Selecting a Framework for Video Usage

Selecting a Framework for Video Usage

This section provides an in-depth analysis of two frameworks used by teacher educators and researchers to support teacher learning within the context of pre-service education. While these frameworks can be applied to in-service teacher learning, their focus is on the development and refinement of teachers’ pedagogical skills through the structured use of video.  

Framework #1

Structured Viewing Guides (SVG’s) – The power of video feedback with structured viewing guides (Brouwer, Besselink, Oosterheert, 2017). SVG’s are used to hone the area of focus for preservice teachers when developing and refining their practice through the use of video. This framework allows for teacher educators to provide preservice teachers with precise praise and feedback based on their implementation of targeted concrete practices (Brouwer, Besselink, Oosterheert, 2017). Brouwer and colleagues highlight the importance of clustering these targeted practices, otherwise “teachers felt overwhelmed and found less utility in video-facilitated reflection” (Brouwer, Besselink, Oosterheert, 2017). 

Example of Framework Application: Brouwer and colleagues (2017) provide multiple examples of SVG’s being implemented and utilized for preservice teacher learning in their study. The example provided here is based around preservice teachers utilizing SVG’s for reading comprehension with their students during their field site experiences. 

Preservice teachers were instructed to identify and implement (in their classrooms) a few targeted concrete pedagogical skills towards reading comprehension. The preservice teachers video recorded these targeted instructional implementation moments, these were identified as viewing points (Brouwer et al, 2017). Below are the is breakdown of how the viewing points were used to support preservice teacher learning:

  • Each week the preservice teachers and their mentors had one hour mentor sessions during which they would debrief and analyze the viewing points. The ALACT model developed by Korthagen et al. (2001, p. 44–45) was used for this process (Brouwer et al, 2017). 
  • Along with the mentor sessions, preservice teachers showed each other their videos for the purposes of feedback and reflection. Preservice teachers would select fragments of their pedagogical implementation, utilizing their viewing points as foci for feedback from their peers (Brouwer et al, 2017).  
  • Later the preservice teachers would meet in groups with their respective partners to debrief and discuss with the aim of providing and receiving feedback (Brouwer et al, 2017).

Below is an example of a viewing point taken from The power of video feedback with structured viewing guides (Brouwer, Besselink, Oosterheert, 2017):


Table 1 taken from Brouwer et al. 2017

Elements of consideration when utilizing the framework: Brouwer and colleagues (2017) identify multiple elements of consideration when using SVG’s with preservice teachers: 

  1. The first is around clear identification of viewing points, the focus of these lies in the interaction between the preservice teacher and students during specific classroom activities. The goal of the viewing point being around how the preservice teachers’ actions impact the students through instruction and questioning, as well as “through shifting roles such as activator, guide and coach” (Brouwer et al, 2017;Palincsar & Brown, 1984, pp. 119–124). 
  2. The second consideration is around the necessity of these viewing points focusing on pedagogical practices relevant to the preservice teacher. Further, it is critical that mentors and peers support the preservice teachers in narrowing the focus of their foci for the viewing points, but they must remain relevant to each preservice teacher (Brouwer et al, 2017).

 

Framework #2

Lesson Analysis Framework – Learning to Learn from Mathematics Teaching Project (Santagata, Guarino, 2011). This framework is focused on developing preservice teacher’s abilities to analyze classroom lesson designs through a series of questions (Santagata, Guarino, 2011; Hiebert et al. 2007; Santagata et al. 2007). These series of questions are designed as a guiding process to support pre-service teachers’ (PST) pedagogical and noticing skills. 

Guiding questions within the framework for teacher educators to implement with PST’s: (Santagata, Guarino, 2011)

    • The first question asks PSTs to analyze the lesson learning goals: 
  • What are the main ideas that students are supposed to understand through this lesson? 
    • PSTs then move to the analysis of student learning by attending to the following questions: 
  • Did the students make progress toward the learning goals? 
  • What evidence do we have that the students made progress? 
  • What evidence do we have that students did not make progress? 
      • What evidence are we missing? 
    • Analyzing the particulars of student learning and understanding as evidenced in the lesson lead PSTs to the next question, focused on the impact of teachers’ decisions on student learning: 
  • Which instructional strategies supported students’ progress toward the learning goals and which did not? 
    • Building on the analysis of the cause–effect relationship between teaching and learning, PSTs are asked: 
  • What alternative strategies could the teacher use? 
  • How do you expect these strategies to impact on students’ progress toward the lesson learning goals? 
  • If any evidence of student learning was missing, how could the teacher collect such evidence? 
  • Note: “The generation of alternatives is an important element of the framework because it serves as a link between reflection on practice and action on practice” (Santagata, Guarino, 2011; van Es & Sherin 2002). 

Sub-skills necessary to develop in PST’s to effectively utilize the Lesson Analysis Framework: The Lesson Analysis Framework provides a structured use of video by teacher educators designed to support preservice teachers in the development of the pedagogical skills. However, for this framework to be most effective, teacher educators must be supporting the development of preservice teachers in five core areas. 

  • The first core area for preservice teachers to understand the importance of lesson analysis and value a design approach which situates students’ ideas around mathematical thinking at the center of the learning environment (Santagata, Guarino, 2011; Cohen 2004). 
  • The second area necessary for preservice teachers is to be able to “attend to what students are doing or saying in a lesson and to draw inferences or make hypotheses about their mathematical understanding” (Santagata, Guarino, 2011; Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, & Carey 1988; Ma 1999). For this area it is critical that preservice teachers understand pedagogical strategies that focus on eliciting student’s ideas and making them visible. 
  • Third and most importantly is the ability of preservice teachers is to “generate alternative strategies and justify them in terms of their potential impact on student learning” (Santagata, Guarino, 2011). In order to utilize this tool effectively, teacher educators must develop preservice teachers’ abilities to develop alternative means of pedagogical approaches. 

 

References:

Brouwer, N., Besselink, E., & Oosterheert, I. (2017). The power of video feedback with structured viewing guides. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 60-73.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey, D. A. (1988). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of students: Problem solving in elementary arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 385–401.

Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2003). Classroom discussions. Using math talk to help students learn. Grades 1–6. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.

Cohen, S. (2004). Teacher’s professional development and the elementary mathematics classroom: Bringing understandings to light. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Santagata, R., & Guarino, J. (2011). Using video to teach future teachers to learn from teaching. Zdm, 43(1), 133-145.

Spitzer, S. M., Phelps, C. M., Beyers, J. E. R., Johnson, D. Y., & Sieminski, E. M. (2010). Developing prospective elementary teachers’ abilities to identify evidence of student mathematical achievement. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 2010.

Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 313– 340.

Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards- based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.

van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571–596.