5.87 4.07 †*TP enhances relationship between trainees and NIEsupervisors 5.85 4.80 5.60 3.80 †*TP enhances relationship among trainees posted to differentschools 5.80 5.10 5.20 3.80 †*TPallowsmetoshareideaswithothertrainees 6.05 5.52 5.53 4.40 †*TP provides opportunities to discuss problems when neededmost 6.00 5.00 5.80 4.50 †

Compared with the Normal group, theMDVC group had even higher expectations fortheir teaching practice as it is shown in Table 1.Higher expectations could be attributed to theMDVCprojectbriefingthattookplaceimmediatelybefore the questionnaire was administered. TheMDVC group may have been led to believe thatthe opportunity to participate in an organizedweekly video conference would make theirteaching practice especially meaningful. Theanticipation was reflected in the results of thepre-TPquestionnairewheretheMDVCgrouphadhighermeansin22ofthe23items.AlthoughtheMDVC group had higher means in 17 of the 23itemsinthepost-TPquestionnaire(Table2),theirdisappointment was evident. For instance, oneof the objectives of the weekly video conference

was to enhance the discourse between universitysupervisorsandstudentteachers.However,becausethefacultymemberswhochairedtheweeklyvideoconferences were not necessarily the supervisorsofalltheparticipants,theMDVCgroupmembers’interactionswiththeirsupervisorswasmoreorlessthesameasthatexperiencedbytheNormalgroup.

Despite the disappointment expressed inthe post-TP questionnaire, as shown in Table 2theMDVCgroupobtainedhighermeans in17ofthe23itemsinthepost-TPquestionnairethantheNormalgroup(itemswith†),ofwhichsignificantdifferences were found in nine items (items with†*)(p<0.05).AcloserlookatthenineitemswheretheMDVCgrouphadhighermeansinthepostTPquestionnairerevealedsomethingencouraging.

Table2：DifferencesbetweentheMDVCandNormalgroupsinPostTPQuestionnaire

Item Group N Mean SD TEqual varianceassumed

Sig(2-tailed)

My fellow trainees providedfeedbackonmyteaching

MDVCNORMAL

2015

4.353.07

1.421.79

2.362 0.024

Myfellowtraineescriticallyreviewandgaveguidanceonmyteachingmethods

MDVCNORMAL

2015

4.73.2

1.2181.935

2.810 0.008

I was able to critically reviewand give guidance on my peers'teachingmethods

MDVCNORMAL

2015

4.553.00

1.1461.732

3.186 0.003

Iwasable toprovide feedbackonmypeers'teaching

MDVCNORMAL

2015

4.253.07

1.2511.730

2.309 0.028


49

My TP offered opportunities forcollaborative learning amongtrainees

MDVCNORMAL

2015

5.003.73

1.0761.792

2.604 0.014

My TP helped trainees developpositive attitudes towardsdiscussingproblems

MDVCNORMAL

2015

5.104.07

1.021.62

2.307 0.027

My TP enhanced relationship oftraineesandNIEsupervisors

MDVCNORMAL

2015

4.803.80

1.111.74

2.076 0.046

My TP enhanced relationshipbetweentraineespostedtodifferentschools

MDVCNORMAL

2015

5.103.80

0.641.82

2.970 0.006

My TP allowed me to share ideaswithmyfellowtrainees

MDVCNORMAL

2015

5.524.40

0.6391.595

2.171 0.037

It appeared that the biggest gain for theMDVC group was in the level of collegialityexperiencedduringtheteachingpracticeandstudentteachers’ overall evaluationof theTP experience.Overall, theMDVCgroupfeltmorestronglythantheNormalgroupthattheirTPhadprovidedthemwith opportunities for collaborative learning andhelped them todeveloppositiveattitudes towardsdiscussingproblems.AsdiscoveredbySmithandSteffen(1993),feedbackeverydayismoreeffectivethanscheduledfeedback.Theanalysisofthetalk-logshowedthatonaveragetheNormalgrouphadabout 723 minutes of talk during the nine-weekTP,andtheMDVCgrouphadabout1,369minutesof talk (excluding the weekly 90-minute videoconferences). The minutes of talk accumulatedeveryday by the MDVC group had apparentlyofferedmoreopportunitiesfor theMDVCstudentteacherstoobtainfeedbackfromtheirCTs,fellowstudent teachers and other school personnel, thusmakingfeedbackmoretimelyandefficient.

