Video Reflection in Literacy Teacher Education and Development : Lessons from Research and Practice 9781784416751, 9781784416768

Citation preview

VIDEO REFLECTION IN LITERACY TEACHER EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT: LESSONS FROM RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

LITERACY RESEARCH, PRACTICE AND EVALUATION Series Editors: Evan Ortlieb and Earl H. Cheek, Jr. Recent Volumes: Volume 1:

Using Informative Assessments towards Effective Literacy Instruction

Volume 2:

Advanced Literary Practices: From the Clinic to the Classroom

Volume 3:

School-Based Interventions for Struggling Readers, K-8

Volume 4:

Theoretical Models of Learning and Literacy Development

LITERACY RESEARCH, PRACTICE AND EVALUATION VOLUME 5

VIDEO REFLECTION IN LITERACY TEACHER EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT: LESSONS FROM RESEARCH AND PRACTICE EDITED BY

EVAN ORTLIEB Monash University, Victoria, Australia

MARY B. MCVEE University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

LYNN E. SHANAHAN University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

United Kingdom
North America
Japan India
Malaysia
China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2015 Copyright r 2015 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permissions service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78441-676-8 ISSN: 2048-0458 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

ix

ABOUT THE EDITORS

xiii

INTRODUCTION

xv

PART I: MODELS AND FRAMEWORKS FOR TEACHER REFLECTION THE POTENTIAL OF VIDEO TO HELP LITERACY PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS LEARN TO TEACH FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND DEVELOP CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE INSTRUCTION Cheryl Rosaen INSIGHTS INTO INSERVICE TEACHERS’ VIDEO-FACILITATED REFLECTION OF LITERACY PRACTICES Lynn E. Shanahan, Andrea L. Tochelli-Ward and Tyler W. Rinker CONSTRUCTING SUCCESSFUL VIDEO REFLECTION EXPERIENCES IN PRACTICUM SETTINGS Theresa Deeney and Cheryl Dozier USING THE GRADUAL RELEASE OF RESPONSIBILITY MODEL TO SUPPORT VIDEO REFLECTION WITH PRESERVICE AND INSERVICE TEACHERS Mary B. McVee, Lynn E. Shanahan, P. David Pearson and Tyler W. Rinker v

3

21

41

59

vi

CONTENTS

A VIDEO-BASED MENTORING TOOL FOR COOPERATING TEACHERS COACHING PRESERVICE TEACHERS: SUPPORTING REFLECTION AROUND LITERACY PRACTICE Melissa Mosley Wetzel, James V. Hoffman and Beth Maloch ZOOMING IN AND OUT: SCAFFOLDING THE USE OF VIDEO FOR INQUIRY AND REFLECTION Yang Hu and Jennifer Tuten USING TEACHING VIDEOS IN THE ADAPTIVE CYCLES OF TEACHING Ruth Freedman, Diane Salmon, Sophie Degener and Madi Phillips

81

105

125

PART II: PROCESSES, PRAGMATICS, AND PRACTICES USING VIDEO-REFLECTION WITH PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS: A CAUTIONARY TALE Wolfram Verlaan and Sue Verlaan A TEACHER’S INNER VOICE MEDIATED BY A VIDEO OBSERVATION AND DISCUSSION IN THE CONTEXT OF CHANGE IN LITERACY PRACTICES Sari Ra¨isa¨nen, Riitta-Liisa Korkeama¨ki and Mariam Jean Dreher

151

173

SPANNING THE DISTANCE: VIDEO REFLECTION AS A TOOL FOR CULTIVATING LITERACY COACHES IN RURAL CONTEXTS Judith Franzak, Koomi Kim and Mary Fahrenbruck

191

VIDEO-MEDIATED TEACHER INQUIRY WITH PRE-SERVICE ENGLISH TEACHERS Ryan M. Rish and Audra Slocum

211

vii

Contents

A THREE-PRONGED APPROACH TO VIDEO REFLECTION: PREPARING LITERACY TEACHERS OF THE FUTURE Tanya Christ, Poonam Arya and Ming Ming Chiu

235

PART III: VIDEO IN AN ONLINE WORLD PIN IT!: MAXIMIZING THE BENEFITS OF VIDEO USAGE IN A PRESERVICE TEACHER CLASSROOM USING PINTEREST Denise Chapman and Evan Ortlieb

257

CAPTURING QUALITY PRACTICE: ANNOTATED VIDEO-BASED PORTFOLIOS AND GRADUATE STUDENTS’ REFLECTIVE THINKING Kathleen Alley and James King

279

“I AM AMAZED AT HOW DIFFERENTLY I SEE THINGS”: TAKING IDEAS AND APPROPRIATING LANGUAGE FROM VIDEO OBSERVATIONS OF TEACHING Natalia Ward, Jennifer Lubke and Anne McGill-Franzen VIRTUAL LITERACY COACHING Celeste C. Bates

297

313

This page intentionally left blank

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Kathleen Alley

Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA

Poonam Arya

Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

Celeste C. Bates

Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA

Denise Chapman

Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Ming Ming Chiu

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Tanya Christ

Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Theresa Deeney

University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA

Sophie Degener

National Louis University, Chicago, IL, USA

Cheryl Dozier

University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY, US

Mariam Jean Dreher

University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Mary Fahrenbruck

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA

Judith Franzak

Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD, USA

Ruth Freedman

National Louis University, Chicago, IL, USA

James V. Hoffman

University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Yang Hu

Hunter College, CUNY, New York, NY, USA ix

x

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Koomi Kim

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA

James King

University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

Riitta-Liisa Korkeama¨ki

University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

Jennifer Lubke

University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, TN, USA

Beth Maloch

University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Anne McGill-Franzen

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA

Mary B. McVee

University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA

Evan Ortlieb

Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

P. David Pearson

University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

Madi Phillips

National Louis University, Chicago, IL, USA

Sari Ra¨isa¨nen

University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

Tyler W. Rinker

University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA

Ryan M. Rish

Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA

Cheryl Rosaen

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Diane Salmon

National Louis University, Chicago, IL, USA

Lynn E. Shanahan

University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA

xi

List of Contributors

Audra Slocum

West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

Andrea L. TochelliWard

University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA

Jennifer Tuten

Hunter College, CUNY, New York, NY, USA

Sue Verlaan

NBCT
Literacy Consultant, Huntsville, AL, USA

Wolfram Verlaan

University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, USA

Natalia Ward

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA

Melissa Mosley Wetzel University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

This page intentionally left blank

ABOUT THE EDITORS Evan Ortlieb (Ph.D.) is a Course Leader and Senior Lecturer in Literacy Education at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. His academic accomplishments and innovative history include his co-edited book series, Literacy Research, Practice, and Evaluation, along with his publication of more than 90 manuscripts which substantiate some of his contributions to the field. His research remains on school literacy improvement in diverse and disadvantaged communities worldwide. He is also the founder and active President of the Ortlieb Foundation
a non-profit organization that aims to financially assist those who have been diagnosed with cancer in pursuing their collegiate education through scholarships. Mary B. McVee (Ph.D.) is Director of CLaRI (Center for Literacy and Reading Instruction) at the University at Buffalo/SUNY, and Associate Professor of Literacy Education. Her research traverses the landscapes of positioning theory, social and embodied learning; digital literacies and multimodality; narrative and discourse analysis; and diversity of language, literacy, and culture with a particular focus on teachers and teacher reflection. She is recipient of the AERA 2014 Division K Mid-Career Award which recognized her for scholarly work in literacy education, a commitment to equity, and mentoring of graduate students. Lynn E. Shanahan (Ph.D.) is an Associate Professor of Literacy Education in the Department of Learning and Instruction at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York. She works with inservice teachers on the development of strategic readers and writers with both print-based and digital texts drawing from social semiotics multimodality and embodied theoretical perspectives. Her research has focused on video reflection, multimodal composing, gestures, and explicit strategy instruction. Her most recent research examines the disciplinary literacies necessary when elementary aged students are learning the engineering design process.

xiii

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION As the fifth volume in the book series, Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation, this text serves to contribute to the growing body of research focused on the use of video as a mediational tool for reflection in the field of education. Its chapters are composed of research findings and researchbased practices from a wide array of literacy scholars who are using video as a tool for reflection in educational research and/or teaching. Video Reflection in Literacy Teacher Education and Development: Lessons from Research and Practice highlights the utility of video reflection with both pre-service and in-service teachers across multiple contexts such as online, distance learning, teacher education classrooms, literacy clinics, and professional development settings. This text is comprised of 16 chapters from distinguished scholars whose knowledge lies at the precipice of advancing literacy research using video technologies for reflective practice, organized into three distinctive sections highlighting models/frameworks for teacher reflection; processes, pragmatics, and practices; and video in an online world. Part I, Models and Frameworks for Teacher Reflection, examines multiple means for using video reflection in the teaching and learning process of pre- and in-service teachers’ development. Varying perspectives ranging from social development to teacher scaffolding provide a wealth of ideas that advance our theoretical and conceptual understanding of how to use video reflection to meet the needs of teachers. Part II, Processes, Pragmatics, and Practices, delves into how researchers have successfully cultivated literacy teachers of the future
those empowered to adapt and grow in their capacity to teach and reach their diverse learners. Inquiry is at the core of using video reflection in teacher development. Part III, Video in an Online World, investigates the many facets of using video reflection in distance and online environments of teacher education.

xv

xvi

INTRODUCTION

New technologies and apps allow for virtual literacy coaching and sharing of pedagogical approaches in online forums. Readers acquire newfound examples of research related to literacy teachers engaged in video reflection. This text serves as a go-to source for research related to using video reflection in literacy education. Evan Ortlieb Co-editor

PART I MODELS AND FRAMEWORKS FOR TEACHER REFLECTION

This page intentionally left blank

THE POTENTIAL OF VIDEO TO HELP LITERACY PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS LEARN TO TEACH FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND DEVELOP CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE INSTRUCTION Cheryl Rosaen ABSTRACT Purpose
This critical analysis investigates 23 studies on the use of video in pre-service literacy teacher preparation to gain a better understanding of the potential of video-based pedagogy for supporting preservice teachers’ development of the complex set of knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for teaching literacy in today’s classrooms. Methodology/approach
This study extends what has been learned from prior reviews to investigate research focused on the use of video in pre-service literacy teacher preparation with particular attention paid to the extent to which pre-service teachers’ work with video helps them

Video Reflection in Literacy Teacher Education and Development: Lessons from Research and Practice Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation, Volume 5, 3
19 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-045820150000005002

3

4

CHERYL ROSAEN

examine literacy teaching and learning in relation to race, language, culture, and power. Findings
Working with video has strong potential for engaging preservice teachers in reflecting on their own teaching, deepening their understanding of the challenges of engaging in literacy practices, fostering expertise in systematically describing, reflecting on, and analyzing their teaching, providing multiple perspectives on instruction, analyzing and assessing student growth, and discussing developmentally appropriate instruction. Results were mixed regarding changing teachers’ knowledge and beliefs. Overall, the tasks pre-service teachers completed did not explicitly guide them to focus on the relationship between characteristics of the diverse learners featured in the videos and issues of teaching and learning. Practical implications
Literacy teacher educators could do more to take advantage of the affordances of using video to work more explicitly toward goals of helping pre-service teachers develop a critical consciousness, an inquiring stance, and a sense of agency, along with examining teaching practices that represent culturally responsive teaching. Preservice teachers need explicit guidance in what to observe for and more focused discussion regarding their developing knowledge and beliefs about student diversity. Keywords: Video; pre-service teachers; literacy; social justice

INTRODUCTION Because language and literacy skills are foundational for teaching and learning in all academic areas (Pearson, 2001), providing high quality preservice teacher preparation in literacy is an important goal for improving educational outcomes for all students. What knowledge, skills, and dispositions are needed to be well prepared to enter the profession? Pre-service teachers need to develop knowledge of literacy development, how to design instructional practices that meet individual learning needs, and assessment (Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005). The capacity and disposition for reflection and continued learning are important (Dewey, 1933), along with the ability to learn from observation by thinking systematically about the interrelations among elements of a lesson in order to assess students’ learning and

Potential of Video to Help Literacy Pre-Service Teachers

5

plan for future instruction (Hammerness et al., 2005). Equally important is the ability to provide culturally responsive instruction that attends to racial, cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity (Gay, 2000; McIntyre & Turner, 2013). Arguably, culturally responsive instruction is not likely to occur unless pre-service teachers also have a sense of agency and take a critical stance to question power, inequality, and the status quo in order to teach literacy for social justice (Ball, 2000; Gutierrez, 2008; Skerrett, 2010). Thus, learning to teach literacy in ways that improve the persistent underachievement of many of today’s diverse learners entails more than developing subject matter knowledge and technical expertise (Scherff, 2012). It includes the challenging goal of learning to think, talk about, and develop one’s teaching practice as it is situated in cultural and historical contexts and to take a critical stance in order to challenge the status quo (Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez-Torres, 2003). This chapter takes up the question of the potential of using video as one approach to addressing this challenge. A substantial body of literature argues for the value of pre-service teachers working with video as a key part of their professional preparation (Brophy, 2004; Goldman, Pea, Barron, & Derry, 2007). Several literature reviews have also identified gaps in the literature. Wang and Hartley (2003) reviewed literature published between 1990 and 2000 to understand the relationship between video technology and teacher reform in three areas: transforming existing beliefs and ideas, acquiring pedagogical content knowledge, and understanding different learners. They concluded that although video has the potential to provide examples of diverse teaching situations, little attention was paid to how video can be used to help preservice teachers learn to interact with children of diverse backgrounds or to change their prior conceptions. Grossman (2005) reviewed articles published between 1985 and 2001 to examine what is known about the pedagogy of teacher education, and found that video materials are as effective as other pedagogical approaches to helping pre-service teachers learn about instructional approaches, but studies have not investigated whether they can implement them. In a third review, Thomas and Rieth (2011) focused on 20 intervention studies published between 1990 and 2007 that investigated how the use of video-based anchored instruction achieved a range of purposes such as helping pre-service teachers develop reflective thinking, observational skills, understanding of alternative practices, analytic thinking, and beliefs. Although many studies demonstrated gains in these areas, the authors

6

CHERYL ROSAEN

concluded that further investigation is needed regarding what are sufficient levels of growth needed for pre-service teachers to advance toward developing expertise. Marsh and Mitchell’s (2014) review included more recent studies (1990
2013) to understand what is known about the impact of video technology on the development of teacher professional knowledge. This review identified pedagogical affordances of the use of video such as the capacity to represent teaching complexity, exemplify effective practices and problem-based approaches, and provide opportunities to promote observation and reflection through repeated viewings. More specifically, learning outcomes include developing the capacity for reflection (e.g., making theory to practice connections) and developing professional vision by shifting from a focus on the teacher to students and moving from describing teaching to analyzing it. They also indicated that there is limited evidence that working with video can enhance subject matter knowledge. Tripp and Rich (2012) reviewed studies published between 1991 and 2010 that investigated pre-service and in-service teachers’ reflection on video of their own teaching. Of the 63 studies reviewed, 50 were published after the year 2000. They examined six dimensions of video analysis that can guide others’ use of video to facilitate teacher reflection (reflection tasks, guiding reflection, individual/collaborative reflection, video length, number of reflections, and measuring reflection), noting both advantages to approaches taken and areas requiring further research. Finally, Blomberg, Renkl, Sherin, Borko, and Seidel (2013) reviewed 65 studies (1972
2013) on the use of video to summarize the state-of-the-art in using video in pre-service teacher education and to derive five researchbased heuristics about when, how, and why to use video. In their summary, the authors noted contradictory findings regarding empirical support for using video and argued that this may be due in part to differences in goals for using video. For example, some programs use video to emphasize developing generic pedagogical skills (e.g., understanding student thinking or developing reflective practice), whereas others emphasize developing teachers’ understanding of particular subject areas. This critical analysis extends what has been learned from prior reviews to investigate studies that focus specifically on the use of video in pre-service literacy teacher preparation to consider: goals for working with video, the tasks pre-service teachers engaged in as they worked with video, and the outcomes of their work. The purpose is to gain a better understanding of the potential of video-based pedagogy for supporting pre-service teachers’ development of the complex set of knowledge, skills, and dispositions

Potential of Video to Help Literacy Pre-Service Teachers

7

needed for teaching literacy in today’s classrooms. The study pays particular attention to a key area of learning to teach that has received little attention in the literature: the extent to which pre-service teachers’ work with video helps them examine literacy teaching and learning in relation to race, language, culture, and power. This is important because pre-service teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and overall understanding of these dimensions of teaching and learning shape their curriculum and instructional practices with students (McIntyre & Turner, 2013; Milner, 2010). This study provides insights into demonstrated affordances of using video to support pre-service teacher learning, areas that are underrepresented, suggestions for expanded goals and approaches for using video to support literacy pre-service teacher learning, and areas for further research.

LEARNING TO TEACH WITH VIDEO Studies on the use of video represent multiple theoretical perspectives that reflect specific goals for pre-service teachers’ work with video. One perspective is that learning to reflect on practice must be cultivated (Dewey, 1933) so that teachers can reflect both in the moment and retrospectively (Schon, 1987). Video can aid in learning to reflect as a professional activity that is situated, social, and connected to a broader professional community (Borko & Putnam, 1998; Schon, 1983). A second perspective is that teaching requires “adaptive expertise” where teachers approach instruction analytically and flexibly so that they can apply their knowledge and experience to new contexts (Bransford, Derry, Berliner, Hammerness, & Beckett, 2005). Pre-service teachers may benefit from working with video to engage in systematic analysis of a lesson’s design, the dynamics of the instructional event, and students’ response to the lesson (Hiebert, Morris, Berk, & Jansen, 2007). A third perspective advocates changing pre-service teachers’ prior knowledge and beliefs because they bring beliefs and attitudes that influence what they pay attention to and learn from teacher preparation (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Lortie, 1975). It is posited that video can provide images of what classroom practices are possible and therefore influence prospective teachers’ prior attitudes and beliefs (Sherin, 2004). Finally, scholars argue that novices need a practice-focused curriculum in order to develop high-leverage practices (Ball & Forzani, 2011). By “decomposing” the constituent parts of a complex practice such as leading

8

CHERYL ROSAEN

dialogic discussions (Grossman et al., 2009), novices can learn to plan, teach, and reflect on their discussions, and video can aid in the process.

APPROACH TO ANALYSIS This critical analysis includes 23 peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2014 that investigated the use of video to support pre-service teacher learning in literacy. Significant developments in video technology took place during this time period, thus enabling teacher educators to study how using video impacted pre-service teacher learning using a range of approaches. Studies were identified using online databases (JSTOR, SAGE Premier, ERIC, and ProQuest), first by using the search terms “video” and “teacher learning,” followed by a review of abstracts to identify studies of literacy teacher preparation. First, the studies were reviewed based on teacher educators’ goals for working with video, tasks pre-service teachers completed, and the outcomes of their work. Second, from a social justice perspective, the studies were analyzed for the extent to which video-based work featured learning to examine teaching and learning in relation to race, language, culture, and power, and learning to develop culturally relevant teaching practices.

RESULTS This chapter is organized around four categories that represent goals for teacher learning: (1) reflection, (2) changing knowledge and beliefs, (3) developing adaptive expertise, and (4) developing dialogic discussions. Findings from the studies are presented, followed by a critical analysis of each set from a social justice perspective.

Promoting Reflection Three studies indicated positive outcomes for promoting reflection. Smith (2005) studied the feasibility of using four video cases to promote habits of inquiry in a course focused on applying methods of assessment and instruction with one child. The study identified specific areas of growth (ability to describe, analyze, and suggest further action) when five pre-service teachers

Potential of Video to Help Literacy Pre-Service Teachers

9

viewed case studies featuring struggling readers who displayed various difficulties with reading. A second study found that the focus of reflection varied, depending on whether four interns chose to construct a video case of their own teaching for themselves as audience (discovering areas for improvement and insights about students and their own teaching) versus for a public audience (showcasing teaching strengths to help others learn from them or about them) (Rosaen et al., 2010a). Although all interns gained insights about themselves and general insights about their students, only one mentioned specific learner characteristics (e.g., participation of an ESL student) as part of her reflection. In a third study, Maclean and White (2007) documented four pre-service teachers’ development of a teaching identity (collective, individualized, social) as they discussed edited videos of their own teaching with experienced teachers. Notions of reflection in these studies focused on specific aspects of a lesson, including student participation or ways to improve teaching, without explicit attention to larger political issues such as how language use, culture, or power may have influenced learning (Hoffman-Kipp et al., 2003).

Changing Knowledge and Beliefs Four studies investigated the use of Reading Classroom Explorer (RCE), that included videos of exemplary elementary teaching of students with diverse cultural, linguistic, and intellectual backgrounds for the purpose of challenging pre-service teachers’ assumptions about teaching and learning and helping them connect literacy concepts with classroom practices. Hughes, Packard, and Pearson (2000) found that students valued having images of progressive literacy teaching, and opportunities to reflect on and analyze practice. Boling’s (2007) study indicated that exploring materials challenged pre-service teachers’ assumptions about literacy instruction and prompted them to question their taken-for-granted beliefs (e.g., authentic tasks, grouping practices). In contrast, Yadav and Koehler (2007) found that students selected video cases consistent with their prior epistemological beliefs, and descriptions of what they found salient confirmed their beliefs. Finally, Ferdig, Roehler, and Pearson (2002) noted that some groups that used RCE’s discussion forum feature developed richer thinking skills while others summarized what they saw in the cases without indepth analysis. These studies reveal mixed, and sometimes unclear, results regarding how materials featuring students with diverse backgrounds engaged pre-service

10

CHERYL ROSAEN

teachers in examining how race, language, or culture impact students’ learning opportunities. For example, in one of the three required course papers students completed in the Hughes et al. (2000) study, the third paper asked students to consider the awareness and impact of diverse learners on teaching and learning, but the use of RCE materials was not required for that paper. In other studies (Boling, 2007; Yadav & Koehler, 2007), results were mixed regarding whether working with RCE challenged the belief systems that may shape pre-service teachers’ interpretations of effective literacy instruction.

Developing Adaptive Expertise Nine studies investigated how working with video supported the development of various elements of adaptive expertise. Schrader et al. (2003) investigated 33 pre-service teachers’ use of Case Technologies Enhancing Literacy Learning (CTELL). Cases provided contextualized examples of instruction for examining the problems teachers encounter and knowledge they use to make decisions. After viewing an anchor video to become oriented to the classroom, students could access videos of high, average, and low-achieving children in the classroom, view examples of their work, formal and informal assessments, running records, parent conferences, and parent and student interviews. Three to five minute video segments were included to illustrate any of 12 different research-based principles of effective practice in early literacy instruction. Although no significant changes in learning were documented through a concept-mapping task, students thought the cases promoted classroom discourse and provided multiple perspectives on instruction. Interestingly, Lin and Kinzer (2003) argued that because the CTELL cases include information about the class and children’s cultural background and enable access to links to other sites and artifacts for learning about a given culture, they can be a rich resource for creating “the space for equity tolerance, and understanding of difference as a source of potential power, and the examination of students’ beliefs” (p. 238). This potential outcome was not examined in the Schrader et al. (2003) study. Baecher, Kung, Jewkes, and Rosalia (2013) found that a self-paced online workshop helped 47 pre-service teachers use a rubric to develop their capacity to evaluate others’ and their own teaching performance and identify areas for improvement. Although the rubric used with one group of participants listed aspects of diversity (e.g., links to students’ background,