AnotheradvantageoftheMDVCgroupwasthe opportunities to talk to student teachers fromother schools in an organized forum. The abilityto participate in a teacher learning communitywider than their immediate community (their TPschool in this case) exposed the MDVC group tobroaderperspectivesthattheNormalgroupdidnotexperience.TheMDVCstudentteachersbenefited

from sharing ideas, receiving suggestions andworking out solutions to their problems with thestudent teachers working in other schools wheredifferent norms and practices may be differentfromthatof theirs. SuchencountershelpedbuildastrongersenseofcollegialityamongtheMDVCstudentteachers,producingmorepositivefeelingsabout their experiences with fellow studentteachers. These findings seem to suggest that alearningcommunityfosteredbytechnology(videoconferencing in this case) could facilitate studentteachers’ reflective practice and professionaldevelopmentduringteachingpractice.

Self Perceived Teaching Competencies

Thestudentteacherswereaskedtoratetheirteaching competencies in both the pre and postquestionnaires. AlistofcompetencieswasdrawnfromthecriteriausedtoevaluatestudentteachinginNIE.Theteachingcompetencieswereclassifiedinto three areas: (1) attitudes, (2) knowledge and(3)skills.Comparedwiththeirresultsofthepre-TP questionnaire, the MDVC group had highermeansin20itemsandtheNormalgroupobtainedhighermeans in13outof the24 items (Table3).Nonetheless, for both groups, the increases werenotsignificant(p>.05).


50

Table3ComparisonofPreandPostQuestionnaireinSelfPerceivedTeachingCompetencies

MDVC NormalPre Post Pre Post

Atti

tude

Cantakecriticism 5.15 5.30 5.00 5.57 *Teamplayer 5.75 5.65 5.71 5.21 **Opentosuggestions 6.10 5.85 6.29 6.07 **Trusting 5.00 5.20 5.79 5.00 ***Understandingandsupportiveofpupils 5.40 5.55 5.43 5.57 *Warmandfriendly 5.60 5.55 5.57 5.29 **Cooperationwithcolleagues 5.55 5.65 5.64 5.71 *Enthusiastic 5.60 5.65 5.64 5.79 *Keentoimproveteachingeffectiveness 5.85 5.95 6.21 6.14 ***Flexible 5.50 5.65 5.29 5.14 ***

Kno

wle

dge Knowledgeofsubjectmatter 4.80 5.30 4.86 5.57 *

Abletocriticizeothertrainees'teaching 4.55 4.80 4.64 3.79 ***Recognizeownprejudices 4.90 5.10 5.14 4.71 ***Abletocriticizemyownteaching 5.20 5.35 5.64 5.36 ***

Skill

s

Abletoplanlessons 5.05 5.70 4.86 5.71 *Poiseandconfidence 4.90 5.25 4.63 5.43 *Rapportwithpupils 5.30 5.95 5.21 5.64 *Abletomakedecisions 5.30 5.50 4.86 5.50 *Abletoexplain 4.90 5.30 4.64 5.36 *ITskills 4.55 5.30 4.86 4.86 ***Classroommanagement 4.58 5.26 4.43 4.64 *Abletoevaluatepupils 4.70 4.90 4.71 5.21 *Groominganddress 5.50 5.65 5.36 5.29 ***Organized 5.30 5.15 5.00 5.36 ****

A closer look at Table 3 reveals somethinginteresting.Ofthe24items,bothgroupsreportedhigher competencies in 12 items (items markedwith *), of which four are in Attitudes, one inKnowledge and seven in Skills. Apparently,teachingpracticebenefitedthestudentteachersthemost in the area of teaching skills. Interestingly,bothgroups reported lowercompetencies in threeitems (items marked with **), all in the categoryofAttitudes.Thiscouldbeduetoseveralreasons.Onewastheambiguitycausedbythewaythattheitems were written. For instance, “team player”could mean one’s attitudes towards being a teamplayer.Itcouldalsobeinterpretedasone’sabilityofactingasateamplayer.Itwaspossiblethatthestudentteachersrealizedthroughteachingpracticethat being a team player was not as easy as theythought.Ifthiswastrue,thestudentteacherswerenotevaluatingtheirattitudesbutalsotheirskillsofbeingateamplayer.

Of the 24 items, there were eight items

in which the MDVC group reported highercompetencies in the post-TP questionnaire whilethe Normal group reported lower or unchangedcompetencies(itemsmarkedwith***).Fiveoftheeight itemsare related to reflectivepractice, suchas being able to “recognize my own prejudices”and able to “criticize my own teaching”. TheMDVC group appeared to be more confidentthan the Normal group about their reflectivepractice. More confidence could be attributed tomore frequent and constant conversations withpeers and university faculty members during theteachingpractice. Usingvideo conferencing as amediumforcommunicationmayalsohavehelpedthe MDVC group gain confidence in using ICTtools and satisfaction in their ability to present aprofessional image (grooming and dress). Therewasonlyoneitem,“organized”(itemmarkedwith****), where the Normal group reported highercompetenciesthantheMDVCgroup.


51

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Humans collectively create and sharemeanings when they talk (Berger & Luckman,1966). Student teachers initiate or participate indialogueswithanintentiontolearnsomethingthattheywouldnotknowotherwise.Whatdistinguishestheir conversations from chit-chat is that it isinfused with a collective intention of makingdecisions,exchangingknowledge,anddevelopingunderstandingaboutissuesrelatedtoteachingandlearning, and school (Feldman, 2002). In otherwords,theirtalkisnotincidental,butintentional.

Thereareundoubtedlyproblemsinattemptingtodrawpreciseconclusionsfromthedatacollectedfrom this study. It is problematic to concludethat positive experiences or higher self-perceivedteaching competencies are solely attributed tothe amount of time spent on talk. Ten minutesof talk with one person might be worth one hourwith another. Nevertheless, even if the studentteachers’ responses are treated only as a roughguide to reality, certain patterns emerge and theirimplicationsareevident.

Opportunities of Sharing

Throughconversationswithschoolpersonnelandpeers,thestudentteacherstalkedaboutissuesrelating to classroom teaching, exchanged ideasand shared concerns. Weekly video conferencesencouragedsharingandcollectiveproblemsolvingand facilitated the reflective practice during theteaching practice. Such practices promoted theopportunitiesforthedevelopmentofthoughtfulandconscientiouspractitioners(Pultorak,1996).IftheMDVCgroup’spositivefeelingsabouttheteachingpracticewereattributedtomoretimespentontalk,then this is in line with the notion that emotion,feelings, motivation, and attitudes are integralpartsofanintellectualandsocialdevelopment.Acommunityoflearnerscannotexistifitsmembersdo not care for each other and do not understand

eachother’sfeelings(Moallem,2003).Withsuchan experience, it might be easier for the MDVCgrouptoviewreflectiveactivityasametacognitivecycle that occurred on a daily basis when theybecomefull-fledgedteachers.

In spite of extra conferences with subjectexpertsandviewingoftheirownclassvideoclips,the MDVC group did not differ significantly ascompared to their counterparts in the Normalgroupintheself-perceivedteachingcompetenciesreported in the post-TP questionnaire. Such afindingconfirms theargument thatviewingvideolessons or discussing a controversial issue doesnot necessarily challenge preservice teachersto confront and analyze their own pedagogicalpractices (Hewitt, Pedretti, Bencze, Vaillancourt& Yoon, 2003). It makes it legitimate for usto reconsider the ways of using video for theimprovementofstudentteachers’teachingskills.