Potential of Video to Help Literacy Pre-Service Teachers

11

culture, or native language), the researchers did not discuss the extent to which novices developed knowledge or understanding in those areas. In a third study, Miller (2009) described how a “consultancy protocol” guided a structured problem-based conversation among five pre-service teachers that was aided by the use of videotapes and artifacts for one person’s teaching. The case illustrates how they gained a more complex understanding of how to adapt lesson models to suit their students’ needs, and drew lessons for their future teaching. Rosaen (2002) investigated four pre-service teachers’ use of hypermedia materials to inquire into questions related to learner diversity: “What challenges does the teacher face in creating a learning community that fosters learning for all students, taking into account their gender, race, ethnicity, and language use? How does the teacher address these challenges?” (p. 160). The study asked whether the students developed an inquiring stance and a multifaceted conception of diversity. Although the group examined several aspects of diversity (e.g., did students coming from another culture feel shy; was language a barrier for an Indonesian student to express his ideas; were gender and cultural backgrounds equally distributed during small group work), they only looked at one aspect in depth
creating a learning community. Since some aspects of diversity were not explicitly visible to them in the data they explored, they assumed they were not prominent in the teacher’s thinking. Three studies investigated the use of a multimedia system, Children as Literacy Kases (ChALK) that featured five first and third grade students with a range of literacy abilities, ethnicities, and linguistic backgrounds, and provided reading and writing samples. The studies examined if the materials enabled students to: observe children’s literacy growth over time, evaluate ways to keep track of children’s literacy development, and discuss developmentally appropriate teaching methods for the children (Baker, 2005); helped students develop skills of “kidwatching” with anchored instruction (Baker, 2009); and promoted learning the skills of systematic observation of children’s competencies, strengths and weaknesses, processes and strategies, and understandings of literacy processes (Baker & Wedman, 2007). Two studies focused on pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their growth as literacy teachers with positive results (Baker, 2005, 2009); students thought their field experiences were enriched by the cases and they grew in their ability to teach children to read and write. The third study reported students’ pre- and posttest results in learning to observe systematically
viewing a 13-minute video and documenting what they noticed about a child’s reading
with improvements shown in students’ ability to

12

CHERYL ROSAEN

substantiate their observations and document their overall understanding of reading abilities (Baker & Wedman, 2007). Finally, two studies addressed the problem of underrepresentation of Hispanic students with limited language proficiency in referrals for special education by providing students opportunities to participate in a simulation of the special education referral process for a Hispanic student (Ochoa et al., 2001; Ochoa, Kelly, Stuart, & Rogers-Adkinson, 2004). The multimedia module included videotapes, still photographs, and interviews that were used in three phases: framing the problem, searching for information, and problem resolution. Findings indicated that students accessed different aspects of the module to identify the child’s strengths and weaknesses, and students found it beneficial to problem-solve with a group in a context where there were open-ended possibilities. Across these nine studies, it is apparent that pre-service teachers had opportunities to observe specific learner characteristics related to literacy development and consider implications for providing appropriate instruction. The studies did not explicitly examine whether students also learned to investigate how diverse learner characteristics shape the learning process or to provide culturally responsive instruction that attends to racial, cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity.

Leading Dialogic Discussions Seven studies investigated what pre-service teachers gained from using video to learn to lead dialogic discussions. Three of the studies (Basmadjian, 2008; Caughlan, Juzwik, Borsheim-Black, Kelly, & Fine, 2013; Juzwik, Sherry, Caughlan, Heintz, & Borsheim-Black, 2012) examined secondary English pre-service teachers’ analysis of video of their own teaching over time in collaboration with peers and instructors, and found that work with video made classroom practices more visible. Pre-service teachers’ beliefs changed from a primarily monologic view of discussion to a more dialogic understanding and they developed a more complicated understanding of the teacher’s role. Yet Basmadjian (2008) pointed out that the pre-service teachers did not change their beliefs about leading discussions with students who were different from them (e.g., race, class). Caughlan et al. (2013) noted that pre-service teachers used dialogic tools, authentic questions, and uptake at higher levels than might be expected of novices. In a fourth study, two secondary English pre-service teachers who discussed videotapes of their own teaching found it difficult to understand

Potential of Video to Help Literacy Pre-Service Teachers

13

their roles as teachers in student-centered activities and lacked an understanding of how to help students learn to participate in discussions (Williamson, 2013). Kucan and Palincsar (2011) found that after viewing video of others’ text-based discussions as part of a series of activities to learn to conduct their own discussions, elementary pre-service teachers paid greater attention to the teacher’s role, used more evaluative versus descriptive comments, and characterized discussions as a forum for engaging students in developing explanations and interpretation of text ideas. Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, and Terpstra (2008) indicated that compared with written reflections of their own discussion-based teaching, video-based reflections of self-chosen video clips showed that three elementary interns were more specific and focused on children, and they paid closer attention to how interactions affected conceptual understanding. Rosaen et al. (2010b) found that constructing video cases of their discussion-based teaching helped four interns gain insights about their own and student roles, and recognize complexities and areas for improvement, but their overall understanding of leading discussions was still very general. Only one of these seven studies sheds light on the extent to which preservice teachers gained particular insights into teaching diverse students. Basmadjian (2008) reported that although the pre-service teachers dramatically changed their views of planning and leading discussions, they persisted in believing that leading discussions with students whose backgrounds differed from their own (e.g., race, class, language) is more challenging than leading discussions with White, middle-class students. The author speculated that this might be because only a small percentage of pre-service teachers taught in schools with a diverse student population.

DISCUSSION The 23 studies focused on pre-service teacher preparation in literacy reveal that working with video of one’s own teaching, others’ teaching, or video of children’s learning processes has strong potential in many areas. Video can be used successfully to engage pre-service teachers in reflecting on their own teaching, to deepen their understanding of the challenges of engaging in literacy practices, as well as to foster expertise in systematically describing, reflecting on, and analyzing their teaching. Working with video examples of others’ teaching provides multiple perspectives on instruction and

14

CHERYL ROSAEN

examples of what is possible in literacy teaching and learning. Video focused on children’s reading and writing provides opportunities for preservice teachers to analyze and assess student growth and discuss developmentally appropriate instruction. Several of the studies showed that working with video created a dialogic space for examining literacy teaching and learning where analysis and discussions can be grounded in specific contexts and events. Results were mixed regarding changing teachers’ knowledge and beliefs, particularly in relation to pre-service teachers’ views of diverse students and culturally relevant teaching. These results are consistent with other research regarding the persistence of pre-service teachers’ prior beliefs (Pajares, 1992) and their tendencies toward treating issues of diversity on a surface level or avoiding them altogether (Gay & Kirkland, 2003). As cultural artifacts, video of classroom teaching and learning mediates the learning process (Wertsch, 1991) and provides an important stimulus for conversation and inquiry among pre-service teachers. The studies reviewed focused on several types of important knowledge and skills for developing effective practices: knowledge of literacy development, designing instructional practices that meet individual learning needs, and assessment (Snow et al., 2005); the capacity and disposition for reflection and continued learning (Dewey, 1933; Schon, 1987); the ability to learn from systematic observation focused on the interrelations among elements and assessing students’ learning to inform planning for future instruction (Hammerness et al., 2005). However, with the exception of Rosaen’s (2002) study, these studies did not feature working with video to engage preservice teachers in analyzing and developing culturally responsive teaching that attends explicitly to racial, cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity (Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Importantly, with the exception of studies by Maclean and White (2007) and Miller (2009) that worked toward helping pre-service teachers develop a sense of agency in terms of tailoring their instruction to the specific needs of their learners, the set of studies does not represent explicit work toward developing a critical consciousness or stance that will influence pre-service teachers to question power, inequality, and the status quo in order to teach literacy for social justice (Ball, 2000; Gutierrez, 2008; Scherff, 2012; Skerrett, 2010). This gap in the literature is a missed opportunity, given that pre-service teachers report that they want to work with videos to examine ways to work with culturally diverse students (Kurz, Batarelo, & Middleton, 2009). Moreover, the video-based resources used in 12 studies stated they included children who represented diverse backgrounds and abilities (e.g., studies of

Potential of Video to Help Literacy Pre-Service Teachers

15

the use of RCE, CTELL, and ChALK; Baecher et al., 2013; Juzwik et al., 2012; Ochoa et al., 2001, 2004). Nevertheless, the tasks pre-service teachers completed did not seem to explicitly guide students to focus on the relationship between characteristics of the diverse learners featured in the videos and issues of teaching and learning. Findings from this critical analysis suggest that literacy teacher educators could do more to take advantage of the affordances of using video to work more explicitly toward goals of helping pre-service teachers develop a critical consciousness, an inquiring stance, and a sense of agency, along with examining teaching practices that represent culturally responsive teaching. Adopting goals for learning in these areas would require strategic decisions about instructional approaches for working with video materials (Blomberg et al., 2013; Tripp & Rich, 2012). Scholars argue that pre-service teachers need explicit guidance in what to observe for (Howard, 2003) and more focused discussion regarding their developing knowledge and beliefs about student diversity (Ball, 2000; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Milner, 2003). Self-exploration about one’s own cultural influences on literacy development (Bedard, Van Horn, & Garcia, 2011; Lin & Kinzer, 2003) as well as fostering understanding of culturally relevant teaching practices (Gay & Kirkland, 2003) may be fruitful ways to prepare pre-service teachers for focused study of video materials. Preliminary work toward developing an inquiring stance and engaging pre-service teachers in exploring social justice issues are also key ways to prepare for specific work with video toward the aforementioned goals (Scherff, 2012; Skerrett, 2010). Moreover, an added focus in these areas would complement the important types of work with video already documented. The video materials themselves are also important to consider (Blomberg et al., 2013; Tripp & Rich, 2012). Providing adequate information about the community and teaching context, teacher decision-making, children’s social class and their racial, linguistic, cultural, and ethnic background is necessary in order to avoid treating children’s characteristics as fixed categories and instead focus on individuals’ and groups’ experience in activities and not their traits (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003; Hoffman-Kipp et al., 2003; Orellana & Bowman, 2003). Pre-service teachers need to engage in various levels of analysis across multiple contexts and acknowledge limitations in what information the materials offer (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003). Finally, adopting goals in these areas requires studying the extent to which pre-service teachers develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions for working toward social justice and engaging in culturally relevant

16

CHERYL ROSAEN

practices. To date, the studies conducted in literacy pre-service teacher preparation are small scale, ranging from 4 to 83 participants. Larger scale studies that build in control groups for comparison would provide more robust evidence of the effects of working with video. The goals for teacher learning that were investigated seem noteworthy, but further research is needed to provide evidence of long-term effects, particularly when working with diverse students.

CONCLUSION This investigation of the potential of video to support pre-service teacher development in literacy and the range of perspectives represented in the literature add to our growing understanding of its value, and point to areas that require further investigation. In particular, we have little understanding of how various goals for working with video might be combined for generating even more powerful learning that enables teachers to investigate diversity as a means to challenge the status quo and work toward social justice. These are important goals for improving educational opportunities and outcomes for all students.

REFERENCES Baecher, L., Kung, S., Jewkes, A., & Rosalia, C. (2013). The role of video for self-evaluation in early field experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 189
197. Baker, E. A. (2005). Can preservice teacher education really help me grow as a literacy teacher? Examining preservice teachers’ perceptions of multimedia case-based instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 415
431. Baker, E. A. (2009). Multimedia case-based instruction in literacy: Pedagogy, effectiveness, and perceptions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 18(3), 249
266. Baker, E. A., & Wedman, J. M. (2007). Developing preservice literacy teachers’ observation skills: Two stories, two technologies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(4), 293
317. Ball, A. F. (2000). Empowering pedagogies that enhance the learning of multicultural students. Teachers College Record, 102(6), 1006
1034. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2011). Building a common core for learning to teach and connecting professional learning to practice. American Educator, (Summer), 17
39. Basmadjian, K. G. (2008). Watching what we say: Using video to learn about discussions. English Education, 41(1), 13
38. Bedard, C., Van Horn, L., & Garcia, V. (2011). The impact of culture on literacy. The Educational Forum, 75(3), 244
258.

Potential of Video to Help Literacy Pre-Service Teachers

17

Blomberg, G., Renkl, A., Sherin, M. G., Borko, H., & Seidel, T. (2013). Five research-based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education. Journal for Educational Research Online, 1, 90
114. Boling, E. C. (2007). Linking technology, learning and stories: Implications from research on hypermedia video-cases. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 189
200. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673
708). New York, NY: Macmillan. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1998). Professional development and reform-based teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 1
3. Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., Hammerness, K., & Beckett, K. L. (2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 40
87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2004). Using video in teacher education (Vol. 10). Advances in Research on Teaching. Oxford: Elsevier. Caughlan, S., Juzwik, M. M., Borsheim-Black, C., Kelly, S., & Fine, J. (2013). English teacher candidates developing dialogically organized instructional practices. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(3), 212
246. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath. Ferdig, R. E., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Scaffolding preservice teacher learning through web-based discussion forums: An examination of online conversations in the Reading Classroom Explorer. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(3), 87
94. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 181
187. Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. J. (Eds.). (2007). Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425
476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055
2100. Gutierrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148
164. Gutierrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19
25. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M., et al. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. DarlingHammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teacher should learn and be able to do (pp. 358
389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hiebert, J., Morris, A., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 47
61.