Technology

MDVCbridged time and spaceby allowingstudentteacherstohearandshareviews,experiencesandmaterialsinavirtuallearningenvironmentandacross timeand space,whichwouldotherwisebeimpossible. Learning took place through activeexchange of ideas and experiences by individualstudentteachersviasocialinteractionsandthroughinternal reflections about these experiences andideas. MDVC was also a disembedding process.Itmadeitpossibletodismemberteachingpracticefrom the confinement to a single school. As aresult,studentteachersneednolongerbe“locked”intoandbesociallyandphysicallyisolatedwithina particular school, and they did not have to relysolelyontheexpertisefromtheirownschools.Inother words, MDVC opens up a wider range ofexperiences than ever before for student teachersto engage indeliberative conversations. ThroughMDVC,student teachershaveaccess toand learnfrom other teachers in collaborative settings inordertobestmeettheneedsofstudents,peersand


52

the profession. They also learn from each otherincommunities,andteacherreflectiontakesplacein the settings where professional conversationsoccur.

Future Studies

The project discussed in this paper wasinitiated with an intention of increasing both thequantityandqualityofdiscoursebetweenstudentteachers’ and supervisor during teaching practice.Theanalysissofarhasshedsomelightontheimpactoftalkandvideoconferencingonstudentteachers.However, because of the constraints in videoconferencingarrangement,i.e.thechairpersonsofthevideoconferenceswerenot thesupervisorsofalltheparticipants,theclaimsabouttheimpactofvideoconferencingonthestatedobjectiveremainproblematic. For future studies, efforts shouldbe made so that student teachers would be ableto video conference with their own supervisors.Also, larger contexts and social dynamics withinwhich student teachers’ talk takes place shouldbe captured. Such information will help usunderstandthecircumstancesunderwhichstudentteacherconversationsandcollaborativereflectionsaremore likely to takeplaceandhelpus tocomeup with strategies to facilitate such conversationsand collaborative reflections. For the topics ofvideo conferences, current arrangement mirrorstraditional forms of instruction where the studentwere passive receivers. For future studies, weshould actively promote student teacher inquirywhere student teachers determine content andprocesstomeettheirspecificneeds.

CONCLUSION

Studentteachertalkduringteachingpracticeis not just simply chitchatting, and MDVC is notjustsimplyatechnology.AsShotter(1993)argues,“what we try to say, and what are understood asmeaning, are often at odds with each other, and

thought development emerges in the course ofdialogic process” (p.44). Student teachers useconversation as a medium to generate practicalwisdom,reasoning,anddisciplinaryunderstanding(Feldman,2002)thattheywouldnot,orcouldnot,generateontheirown(Shulman,1989).Theirtalkenablesthemtoreflectonsharedpersonalconcerns,ask questions and seek answers from others.Interactions with peers and more experiencedteachers create opportunities for learning forstudent teachers, andgroupdiscussionbecomes avehicle for articulating, examining and changingbeliefs(Schecter&Parkhurst,1993).

The value-added potential of MDVC as atechnologyliesinthepossibilityofprovidingnewandalternativeexperiencesfor teacherstoengagein conversations and collaborative reflection. Asit removes the barriers of time and space thatprevented student teachers from interacting withpeers outside their teaching practice schools,MDVC, as a technology, made it possible for ateacher learning community to be conceptualizedas an integral and indispensable part of studentteaching practice, in which meaningful learningtakesplaceasaresultofcollaborativereflectionbystudentteachers.

The authors wish to thank the Ministry ofEducation, Singapore, for the funds that made itpossibleforthisstudy.

References

Berger,P.,&Luckman,T.(1966).The social con-struction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York:AnchorBooks.

Cunliffe, A. (2002). Reflexive dialogical practice in management learning. Management Learning, 33(1),35-61.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Developing profes-sional development schools: Earlylessons, challenges and promises. InL. Darling-Harmmond (Ed.), Profes-sional development schools(pp.1-27).NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.


53

Feldman,A. (2002). Existential approaches toac-tionresearch.Educational Action Re-search, 10(2),233-251.

Goethals,M.S.,&Howard,R.A. (2000).Student teaching: A process approach to re-flective practice.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Merrill.

Guyton, E., & McIntyre, D. J. (1990). Studentteaching and school experiences. InW. Robert Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education(pp.514-534).NewYork:Macmillan.

Hargreaves,A.(1992).Culturesofteaching:Afo-cusofchange.InA.Hargreaves&M.Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development. New York: TeachersCollegePress.

Helms,J.(1996).Speaking of the subject: Science teachers reflect on the nature of sci-ence, science teaching and themselves.Unpublished doctoral dissertation,StanfordUniversity.

Hewitt,J.,Pedretti,E.,Bencze,L.,Vaillancourt,B.,&Yoon,S.(2003).Newapplicationsfor multimedia cases, promoting re-flective practice in preservice teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(4),483-500.

Hollingsworth,S.(1994).Teacher research and ur-ban literacy education: Lessons and conversations in a feminist key.New-York:TeachersCollegePress.

Hu,C.,Sharpe,L.,Crawford,L.,Khine,M.S.,Moo,S.N.,&Wong,A.(2003).Usevideoconferencing for reflective practice by student teachers. Proceedings of So-ciety for Information Technology & Teacher Education, 14th International Conference,USA,1892-1895.

Killian, J., & Willhite, G. L. (2003). Electronicdiscourseinpreserviceteacherprepa-ration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(3),377-395.

Knight,S.,Pedersen,S.,&Peters,W.(2004).Con-necting the university with a profes-sional development school: Pre-ser-vice teachers’ attitudes towards theuseofcompressedvideo. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1),139-154.

Kruse,S.D.,Louis,K.S.,&Bryke,A.S. (1995).Anemergingframeworkforanalyzingschool-basedprofessionalcommunity.InK.S.Louis,S.D.Kruse&Associ-ates(Eds.),Professionalism and com-munity: Perspectives on reforming urban schools(pp.23-44).ThousandOaks:CorwinPress.

Lather,P.(1991).Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern.NewYork:Routledge.

Lieberman,A.,&McLaughlin,M.W.(1996).Net-works for educational change: Pow-erful and problematic. In M. W.McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.),Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 63-72). New York:TeachersCollegePress.

Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy:Au-tonomyandinitiativeinteachers’pro-fessional relations. Teachers’ College Record, 91(4)509-536.

Moallem,M.(2003).Aninteractiveonlinecourse:Acollaborativedesignmodel.Educa-tional Technology, Research and De-velopment, 51(4),85-105.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Pask,G.(1975).Conversation, cognition and learn-ing.NewYork:Elsevier.

Pultorak,E.G.(1996).Followingthedevelopmentalprocess of reflection in novice teachers: Threeyearsofinvestigation.Journal of Teacher Education, 47,283-291.

Schecter,S.,&Parkhurst,S.(1993).Ideologicaldi-vergencesinateacher-researchgroup.American Educational Research Jour-nal, 30,771-798.


54

Schön,D.A.(1987).Educating the reflective practi-tioner: Toward a new design for teach-ing and learning in the professions.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, J. H. (1989). Teaching alone, learningtogether:Neededagendasforthenewreforms. In I. J.Sergiovanni&J.H.Moore (Eds.), Schooling for tomor-row: Directing reforms to issues that count (pp. 166-187). Boston: AllynandBacon.

Sharpe,L.,Hu,C.,Crawford,L.,Moo,S.N.,Gopi-nathan,S.,&Wong,A.F.L.(2000).Multipoint desktop video conferenc-ingasacollaborativelearningtoolforstudent teachers:ASingaporeexperi-ence.Educational Technology. 40(5),61-63.

Sharpe,L.,MooS.N.,Crawford,L.&Gopinathan,S. (1994). Teacher supervision pat-terns and discourse. Singapore: Na-tionalInstituteofEducation.

Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Con-structing life through language.Lon-don:Sage.

Smith, M. D., & Steffen, J. P. (1993). The effectofdifferent schedulesof feedbackontheinstructionaltimeofstudentteach-ers.International Journal of Physical Education, 30,11-24.