18

CHERYL ROSAEN

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez-Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: Teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 248
254. Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195
202. Hughes, J. E., Packard, B. W., & Pearson, P. D. (2000). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of using hypermedia and video to examine the nature of literacy instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 599
629. Juzwik, M. M., Sherry, M. B., Caughlan, S., Heintz, A., & Borsheim-Black, C. (2012). Supporting dialogically organized instruction in an English teacher preparation program: A video-based, Web 2.0-mediated response and revision pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 114(3), 1
42. Kucan, L., & Palincsar, A. (2011). Applying the Grossman et al. theoretical framework: The case of reading. Teachers College Record, 113(12), 2897
2921. Kurz, T. L., Batarelo, I., & Middleton, J. A. (2009). Examining elementary preservice teachers’ perspectives concerning curriculum themes for video case integration. Education Technology Research Development, 57, 461
485. Lin, X., & Kinzer, C. K. (2003). The importance of technology for making cultural values visible. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 234
242. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Maclean, R., & White, S. (2007). Video reflection and the formation of identity in a team of pre-service and experienced teachers. Reflective Practice, 8(1), 47
60. Marsh, B., & Mitchell, N. (2014). The role of video in teacher professional development. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers’ Professional Development, 18(3), 403
417. McIntyre, E., & Turner, J. D. (2013). Culturally responsive literacy instruction. In B. M. Taylor & N. K. Duke (Eds.). Handbook of effective literacy instruction: Research-based practice K-8 (pp. 137
161). New York, NY: Guilford. Miller, M. J. (2009). Talking about our troubles: Using video-based dialogue to build preservice teachers’ professional knowledge. The Teacher Educator, 44, 143
163. Milner, H. R. (2003). Teacher reflection and race in cultural contexts: History, meanings, and methods in teaching. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 173
180. Milner, H. R. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1
2), 118
131. Ochoa, T. A., Gerber, M. M., Leafstedt, J., Hough, S., Kyle, S., Rogers-Adkinson, D., & Koomar, P. (2001). Web technology as a teaching tool: A multicultural special education case. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 50
60. Ochoa, T. A., Kelly, M. L., Stuart, S., & Rogers-Adkinson, D. (2004). The impact of PBL technology on the preparation of teachers of English language learners. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(3), 35
45. Orellana, M. F., & Bowman, P. (2003). Cultural diversity research on learning and development: Conceptual, methodological, and strategic considerations. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 26
32. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307
331. Pearson, P. D. (2001). Learning to teach reading: The status of the knowledge base. In C. M. Roller (Ed.), Learning to teach reading: Setting the research agenda (pp. 4
19). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Potential of Video to Help Literacy Pre-Service Teachers

19

Rosaen, C. L. (2002). Designing and using hypermedia materials to investigate language use in a culturally diverse classroom. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(2), 155
175. Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing noticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347
360. Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Terpstra, M., Cooper, M., Fu, J., & Niu, R. (2010a). Seeing through a different lens: What do interns learn when they make video cases of their own teaching? The Teacher Educator, 45, 1
22. Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Terpstra, M., Cooper, M., Niu, R., & Fu, J. (2010b). Constructing videocases to help novices learn to facilitate discussions in science and English: How does subject matter matter? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(4), 507
524. Scherff, L. (2012). “This project has personally affected me”: Developing a critical stance in preservice English teachers. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(2), 200
236. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schrader, P. G., Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Ataya, R., Heale, W. H., Dabbo, L., & Cammack, D. (2003). Using internet delivered video cases, to support pre-service teachers’ understanding of effective early literacy instruction: An exploratory study. Instructional Science, 31, 317
340. Sherin, M. G. (2004). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (Vol. 10, pp. 1
28). Advances in Research on Teaching. New York, NY: Elsevier. Skerrett, A. (2010). Teaching critical literacy for social justice. Action in Teacher Education, 31(4), 54
65. Smith, M. S. (2005). Helping preservice teachers develop habits of inquiry: Can it be done? Reading Research and Instruction, 45(1), 39
68. Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Thomas, C. N., & Rieth, H. J. (2011). A research synthesis of the literature on multimedia anchored instruction in preservice teacher education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(2), 1
22. Tripp, T., & Rich, P. (2012). Using video to analyze one’s own teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 678
704. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Wang, J., & Hartley, K. (2003). Video technology as a support for teacher education reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 105
138. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Williamson, P. (2013). Enacting high leverage practices in English methods: The case of discussion. English Education, 46(1), 34
67. Yadav, A., & Koehler, M. (2007). The role of epistemological beliefs in preservice teachers’ interpretation of video cases of early-grade literacy instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 335
361.

This page intentionally left blank

INSIGHTS INTO INSERVICE TEACHERS’ VIDEO-FACILITATED REFLECTION OF LITERACY PRACTICES Lynn E. Shanahan, Andrea L. Tochelli-Ward and Tyler W. Rinker ABSTRACT Purpose
This chapter serves to synthesize existing literature centered on inservice teacher video-facilitated reflection on literacy pedagogy. Methodology/approach
The inservice teacher literature review is focused on: (1) video analysis frameworks and scaffolds used to facilitate inservice teachers’ video reflection; (2) reflection and video discussions; and (3) the use of video for inservice teacher change and development. Findings
From this review we learn that there is a dearth of video reflection research with inservice teachers on literacy pedagogy. Within the field of literacy, we know far less about how, when, and why to use video with inservice teachers than preservice teachers.

Video Reflection in Literacy Teacher Education and Development: Lessons from Research and Practice Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation, Volume 5, 21
40 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-045820150000005007

21

22

LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.

Research limitations/implications
The review of literature does not incorporate inservice teacher video reflection in disciplines such as science and mathematics. Expanding this review to all disciplines would present a more comprehensive picture of video reflection with inservice teachers. Practical implications
The chapter highlights the potential value of using video in inservice professional development and points to the specific needs for studies to identify the most effective uses of video specific to inservice professionals. Originality/value
This chapter provides significant research-based information for designing and implementing future studies and professional development focused on video reflection with inservice teachers. Keywords: Video reflection; inservice teachers; literacy; teacher growth; video discussion

Teacher quality is critical for educational reform and increasing student achievement (e.g., Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). One element that is vital to the advancement of teacher quality is the ability to develop reflective practices (Scho¨n, 1983). The act of reflection is important in teacher development because reflection promotes teachers’ metacognitive awareness and self-monitoring skills (Zimmerman, 2000). Dewey’s notion of reflection can be defined with four principles as: (1) a meaning-making process moving learners between experiences; (2) a systematic and rigorous process; (3) occurring in communities; and (4) requiring people to possess attitudes toward growth and development of themselves and others (Rogers, 2002). Dewey (2010) felt that questioning was critical for reflection, as reflective thought is an “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and further conclusions to which it tends” (p. 9). Thus, the process of reflection should be grounded in doubt, hesitation, and questioning that entails an active exploration of authentic issues. In this way, reflection consists of identifying a problem and dialoguing around that problem either with oneself or with others (Jay & Johnson, 2002). Earlier research on reflection prompted many teacher accreditation bodies such as the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education in the United States and the Department for International Development in the United Kingdom to include reflection. The

Teachers’ Video-Facilitated Reflection of Literacy Practices

23

establishment of these standards influenced teacher educators to incorporate reflection into their programs. With the implementation of the Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010) in the United States, the focus on professional development of inservice teachers, whether through a masters level teacher education course or a school district’s professional development, has intensified due to the increased student achievement expectations. Adoption of these standards resulted in an increased focus on inservice teacher development. The interest in reflection to promote teacher development is also seen internationally (e.g., Marsh & Mitchell, 2014). One tool used to develop teachers’ reflective practices is video. The use of video for teacher learning is not new. Teacher educators began using video in the 1960 after the development of portable video equipment (Wang & Hartley, 2003). Due to technological advances, video has become even more accessible and there is a renewed interest in the use of video for teacher reflection. Included in the technological advances is the development of video analysis tools that make the process of viewing, analyzing, and sharing videos easier for instructors (Rich & Hannafin, 2009). Video analysis is one approach used to assist teachers in reflecting on (Scho¨n, 1983) their practice because teachers have the opportunity to build their knowledge by systematically collecting evidence of their teaching to observe, analyze, and share their practices (Deaton, 2012). Video has become an increasingly important mediational tool for teacher learning in part because video analysis and discussions have been shown to: (a) contribute to knowledge-building (Pea & Lindgren, 2008); (b) afford teachers the opportunity to reflect on the use of materials and their practice more accurately than using their memory (e.g., Harford, MacRuairc, & McCartan, 2010); and (c) provide opportunities for a deeper discussion of teaching beyond what individual recollections allow for (Grant & Kline, 2010). More recently, scholars investigating video reflection have developed definitions specific to video reflection. One such definition, influenced by various reflection scholars (e.g., Jay & Johnson, 2002; Scho¨n, 1983; Shulman & Shulman, 2004), is: A goal-directed process that moves teachers to identify a situation, process, or experience that is puzzling, interesting, celebratory, or otherwise intriguing and view it through multiple lenses. Developing particular skill sets or dispositions is necessary for reflection, but a particular set of skills or dispositions is not sufficient to become a reflective practitioner. Reflective teachers strive to gain strategic knowledge of a situation in order to develop and explore questions, recognize, or acknowledge complexity of situations, processes or experiences, and make adaptations to their actions, beliefs, positions, and classroom and pedagogical practices. Reflection is self-directed and collaborative in nature. (Shanahan et al., 2013, p. 305)

24

LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.

To date, many of the studies of video reflection predominantly focus on preservice teachers (e.g., Hayden & Chui, in press; Roskos, Vukelich, & Risko, 2001), with fewer studies concentrating on inservice teachers (e.g., Ayra, Christ, & Chiu, 2014; Osipova, Prichard, Boardman, Kiely, & Carroll, 2011). Of the six literature reviews conducted on video reflection, four focus on preservice teachers (Blomberg, Renkl, Sherin, Borko, & Seidel, 2013; Grossman, 2005; Thomas & Reith, 2011; Wang & Hartley, 2003), and two combine studies conducted with preservice and inservice teachers (Marsh & Mitchell, 2014; Tripp & Rich, 2012b). The two literature reviews that combine preservice and inservice studies do not distinguish which findings are based on studies conducted with preservice or inservice teachers. Generalizing the findings from preservice teachers to inservice teachers and vice versa puts the findings at risk because the findings from preservice teachers may or may not apply to inservice teachers. The lack of discrimination between preservice and inservice teachers when reporting findings is problematic because the underlying assumption is that the two populations are not different. Previous research indicates that teachers are on a continuous learning progression where they have distinctive needs as they traverse various phases of development: (a) preservice, (b) novice or beginning, and (c) experienced (Feinman-Nemser, 2001). Teacher learning is complex and development differs based on experiences, knowledge, and beliefs. For example, Feinman-Nemser (2001) identified differences in the needs of preservice, newly inducted, and continuing teachers. Within each phase central learning tasks are identified based on teacher need at that point of development. The central tasks for preservice teachers focus around learning content knowledge, understanding learners and learning, and developing a repertoire of teaching strategies (Feinman-Nemser, 2001). These learning experiences are meant to prepare preservice teachers for their field experiences, student teaching, and their own classroom teaching. In the second phase, new teacher induction development, inservice teachers need to focus on learning about their specific school context. This may include learning about the students, curriculum, school, and working on developing their professional identity (Feinman-Nemser, 2001). These foci for new teacher induction are different from those mentioned for the preservice teachers as they are context-specific. Feinman-Nemser (2001) specifically considered teachers with three-tofive years experience as continuing professional development. In this phase of teacher learning, the ideas are to deepen content area knowledge, expand and refine repertoires of teaching, self-study to improve teaching, and

Teachers’ Video-Facilitated Reflection of Literacy Practices

25

expand leadership responsibilities in the school. As illustrated by FeinmanNemser (2001), teacher-learning experiences are significantly different in their foci as teachers move further along in their careers. We argue that because of the complex nature of teacher development, findings about preservice and inservice teachers’ video reflection cannot be generalized to one another without further research. The research concentrated on video reflection needs to separately examine inservice and preservice teachers or at least distinguish between the two when crafting a review. For these reasons, we focused solely on inservice teachers. Further, being literacy educators we are interested in reviewing the inservice literature centered on literacy, not other disciplines such as mathematics and science.

SCOPE OF THE REVIEW We searched Education Research Complete for peer reviewed journal articles about inservice video reflection in the field of literacy using the following terms: video reflection, reflection, inservice teacher, video, digital video, video analysis, professional development, literacy, and teacher education. We located additional studies by identifying relevant titles that were referenced in the articles we located through the search. This resulted in 23 studies that were published between 1999 and 2014 from various disciplines: literacy, science, and mathematics. Because the focus of this chapter is literacy, we eliminated the science and mathematics articles. We excluded studies that combined inservice teachers with preservice teachers when the role of the inservice teachers was not video reflection. The final set of studies focused on both literacy and inservice teachers was nine studies. We also included two studies that focused on video reflection for inservice teacher change and were not discipline-specific as this fit within the scope of our review. Of the studies reviewed three were conducted in reading methods courses, two in Masters level practicum courses, and six in professional development settings. The purpose of this chapter is to synthesize existing literature centered on inservice teacher video-facilitated reflection on literacy pedagogy. We focused on the following questions: 1. What video analysis frameworks and scaffolds were used to facilitate inservice teachers’ video reflection? 2. What does research say about reflection and video discussions?

26

LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.

3. What do we currently know about the use of video for inservice teacher change and development?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS INFORMING VIDEO REFLECTION We reviewed the theoretical frameworks of the 11 studies on inservice teacher video reflection. Authors of seven studies framed their research through various social theories of mind. Three authors did not identify a specific theory instead they focused their writing on reviewing literature around reflection and the use of video in professional development drawing connections between theory and practice (Rosaen, Carlisle, Mihocko, Melnick, & Johnson, 2013; Tripp & Rich, 2012a; Wedman, Espinosa, & Laffey, 1999). Further, Powell (2005) specifically indicated his intention was not to review literature, but instead focused on conceptualizing video reflection conversations, outlining methodologies, and interpreting findings. The seven authors who situated their work in different social theories of mind drew upon Sociocultural Theory (Vygotsky, 1997), neo-Vygotskian perspectives (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), and Lave and Wenger’s (1991) Situated Learning where authors identified their theoretical lens as Communities of Practice. These studies use similar tenets to inform their research design and analysis frameworks. For instance, reflection was situated in a social environment where learners were apprenticed with peers or a more knowledgeable other (Ayra et al., 2014; Christ, Ayra, & Chiu, 2012, 2014; Dozier & Rutten, 2005; Osipova et al., 2011; Shanahan & Tochelli, 2012, 2014). Of these studies, a number also simultaneously drew from Lave and Wenger’s (1991) communities of practice to discuss how learning occurs in groups through the process of people sharing information and experiences (Ayra et al., 2014; Christ et al., 2014; Osipova et al., 2011; Shanahan & Tochelli, 2012, 2014). Another sociocultural principle was that video served as an artifact to mediate teacher learning (Christ et al., 2012; Shanahan & Tochelli, 2014). One study focused on the neo-Vygotskian perspective from Tharp and Gallimore (1988) in the use of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) for teacher learning (Dozier & Rutten, 2005). Similar to the use of ZPD with students, teacher educators need to consider teacher learners’ ZPD in approaching professional development to ensure teachers will benefit from the learning experiences. Each of these

Teachers’ Video-Facilitated Reflection of Literacy Practices

27

theoretical perspectives focused around the social nature of video reflection and the use of video as an artifact to mediate learning. Taken together, all seven studies acknowledged the role of collaboration, social interaction, the use of ZPD, and the use of tools and signs in the learning process of inservice teachers.

SCAFFOLDING VIDEO REFLECTION THROUGH ANALYSIS FRAMEWORKS In the 11 studies video served as a mediational tool to further teachers’ understanding of various aspects of literacy pedagogy. When interpreting findings it is critical to understand how video was used, because video alone does not foster change (Vygotsky, 1997), instead the framework within which video is used shapes teacher learning. With the goal of understanding the context of the studies, we analyzed three specific features for each step in the video reflection process. Because we consider the video as a type of text and knowing the importance of setting purpose when reading, one feature we coded was the purpose for the video reflection. A second feature we coded in each step was whether teachers’ reflected independently and/or in a socially mediated context. Any time a step in the reflective process included the inservice teacher reflecting on his/her own it was coded as an independent reflection format. When the reflective process included discussion with a literacy coach, researcher and/or other teachers the reflective format was coded as a socially mediated reflection format. It is important to note the Rosaen et al. (2013) study was web-based and once a teacher reflected independently she had access to two reading specialists’ perspectives, which were prerecorded meaning there was an asynchronous component. However, we coded the viewing of the reading specialists’ perspectives as a socially mediated reflection because the perspectives of two others were considered. The third feature coded for was the type of response activity within the reflective format. We coded and tallied three types of response activities: viewing, writing, and/or discussing. Analyzing for these three features afforded us the opportunity to understand the level of scaffolding included in the various reflective frameworks, which ranged on a continuum from more highly structured formats to less structured (see Fig. 1). In the subsequent sections we discuss each of the three features.

28

Reflective Video Analysis Framework.

LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.

Fig. 1.

Teachers’ Video-Facilitated Reflection of Literacy Practices

29

Purpose for Reflective Response Previous research points to the importance of teachers viewing video with a specific purpose (Brophy, 2004). Without a clear set purpose teacher’s typically focus on teacher’s personalities (Miller & Zhou, 2007) and may not focus where intended due to the amount of information available through video (Newell & Walter, 1981). Eight studies identified specific purposes for video analysis and three empowered the teachers to set their own purpose. Six studies predetermined the purpose for viewing as part of their highly structured analysis frameworks (Osipova et al., 2011; Powell, 2005; Rosaen et al., 2013; Shanahan & Tochelli, 2012, 2014; Wedman et al., 1999). All six studies posed either guiding questions or specific analysis tasks to set a specific purpose for video analysis. For instance, Rosaen et al. (2013) incorporated an analytic framework called Thinking Questions (p. 174) that focused the video analysis on one of three dimensions: (a) purpose and design of the lesson; (b) instruction; and (c) student participation and engagement. Similarly, Powell’s (2005) structure provided guiding questions that included six different dimensions for analysis of active learning: (a) intentions and purposes; (b) self-awareness; (c) practical reflection; (d) technical reflection; (e) perceptual awareness; and (f) critical reflections. Several studies did not use guiding questions to frame the video analysis. Osipova et al.’s (2011) framework focused on word recognition and fluency. This study had the teachers score their own lessons on a rubric for seven different areas and then asked several open-ended questions. Other researchers had teachers reflect by tagging video for a set purpose. Shanahan and Tochelli (2012, 2014) asked nine inservice teachers to independently view and time-stamp each time they recognized an element of the strategy instruction model they learned in their own video and the videos of two other peers. Next teachers completed two peer analysis charts Proportion of Responsibility of Task Completion and the Scaffolded Instructional Support for Strategic Processing of Text (Almasi & Fullerton, 2012). The purpose of all three dimensions of the analysis was to assist teachers in recognizing, monitoring, and regulating their teaching of reading strategies. Note that in all six studies, the purpose for video analysis was orchestrated by the focus of the professional development, not set by the teachers themselves. Conversely, other studies afforded teachers more autonomy and choice in the reflective process because teachers self-selected their video clips and chose their topics of discussion (i.e., Ayra et al., 2014; Christ et al., 2012, 2014; Dozier & Rutten, 2005; Tripp & Rich, 2012a, 2012b). Tripp and Rich

30

LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.

(2012a) used guiding questions from three of Powell’s (2005) six dimensions along with a software program called MediaNotes to tag and annotate video on the four goals teachers determined were characteristics of good teaching. Others had teachers’ self-select video and pose questions to their peers to collaboratively solve. Ayra et al. (2014) said they did not use a specific facilitation protocol instead they asked teachers: (a) what they noticed; (b) how they interpreted what they noticed; and (c) what connections they could make to the video case. The instructor asked follow up questions throughout the discussion. A similar protocol was followed for Christ et al.’s (2014) study where teachers self-selected a video to view and discussed with their peers in a reading methods course. There was no specific protocol set for the video discussion and the professor’s participation was minimal due to the purpose of the study.

Independent and Socially Mediated Reflecting: Traversing the Types of Response Activities We consider highly structured video analysis frameworks those that incorporated multiple steps in the reflective process where teachers engaged in reflective response activities both independently and collaboratively using different response modes (i.e., writing, discussion, viewing). All eleven studies had the teachers engage in video analysis both independently and socially one time each. Two studies included more reflective steps than the others. Dozier and Rutten’s (2005) required four reflective steps
three independent analysis steps and one socially mediated. Rosaen et al.’s (2013) third condition of video reflection included three steps in the reflective process
one independent analysis, one socially mediated/coach, and one socially mediated/group. As stated earlier, we considered video to be a text and in order to read the text teachers had to interpret meaning from primarily two specific communicative modes, visual images and spoken words. When sharing reflections in writing or through discussion teachers responded to video through different communicative modes (i.e., written and/or spoken words). We considered teachers responding to the video/text using different modes as a form of transmediation (Siegel, 1995). Responding to text or video through different modalities promotes thinking and the development of new understandings (Siegel, 1995). Knowing this we analyzed the three types of response activities that occurred when the teachers analyzed video/text in all contexts.

Teachers’ Video-Facilitated Reflection of Literacy Practices

31

The column labeled independent in Fig. 1 illustrates that all studies asked the teachers to independently analyze their video. Six studies asked the teachers to respond to their first viewing of the video independently through writing. The other five required teachers to reflect and select video clips, but did not ask for a written response. Across all steps in the reflective process Dozier and Rutten (2005) asked their teachers to view their video independently two times and write independently three times. Their reflective process recursively used independent video analysis with viewing and writing. Written responses were used far less when teachers reflected in the socially mediated context. Only five studies asked teachers to engage in some form of written reflection during the socially mediated phases of reflection. Writing in the socially mediated context served several purposes, two studies had other teachers provide written feedback and/or responses to the teacher presenting her clip (i.e., Dozier & Rutten, 2005; Tripp & Rich, 2012a). Osipova et al. (2011) had the coach share her written notes of the teachers’ lessons. Finally, Shanahan and Tochelli (2012, 2014) asked the teachers to collectively complete two peer analysis charts to identify the amount and type of scaffolding in the lesson and where the lesson fell within the gradual release of responsibility (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). Within the socially mediated reflective context, discussion with others occurred in all studies. The number of people involved in the discussion varied. Two studies had teachers discuss video in smaller video study groups (Rosaen et al., 2013; Shanahan & Tochelli, 2012, 2014; Tripp & Rich, 2012a, 2012b). Studies that took place as part of master’s program used larger group discussion (Ayra et al., 2014; Christ et al., 2012, 2014; Dozier & Rutten, 2005). The remaining studies utilized one-to-one conversation with the researcher (Osipova et al., 2011; Powell, 2005; Wedman et al., 1999). In sum, there was a continuum that ranged from highly structured frameworks to less structured frameworks. Highly structured frameworks included teachers independently and collaboratively analyzing the videos and then engaging teachers in several different reflective activities where teachers had to use different response modes (i.e., writing, discussion, and viewing). We considered those studies that scored between 5 and 8 in the Total (I + M) column in Fig. 1 to be the more highly structured. The least structured video analysis frameworks scored a three in the Total (I + M) column in Fig. 1 because they required fewer opportunities to respond to video through different modes.

32

LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.

VIDEO DISCUSSION: SOCIALLY MEDIATING REFLECTIONS All of the studies asked teachers to reflect with others through discussion. Findings from these studies claim that teachers valued the opportunity to discuss their video reflections with their peers. Further, teachers valued viewing video because video allowed them to see an unbiased rich account of the lesson and teacher as well as student interaction (Christ et al., 2014; Rosaen et al., 2013). Also critical to responsive teaching was intentionally providing space for teachers to converse during video analysis (Dozier & Rutten, 2005). Teachers who had the opportunity to reflect through video on ideas for change thought the ideas that were generated were better than those ideas derived without video because all participants understood the learning situation (Tripp & Rich, 2012a). Three other studies (Powell, 2005; Shanahan & Tochelli, 2012, 2014) found that having the space and time to talk with colleagues provided teachers with an opportunity to: (a) bring their tacit knowledge to an explicit level; (b) discuss and correct misinterpretations; and (c) discuss Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1986). Christ et al. (2012) determined that there were three different purposes that teachers identified for selecting video clips to share with peers. They selected clips based on: (a) explicit problems; (b) implicit problems; and (c) successes. Interestingly, the discussions around the video clips were directly related to how the teacher approached the clip in the conversation. For instance, if the teacher first shared an explicit or implicit problem and then a success the discussion that ensued centered on teachers discussing the success. Conversely, if the teacher shared a success and then a problem this led to a discussion centered on the problem. Meaning the discussion was based on the last topic brought up, which suggests that the purpose and the order of sharing different types of reflections might be important in shaping the conversation. Further, if teachers shared a success related to methods or materials the discussion that ensued included teachers focusing on how to apply these ideas to their own teaching. This study specifically leads to the need for facilitator of discussion to consider how video reflection is approached.