Thomas,G.,Wineburg,S.,Grossman,P.,Myhre,O.,&Woolworth,S.(1998).Inthecom-panyofcolleagues:Aninterimreportonthedevelopmentofacommunityofteacherlearners.TeachingandTeach-erEducation,14(1),21-23.

VanMannen, J.,&Barley,S.R. (1984). Occupa-tionalcommunities:Cultureandcon-trolinorganizations.Research on Or-ganizational Behavior, 6,287-365.

Venn,M.L.,Moore,R.L.,&Gunter,P.L.(2000).Using audio/video conferencing toobserve field-based practices of rural teachers. Rural Educator, 22(2) 24-27.

Wenger,E.(1998).Communitiesofpractice:Learn-ing, meaning and identity.Cambridge,MA:CambridgeUniversityPress.

AuthorsChunHu呼春,SeniorLecturerFacultyofEducationandSocialWorkUniversityofSydney,NSW2006,AustraliaTel:61-02-9351-6339;Fax:61-02-9036-5205Email:[email protected]黃鳳蓮，AssociateProfes-sorLearningSciencesandTechnologiesAcademicGroup,NationalInstituteofEducation,1Nan-yangWalk,Singapore637616Tel.:65-67903228,Fax:65-68969110Email : [email protected]:15.11.05,accepted,20,1,06,revised20.2.06


55

1 Towhatextentdidyouruniversitysupervisor: Low High-criticallyreviewandgiveguidanceonyourteachingmethods

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-offeradviceonclassroommanagement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-providemoralsupportandencouragement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7- provide opportunities for you to reflect on yourteaching

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

- provide opportunities for you to discuss relatedissueswithyourfellowtrainees

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-actasacounselor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 Towhatextentdidyourfellowtraineeteachers:-criticallyreviewandgiveguidanceonyourteachingmethods

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-offeradviceonclassroommanagement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-offermoralsupportandencouragment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-giveyounewideasonteaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-providefeedbackonyourteaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 Towhatextentwereyouableto:-criticallyreviewandgiveguidanceonyourpeers’teachingmethods

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-offeryourpeersadviceonclassroommanagement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-offeryourpeersmoralsupport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-giveyourpeersnewideasonteaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-providefeedbackonyourpeersteaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 Towhatextentdidyourteachingpractice:- allow trainee teachers to be open for discussionsandlearnfromoneanother

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-offeropportunitiesforcollaborativelearningamongtraineeteachers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-helptraineeteacherstodeveloppositiveattitudestowarddiscussingproblems

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-enhance relationshipbetween trainee teachersanduniversitysupervisors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

- enhance friendship among trainee teachers postedtodifferentschools

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

- allow you to share ideas with your fellow traineeteachers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

- provide opportunities for you to discuss yourproblemsatatimewhenyouneeditmost

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Appendix1AQuestionnaire(PostTeachingPractice)

Pleaseanswerthefollowingquestionsasaccuratelyaspossible.Yourfeedbackwillbeinvaluableforustolearnmoreaboutyourteachingpracticum.Pleasebeassuredthatthisquestionnaireisanony-mousandthedatawillbereportedinsuchawaythatitisimpossibletotraceyouoryourschool.


56

5 Read the following list of attributes of a goodteacher. Rate what you see as your currentstrengthsoneachonebycirclingtheappropriatenumber.-understandingandsupportiveofpupils 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-warmandfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-trusting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-cooperativewithcolleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-keentoimproveteachingeffectiveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-opentosuggestions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-cantakecriticism 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-teamplayer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-poiseandconfidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-rapportwithpupils 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-abletoevaluatepupils 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-recognizeownprejudices 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-abletoexplain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-canmakedecisions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-organized 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-classroommanagement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-flexible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-abletoplanlessons 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-ITskills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-knowledgeofsubject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-abletocriticizemyownteaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-abletocriticizeothertrainees’teaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-groominganddress 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Documents

Video conferencing by student teachers: Does it make any