Considerations for Facilitators of Discussion The discussion occurring between teachers as well as those with facilitators needs to be considered carefully in approaching inservice teacher

Teachers’ Video-Facilitated Reflection of Literacy Practices

33

discussion. Several studies examined video reflective conversations of both the facilitator and the teachers in the context of a whole group discussion in graduate methods courses (Christ et al., 2014) and inservice teachers in video reflective conversations (Ayra et al., 2014). The findings presented are important to those facilitating video reflection discussions. Modeling of discussion behaviors by instructors lead to students using the same patterns in their talk (Ayra et al., 2014). For instance, when instructors made connections and a teacher in the class responded he or she also followed by making a connection. A noteworthy finding related to making connections is if an instructor wants the teachers to develop semantic networks focused on pedagogy, he or she should use connections to increase the development of semantic networks. Interestingly another pattern identified was if a professor used a recall question followed by a critical thinking question the responses increased critical thinking from the participants. Christ et al.’s (2014) study centered on large group discussion within a reading masters course and found that when instructors talked in large group discussions they typically provided information, as well as affirmed and responded to students’ questions. Conversely, teachers thought critically, recalled information, and made connections. When asked about whether the video or discussion was their main sources of knowledge, 50% of the teachers reported that their source for learning was video, 45% reported discussion, and 5% responded a combination of video and discussion. Teachers reported approximately 40% of what they learned about methods and materials for instruction came from both the viewing the video and engaging in the discussion.

Developing a Positive Culture Although reflective discussion focused on video was valued, it is also important to consider developing a positive environment for discussion (Shanahan & Tochelli, 2012). Findings indicated that teachers cultivated a trusting relationship by providing positive feedback and specific statements identifying positive teaching acts. Further, teachers avoided feedback focused on identifying areas of improvement and used the pronoun “we” to couch these improvements. What is critical to note here is that if teachers focus their conversations strictly on one another’s strengths, it could limit teacher growth because they will not push one another’s thinking. The lack of constructive feedback could impede progress towards learning

34

LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.

goals. Hence having a more knowledgeable other in the group who challenges teachers to think differently may be instrumental in helping teachers reflect and change their pedagogy (cf., Ayra et al., 2014; Christ et al., 2014).

TEACHER CHANGE Teacher change was discussed in five studies from various perspectives. Tripp and Rich (2012a) and Osipova et al. (2011) found that the use of video reflection focused teachers’ analysis and let them see their teaching from a different point of view. Teachers valued having the chance to receive feedback and they felt responsible to make pedagogical changes. Similarly, Wedman et al. (1999) found that teachers were able to generate solutions to the problems identified while watching videos and then use those solutions to either reorganize the students, content, or materials. In some instances, teachers retaught the lesson using different strategies or materials. In a graduate course setting, teachers also reported that they were more likely to change their practice after using video than if they just received verbal feedback (Tripp & Rich, 2012a). Christ et al. (2014) also found that using the Collaborative Peer Video Analysis (p. 2) framework helped teachers learn and implement new pedagogic methods and use new materials. Rosaen et al. (2013) reported that teachers made connections from the video case to their own teaching and demonstrated that the analysis contributed to their reflective practice. Those who did not apply what they had seen said it was because the video context differed greatly from their own. Shanahan and Tochelli (2014) and Powell (2005) claimed that in the socially mediated context, teachers explicitly articulated knowledge that what was once tacit. This finding is encouraging because developing an explicit understanding is critical for teachers so that they can monitor and adjust their instructional practices based on students’ needs (Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2004) While some studies indicated teacher change through video reflection, Ayra et al. (2014) did not find changes in teacher reported learning or application of learning over time. There may have been an insignificant change over time because of the length of the course and because teachers had already engaged in professor-facilitated case-study discussions that built foundational knowledge.

Teachers’ Video-Facilitated Reflection of Literacy Practices

35

Up to this point we discussed change in teachers’ practices, but critical to change is the use of video to critically reflect. Osipova et al. (2011) examined teachers’ reflection three times across a year to see if there was growth in the teachers’ ability to critically reflect on their videos. Findings indicated that teachers’ ability to critically reflect about what worked and did not worked increased across the school year.

CONCLUSION From this review we learn that there is a dearth of video reflection research with inservice teachers on literacy pedagogy. Within the field of literacy, we know far less about how, when, and why to use video with inservice teachers than preservice teachers. The scarcity of studies focused on inservice teacher video reflection for literacy pedagogy itself reveals the need for further research. Even if we included inservice teacher studies from mathematics and science our total number of studies would have been 23. Further suggesting that studies specifically focusing on inservice teacher video reflection are needed across disciplines. Examining the structure of the video analysis process with inservice teachers in literacy is critical to understanding how to use video in ways that foster teacher development (Vygotsky, 1997). Miller and Zhou (2007) stated that it may be necessary to provide teachers with tasks when using video in teacher learning. In our review we outlined several different reflective frameworks used in literacy studies that varied in purpose, reflective format, and response activity. All the studies had a purpose for viewing that was determined by the facilitators or the inservice teacher. Including a purpose for viewing is critical to note because for video to be viewed as an effective tool it must be used with a clear purpose in mind (Brophy, 2004). While there are different frameworks used to scaffold teacher learning, our results indicated that we still know very little about how, when, and why to utilize the different frameworks presented. Rosaen et al. (2013) was the only study that varied the levels of reflective scaffolds within their design having participants grouped in the following three ways: (a) independently view two videos; (b) independently view eight videos; and (c) independently view eight videos with a study group. Although different conditions were set up, the research questions focused on teacher perceptions of the forms of guidance, not teacher learning. It is promising to note that eighteen of the teachers did report that the highly scaffolded reflective process

36

LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.

influenced their thinking, reflections, and resulted in changes to their practice. We suggest studies that set up different conditions for video reflection and measuring teacher learning are needed. Further, research designs include different conditions for video reflections, inservice teacher participants with varied teaching experiences and beliefs, and measures of teacher learning. With studies such as these we might be able to answer how, when, and why to use specific video structures with inservice teachers. Theoretically, the studies reviewed used several social theories of mind to inform their research design and analysis. Most centered their research design on collecting data related to social mediation through discussion. We noted that Rosaen et al. (2013) was the only study that varied the conditions of the learners’ video use. Cultural artifacts (e.g., digital video and written artifacts) along with language mediate the interactive process. Future research that moves beyond just understanding language as a mediational tool is critical to using sociocultural theory to its fullest capacity. We challenge researchers to consider examining video and language and scaffolding tools as mediators within video reflection. Further, Dozier and Rutten (2005) drew upon the new-Vygotskian framework. Using Cultural Historical Activity Theory as a theoretical framework affords researchers the opportunity to understand the complexities involved when engaging in video reflection. We also learned that when teachers are given the opportunity to reflect with peers about their own or their colleagues’ video they valued discussion, increased their explicit knowledge, used the discussion to facilitate the transfer of responsive teaching, and reported that they generated better ideas when they had the chance to view video and talk with their peers. These findings align theoretically with dialogue being viewed as a tool to mediate the process of learning (Wells, 1999). In problem solving processes, such as video reflection, participants in the discussion need to be able to describe their observations and justify this knowledge for others (Wells, 1999). These discussion points then become an object for others to respond, extend, question, or reject in the dialogic process of knowledge-building (Wells, 1999). Although we know that teachers build knowledge and change their beliefs during these discussions we know very little about the: (a) optimal frequency of conversations; (b) duration of discussion time in the study group; (c) optimal size of group; and (d) impact of writing reflections before engaging in conversations or writing reflections after engaging in conversations. Similar to van Es, Tunney, Goldsmith, and Seago’s (2014) claim that there was minimal research centered on the role of the facilitator in

Teachers’ Video-Facilitated Reflection of Literacy Practices

37

supporting teacher learning in mathematics, we too found that there was only one study focused on the influence of the facilitator when inservice teachers engage in video reflection through discussion in a masters reading methods class (Ayra et al., 2014). Although this study begins to explore the influence of the facilitator, we are in need of further research as this is a small sample size and the participants are from one context. There are no known literacy studies focused on the facilitation of inservice teacher video discussions in a professional development setting. Further studies should concentrate on the influence of the facilitator: (a) within small and large group discussions; (b) in professional development settings; and (c) with inservice teachers who span the continuum of experiences and beliefs. Due to the potential of video to contribute to teacher learning, it has gained much interest on an international level. Within our review focused on literacy pedagogy with inservice teachers, only one study examined the development of teachers’ reflection over time (Osipova et al., 2011). If those in literacy look to research in other fields such as mathematics and science focused on inservice teacher development, we learn that teachers need guidance in video analysis so they attend to particular aspects of teaching and learning (e.g., Sherin & van Es, 2005). Using video in inservice professional development has a great deal of potential in the field of literacy. However, we need additional studies to identify the most effective uses of video specific to inservice professionals.

REFERENCES Almasi, J., & Fullerton, S. K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Ayra, P., Christ, T., & Chiu, M. M. (2014). Facilitation and teacher behaviors: An analysis of literacy teachers’ video-case discussions. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 111
127. Blomberg, G., Renkl, A., Sherin, M. G., Borko, H., & Seidel, T. (2013). Five research-based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education. Journal for Educational Research Online, 1, 90
114. Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2004). Using video in teacher education. Bradford, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Christ, T., Ayra, P., & Chiu, M. M. (2012). Collaborative peer video analysis. Insights about literacy assessments and instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(2), 171
199. Christ, T., Ayra, P., & Chiu, M. M. (2014). Teachers’ reports of learning and application to pedagogy based on engagement in collaborative peer video analysis. Teaching Education, 25(4), 349
374. doi:10.1080/10476210.2014.920001

38

LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Washington, DC: CCSSO & National Governors Association. Deaton, C. (2012). Examining the use of a reflection framework to guide teachers’ video analysis of science teaching practice. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 1
21. Dewey, J. (2010). Science as Subject-Matter and as Method. Science and Education, 4(4), 391
398. Dozier, C. L., & Rutten, I. (2005). Responsive teaching toward responsive teachers: Mediating transfer through intentionality, enactment and articulation. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(4), 459
492. Feinman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teacher’s College Record, 103(6), 1013
1055. Grant, T. J., & Kline, K. (2010). The impact of video-based lesson analysis on teachers’ thinking and practice. Teacher Development, 14(1), 69
83. Grossman, P. L. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425
476). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Harford, J., MacRuairc, G., & McCartan, D. (2010). ‘Lights, camera, reflection’: Using peer video to promote reflective dialogue among student teachers. Teacher Development, 14(1), 57
68. Hayden, H. E., & Chui, M. M. (in press). Reflective teaching via problem exploration-teacher adaptations-resolution cycle: A mixed methods study of preservice teacher’s reflective roles. Journal of Mixed Methods. doi:10.1177/1558689813509027 Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73
85. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 370
391. Marsh, B., & Mitchell, N. (2014). The role of video in teacher professional development. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers’ Professional Development, 18(3), 403
417. Miller, K., & Zhou, X. (2007). Learning from classroom video: What makes it compelling and what makes it hard. In R. Goldmann, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 321
334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Newell, K. M., & Walter, C. A. (1981). Kinematic and kinetic parameters in information feedback in motor skill acquisition. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 7, 235
254. Osipova, A., Prichard, B., Boardman, A. G., Kiely, M. T., & Carroll, P. E. (2011). Refocusing the lens: Enhancing elementary special education reading instruction through video self-reflection. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26(3), 158
171. Pea, R., & Lindgren, R. (2008). Video collaboratories for research and education: An analysis of collaboration design patterns. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1(4), 235
247. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317
344.

Teachers’ Video-Facilitated Reflection of Literacy Practices

39

Powell, E. (2005). Conceptualizing and facilitating active learning: Teachers’ video-stimulated reflective dialogues. Reflective Practice, 6(3), 407
418. Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009). Scaffolded video self-analysis: Discrepancies between preservice teachers’ perceived and actual instructional decisions. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 128
145. Rogers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842
866. Rosaen, C. L., Carlisle, J. F., Mihocko, E., Melnick, A., & Johnson, J. (2013). Teachers learning from analysis of other teachers’ reading lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 170
184. Roskos, K., Vukelich, C., & Risko, V. J. (2001). Reflection and learning to teach reading: A critical review of literacy and general teacher education studies. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(4), 595
635. Scho¨n, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc. Shanahan, L. E., McVee, M. B., Schiller, J. A., Tynan, E. A., D’Abate, R. L., FluryKashmanian, C. M., … Hayden, H. E. (2013). Learning to support struggling readers and literacy clinicians through reflective pedagogy. In E. T. Ortlieb & E. H. Cheek, Jr. (Eds.), Advanced literacy practices: From the clinic to the classroom (Vol. 2, pp. 303
323). Literacy Research, Practice, and Evaluation. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Shanahan, L. E., & Tochelli, A. L. (2012). Video study group: A context to cultivate professional relationships. In P. J. Dunston, S. K. Fullerton, C. C. Bates, K. Headley, & P. M. Stecker (Eds.), 61st Literacy Research Association Conference Yearbook (pp. 196
211). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association. Shanahan, L. E., & Tochelli, A. L. (2014). Examining the use of video study groups for developing literacy pedagogical content knowledge for Critical Elements of Strategy Instruction with elementary teachers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53(1), 1
24. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475
491. Shulman, L., & Shulman, J. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257
271. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4
14. Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: The generative power of transmediation for learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(4), 455
475. Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, C. N., & Reith, H. J. (2011). A research synthesis of the literature on multimedia anchored instruction in preservice teacher education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(2), 1
22. Tripp, T., & Rich, P. (2012a). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 728
739. Tripp, T., & Rich, P. (2012b). Using video to analyze one’s own teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 678
704. van Es, E. A., Tunney, J., Goldsmith, L. T., & Seago, N. (2014). A framework for the facilitation of teachers’ analysis of video. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 340
356.

40

LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Vol. 4. The history of the development of higher mental functions (M.J. Hall, Trans; R.W. Reiber, Ed.). New York, NY: Plenum. Wang, J., & Hartley, K. (2003). Video technology as a support for teacher education reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), 105
138. Wedman, J. M., Espinosa, L. M., & Laffey, J. M. (1999). A process for understanding how a field-based course influences teachers’ beliefs and practices. The Teacher Educator, 34(3), 189
214. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64
70.

CONSTRUCTING SUCCESSFUL VIDEO REFLECTION EXPERIENCES IN PRACTICUM SETTINGS Theresa Deeney and Cheryl Dozier ABSTRACT Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to outline specific features of the videotaped analysis experience to construct successful video reflection communities. Methodology/approach
In this chapter, we draw from our multiple studies of clinic practices, including interviews with lab/clinic graduates, a large-scale survey, and artifact analyses. We also draw from others’ research on videotaped reflection activities. Findings
Our combined research showed three essential aspects of successful video reflection experiences, which we share in this chapter: Developing a culture of video sharing as learning, engaging with collegial feedback, and scaffolding teachers’ individual reflections. In each section of the chapter, we situate, within vignettes of practice, procedures we use

Video Reflection in Literacy Teacher Education and Development: Lessons from Research and Practice Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation, Volume 5, 41
57 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-045820150000005009

41

42

THERESA DEENEY AND CHERYL DOZIER

to create successful video reflection experiences and prompts we have found effective. Research limitations/implications
While we highlight three features of successful video reflection experiences based on ours and others’ research, we recognize these are not the only instructional practices that make the video reflection experience beneficial. Practical implications
In this chapter, we provide instructors specific descriptions of how to arrange successful video reflection experiences, including prompts we have found most successful in generating rich group conversation, coaching, and individual reflection. Originality/value
The success of video reflection experiences is dependent on how those experiences are framed and situated for teachers. This chapter provides detailed descriptions for teacher educators to use while implementing video reflection experiences. Keywords: Video reflection; teacher education; clinic-based instruction This whole process was a very rewarding experience. I saw so many strategies and techniques in the lessons that my colleagues did that I would like to try with my student. I learned a lot from the way that many of them solved problems, transitioned, and planned their lessons in very effective ways. I definitely appreciated their feedback on my teaching as well. Through their comments and my own reflecting on my teaching, I feel as though I have a better idea of where my strengths lie and what I need to work on to become an even better teacher. (Kathy)

Improving teaching requires thoughtful reflection on one’s own practice. Yet, recalling a teaching event clearly can be challenging. Much happens in the span of a few moments in the classroom or clinic environment. Recording and replaying teaching sessions through video allow teachers to slow down teaching and learning, providing teachers and colleagues needed time and space to reflect on the interactions between teacher and student (Sherin, Linsenmeier, & van Es, 2009). As Kathy points out in her reflection, video reflection enables teachers to analyze and reflect on their own and others’ instruction. Over the past decade, we have engaged in several studies to understand how videotaping in the clinical setting helps teachers transform practices. One qualitative study (Deeney, 2002) analyzed teachers’ written reflections of their videotaped lessons and found each teacher identified specific

Constructing Successful Video Reflection Experiences

43

instructional practices in need of fine-tuning, and modified her instruction based on the analysis. In a later study, clinic directors around the country (Deeney et al., 2011) interviewed graduates to understand the experiences graduates transferred from clinic to schools to transform their own teaching/ school contexts. Graduates discussed the power of analyzing their own teaching, both individually and in collaboration with colleagues, and named the video reflection as a powerful tool to improve their practice and increase student engagement. In this chapter we share three features of the videotaped analysis experience we have identified as essential to constructing successful video reflection communities: Developing a culture of video sharing as learning, engaging with collegial feedback, and scaffolding teachers’ individual reflections. These features, developed and researched across a decade of practice, deepen and extend teachers’ awareness and understanding of language, student learning, responsive teaching, and literacy coaching.

DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF VIDEO SHARING AS LEARNING Sharing this lesson with my colleagues was an overwhelmingly positive experience. Honestly, I was not looking forward to this assignment. I tend to be very introspective and self-reliant about my teaching. I will mull for hours over why something didn’t work instead of bouncing off ideas with a colleague. For instance, in my mulling, I convinced myself I chose the wrong words for this lesson, and that’s why [I thought] the segment was not as effective. Instead, in a couple of minutes, my colleagues pointed out I was not as explicit about the instructions for this activity, and they gave me many helpful ideas to make the activity more focused on its goal and appealing to [Mark]. They showed me how much I can gain from other perspectives on my teaching. (Mona)

In her video reflection, Mona writes about her experience sharing and discussing her video recorded lesson with her colleagues. Mona is an excellent teacher whom we might expect to feel confident in her practice. That she clearly relays her reluctance to share her teaching with others emphasizes how vulnerable Mona felt to put her teaching out there during a discussion of her videotaped lesson. Mona’s colleagues also may have been uncomfortable. They looked to Mona as someone they could learn from
what could they offer that she didn’t already know? Yet, through sharing and discussing the video lesson, both Mona and her colleagues grew as educators and literacy coaches. Mona gained insights on aspects of her practice she had not yet considered, and learned the power of collaborating with

44

THERESA DEENEY AND CHERYL DOZIER

others about practice. Mona’s colleagues gained new ideas from viewing another’s teaching and brainstorming ways of engaging with learners differently. They also learned how to provide helpful feedback to one another. For instructors and teachers, videotaped reflections are an intensive and time-consuming investment in a university practicum setting. Imagine over the course of a semester not only providing intensive one-on-one instruction to learners, but then providing time and space for teachers to rewind their practice and discuss it with others in productive ways. That we choose to dedicate this kind of time and energy attests to the tremendous impact video reflection has on teacher practice (Deeney et al., 2011; Tripp & Rich, 2012a, 2012b; van Es, Tunney, Goldsmith, & Seago, 2014). Research has shown the power of a collaborative group setting in teacher development (Borko, Jacobs, Eiteljorg, & Pittman, 2008) and peer-based interaction as an important form of scaffolding (Davies, 2006; Stefani, 1994). Peer or group discussion around video recorded teaching sessions allows teachers to step outside their own classroom, subject, or student to view, reflect on, and translate practice. Group reflective settings create a culture of observation, critical dialogue, and shared learning (Little, 2002; Putnam & Borko, 2000). As members of a video reflection community, teachers see learners in action, see different types of learners, and see how colleagues engage learners who embrace literacy(ies) as well as those who may resist. By viewing, discussing, and sharing in this collaborative community, all participants gain opportunities to view teaching and learning from multiple lenses. Teachers hear other’s interpretations of teaching and learning, learn different approaches, instructional strategies, and ideas, learn the language of teaching and coaching others, and become more mindful of using language in productive and constructive ways (Dozier & Deeney, 2013; Dozier, Johnston, & Rogers, 2006). Wenger (1998) in discussing communities of practice points out the importance in these communities of joint enterprise, mutuality, and trust. In order for collaboration in groups to truly come about, teachers need to feel “safe to speak the truth and ask hard questions” (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 37). There are challenges inherent in developing video reflection communities with respect to issues of trust, collaboration, and responsiveness to feedback (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001; Sherin & Han, 2002). Therefore, we share the deliberate, intentional choices we have made to create successful, collaborative experiences for all participants, and techniques we use for scaffolding participants in coaching others and recognizing and naming teaching practices across multiple contexts and interactions.

Constructing Successful Video Reflection Experiences

45

Videotape Reflection as a Learning Space From the outset, we situate the videotape reflection as a learning space, rather than a performance space. The power of video reflection rests not in demonstrating one’s skill in teaching, but in learning from ourselves and one another. In our community of practitioners, we come together as a class in deliberate, purposeful, and scaffolded ways to explore teaching possibilities and learning opportunities. To help build and sustain this community, it is important that the first teacher to share a video set the tone of learning rather than performance. We are mindful, from the beginning, to choose teachers who are open to questioning and learning more about their instructional practices. During the first few days of the tutoring, and before the videotaping begins, we look for teachers who ask for support, who question their practices, and who engage with their learners in meaningful ways. We then select these tutors for the opening videotaped conversations. These choices are deliberate, as we want teachers who will be receptive to recommendations and possibilities offered by their colleagues. As the semester continues, we remain mindful of organizing video sharing to help all teachers learn. First, we ask students who will welcome recommendations. Later we select students who may have fixed ways or more difficulty reflecting on their instructional practices. These teachers often need to see a range of teaching possibilities before they can learn from suggestions offered by their colleagues. With some experience offering suggestions and hearing conversations about others’ practice, they can better engage with the multi-layered conversations as they work to extend their repertoire of instructional practices (Dozier et al., 2006; Shanahan et al., 2013). We end the semester with a teacher who has offered supportive critique and engaged thoughtfully with her learner throughout the videotaped viewings. Through this deliberate choosing, we hope for all teachers to broaden their perspectives on teaching and learning.

Choosing a Videotaped Segment Choosing a segment to share with colleagues is an important part of video reflection process. In each of our practicum settings, teachers choose the segment of their video to share. In one setting, teachers take home, view, and reflect individually on their video session before sharing with others

46

THERESA DEENEY AND CHERYL DOZIER

(one to two weeks after the session occurred). With this approach, teachers have the opportunity to purposefully plan for the discussions and carefully view, study, and select the clips before their sharing session (van Es et al., 2014). In another setting, we were accustomed to a behind-the-glass experience, where colleagues viewed each other’s teaching in “real time,” and the focus teacher responded to class members’ queries during a debriefing session after the lesson. When we moved to a school site, we wanted to keep the immediacy of the behind-the-glass experience. Now, we continue to view and analyze videotaped lessons the same night the session is conducted, but rather than all viewing 30 minutes of a real-time session, we view one 15
20 minute segment of the lesson. In the half-hour between the tutoring and the class seminar, we ask tutors to choose the segment of their lesson they wish to show colleagues. This new model presents unique opportunities. The sharing teacher is now an interactive part of the conversation rather than the object of observation. Like the behind-the-glass experience, the immediacy of the conversations fosters a teaching and learning space. As instructors, we begin to better understand our teachers by the segment they choose to show. Since teachers have already viewed their sessions, their choices provide insight into their level of confidence (Warford, 2011). Our expressed intent is to help them overcome any defensiveness and choose sections that will expand their learning.

Scaffolding Discussion At the outset of the practicum, we are sure to let teachers know all of our conversations will both analyze teaching interactions and explore additional instructional possibilities. This sets the tone that video viewing is not about performance, but instead to open their eyes to instructional possibilities. Each and every session will generate new ways for teachers to accomplish goals. Teachers initially find it challenging to watch the video, hold a conversation with colleagues, and write down their noticings (Johnston, 2004). Throughout, we provide extensive scaffolding to support teachers’ conversations during video viewing (see Table 1 for scaffolding framework). In both settings, the sharing teacher prepares questions for colleagues to discuss. When teachers have watched their own video prior to sharing with others, they develop questions based on what they saw in the video and what they want colleagues to comment on. When teachers share during the

Constructing Successful Video Reflection Experiences

Table 1.

47

Framework for Scaffolding Videotaped Discussions.

Each teacher prepares, prior to the videotaped viewing, several questions based on the following Instructor Prompts: • What have you chosen to share with us as we view your video? • What do you want us to focus our attention on during the videotape? • What would you like to learn about your practice? Teacher Generated Questions will guide the videotaped discussion and frame the ensuing conversation. Teachers generate their questions prior to viewing the video and adjust their questions as needed: Recent questions have included: • Will you look at my language choices and prompts when I introduce the mentor text? Am I helping Aimee think about craft features? Am I focusing the lesson? • I’m going to show my book introduction. Am I offering too much support? Sometimes Kyrie doesn’t want to sit still for my intros and I’m wondering if they’re too long or not focused enough. I’m working on what to introduce and I want your ideas. • I’m still working on conversing about the book, but it’s feeling like an interrogation. Can you help me think about the way I ask questions and we talk about the text? Instructor Prompts to start the discussion • Talk about what you are noticing. • Talk about what just occurred. • Talk about Elise’s engagement. [Notice how she’s leaning into the text.] What has changed? What are some possibilities for this? • What just happened? • What else are you noticing? • Say more about that … • The teacher chose [to introduce the pattern in the text before reading]. What are several other possibilities? Guiding Prompts to focus on instructional decision-making Tell us how you came to choose … • Tell us what you were thinking when … • We’ve now seen three videos with book introductions. Talk about the range of ways the teachers introduced the texts. • Think about how mentor texts have supported the learners. What are ways you can engage with mentor texts in your tutoring sessions? Colleague Feedback • You said you’d like to ask more open-ended questions. I’m working on that, too. I noticed when you ask open-ended questions Brenden is far more engaged. Try saying “Tell me about what you read” when you start. I found this prompt helped me get the conversation going. • I liked the way you focused your Praise Point around Jalen’s self-corrections. I’m focusing on words too much. Extending Reflection Closing discussions conclude with the teacher reflecting on what she has learned from viewing and from the conversation with her classmates: • What did you learn? • How will what you’ve learned inform your future instruction/practice/teaching?

48

THERESA DEENEY AND CHERYL DOZIER

same evening as the video recording, they create questions based on their experiences during earlier teaching sessions. They then adjust their questions if the videotaped sessions move in a direction they did not anticipate. In both of these scenarios, we prepare teachers to frame the conversation about their lesson. As instructors, the types of questions teachers choose to ask their colleagues help us offer support. For example, questions focused on procedure (e.g., “Should I have just focused on one-word pattern?”) suggest that what is taking precedence over how. Our goal is to move teachers from focusing on what to focusing on how, as we move teachers to looking at nuances of practice, rather than solely the structure of a lesson. Although teachers are prepared to lead the discussion, the first few to share may not feel comfortable enough to do so. To begin, the instructor models stopping the videotape to further explore instructional practices and the language of noticing alternative practices, strategies, or prompts. These prompts normalize exploring multiple possibilities and encourage teachers to become flexible in their thinking as they work toward responsive teaching. The language choices and insights modeled by the instructor foster language colleagues can use to productively critique their peers in supportive, generative ways. We also use prompts that help the sharing teacher discuss her practice. This framing, where we ask teachers to articulate their thinking, is especially important while viewing challenging lessons. We emphasize that some lessons will be more difficult or will not go quite as teachers imagined. These open-ended prompts encourage the teacher to reflect on the learning situations or interactions and allow colleagues to gain more insight into the teachers’ instructional decision-making. Using this framework, teachers can ask hard questions about teaching and learning of their colleagues in a trusting environment. Rather than be discouraged by difficult teaching moments, we ask, “What do you learn from this? How will your learning from this lesson help you in your teaching?” As the semester progresses, the teacher sharing takes a more active role in pausing the video and asking for support from her colleagues. Colleagues also become more explicit with their noticing and naming (Johnston, 2004) and more deliberate with their language choices. The language colleagues use, the pedagogical possibilities they offer, and the alternate suggestions for engaging students, both during successful lessons as well as those that fall apart, are similar to conversations graduates will have when they are asked to provide feedback in schools as literacy coaches and literacy specialists.

Constructing Successful Video Reflection Experiences

49

COLLEGIAL FEEDBACK: FROM ORAL TO WRITTEN RESPONSES Like van Es et al. (2014), we want our students to sustain an inquiry stance while viewing the videos. While oral conversations were stimulating, and most class members engaged in thoughtful observations and conversations, several years ago we moved to having class members write down their noticings (Johnston, 2004) and observations to give to the sharing teacher. The class members’ written responses become an anchor for class discussion. As colleagues view the videotaped lesson, we ask them to respond to the following prompts designed to focus their attention on teaching and learning in the video: • Write about the teaching decisions, teaching interactions, and student engagement you observe in your colleague’s session. • Notice and name powerful/productive language/prompts used during session. • Discuss ways your colleague could have done something differently. • Discuss how your observations of your colleague’s interactions, decisions, engagement, and language connect to your work with your own student. • Discuss how your observations connect to course readings and research. Class members are reminded that these prompts are designed as an opportunity for noticing and naming, rather than judging their colleagues. Since the sharing teachers use these notes to provide more depth and detail for their written analysis, class members become deliberate with their language choices. Prior to completing the videotaped discussion, we conduct a wraparound share where all colleagues share two features from their written responses. To end the conversation, we ask the sharing teacher to name what she learned from the experience. What was the most helpful to you? We prompt teachers for specificity. For example, if a teacher remarks that her colleagues “helped me see new ways of doing things,” we may prompt, Say more about that. Talk about the new ways you learned … . In this way, the conversation begins and ends with the videotaped teacher. One teacher, noting the value of her colleagues’ feedback, remarked, “I realized I actually do use more prompts than I thought. It was helpful to hear them say which prompts I used. I became more aware of my language.” Another teacher sums up the power of written as well as oral feedback:

50

THERESA DEENEY AND CHERYL DOZIER I enjoyed reading the “three things your colleague could have done differently” section of the viewing guide. This gave me some insight as to what I could have done differently … I am still working on the “stepping back” skill. The more [Jackson] does for himself, the better; I just need to begin to realize the places that I am doing things that he could do for himself.

The videotape process helps teachers to both notice teaching and learning and to seek to change their practices in productive ways.

Emphasizing Literacy Coaching Possibilities Our most recent addition to video viewing involves having teachers use their written feedback to colleagues’ sessions as a way to analyze their own development as literacy coaches. Class members keep a copy of each written response they provide. After several sessions, class members look for patterns in their literacy coaching across their written responses. They identify where they place their attention as they view their videos. To do this, they highlight instructional strategies they notice the tutors use, instructional language and prompts they identify, and interactional patterns they see between the tutors and students. As class members reflect on their coaching, they acknowledge that over time they become more confident and comfortable sharing their noticings and insights with one another. They also see where their language and areas of emphasis become more detailed and specific. “At first, it was hard to watch what was happening on the tape and write it all down. I was so engrossed in the video. But, when I didn’t write it down, I missed some of the great language the teacher used. Now I write down everything. I’ve gone back to my sheets and used some of the language in my own teaching.” As the semester progresses, teachers widen their analytic lens to notice both teacher interactions and student engagement.

SCAFFOLDING INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION Video recordings allow teachers and teacher educators to capture the richness and complexity of teaching and teacher-student interactions for later analysis and reflection (Borko et al., 2008; Brophy, 2004; Shanahan et al., 2013). Reflection is widely recognized as central in teacher development (Zeichner & Liston, 1987). Teachers analyzing and reflecting on their own

Constructing Successful Video Reflection Experiences

51

practice puts them in charge of their learning and helps them develop agency to change their own practices (Dozier et al., 2006). Through our video reflection process, teachers learn to identify specific areas and ways to improve, extend, and refine their practice. Therefore, in addition to receiving colleagues’ written feedback about the videotaped lesson, the sharing tutor also writes an individual reflection. Teachers’ initial response to reflection may be to focus on the what of a session. Re-viewing and reflecting on their video builds an opportunity for teachers to focus on what, and then move to more nuanced viewing of how. Teachers prepare for each teaching session by choosing teaching strategies that focus on a student’s area of need. During their individual reflection, they are first asked to watch the portion of the session in which they used this specific technique. They are asked to think about how the segment went
how they implemented the strategy. If you were to do it again, what would you change, and why? When teachers view their entire session again, they reflect first on issues such as time and transitions, and then move on to more nuanced viewing of scaffolding, responsiveness, language, and engagement (Tharpe & Gallimore, 1988).

Time and Transitions In a one-on-one tutoring session, 75
90 minutes seems like a large amount of time. Initially, teachers wonder how they are going to keep their student engaged, particularly after a long day of school. However, the time goes by very quickly, and teachers are usually left wondering why they have not accomplished all they set out to do. For those reasons, we ask teachers to reflect on their use of their time and their student’s time. Specifically, we ask teachers to consider: • How did you use your time? (Consider activities, talk, materials, efficiency, etc.) • How much time is allocated for/spent on reading; allocated for/spent on writing? • How much reading and writing of connected text is done? Is this adequate? Why/why not? • What do you think about the pace and momentum of your lesson? • How did you use transition times? After viewing their video through a time lens, teachers identify ways in which they could better use their time. The videotaped lesson allows

52

THERESA DEENEY AND CHERYL DOZIER

teachers to freeze the pedagogical actions and talk about what they notice and come to offer alternative instructional possibilities (Dozier et al., 2006). Teachers can find it challenging to consider the impact of their teaching decisions when student engagement is difficult. While novice teacher Amy attributed her time issues to her student’s behavior and had difficulty seeing things she was doing or could do to capitalize on her time with her student, watching her video allowed Amy to notice for herself that time was an issue. She wrote: Time management has been and continues to be a struggle for me. It takes time for me to goad [Adam] back to tasks, but I also see from the video that much time is lost as I check through the schedule …, look through papers, gather materials which I neglected to do beforehand, and search on the computer for websites or documents. I know what I need to do to correct this, now I just need to carry through on that. Downtime is definitely not good for [Adam]. A slow pace is not good either. I’m wondering if the slow pace of the concept review and activity contributed to his frustration during this session.

We also ask teachers to consider how they transition within a variety of instructional events. These reflections help teachers focus on the effects of their teaching and instructional decisions on the learners and the opportunities each learner experiences within the tutoring time.

Teacher/Learner Interactions Once teachers view their lesson through the more concrete lens of time, we ask them to view their lesson with respect to teacher/learner interaction
to analyze the how of their lesson. Some prompts we have teachers to consider are: • How do you respond to your student? Specifically note language choices you made. • Talk about the productiveness of your responses and decision-making. • Where do you want to extend/rethink your language? • Talk about the rapport between you and the student. • In what ways are you scaffolding your student’s learning? • Discuss your instruction in relation to the student’s Zone of Proximal Development. • Talk about your ratio of talk to the student’s talk. Who is doing the talking?

Constructing Successful Video Reflection Experiences

53

• Discuss ways you release responsibility to the learner and promote selfregulation. Given these prompts, teachers notice their choices and how those decisions affect their learner. At times, teachers notice small, but significant aspects of their teacher/student interaction. For example, teachers have noticed that they, rather than the student, are holding the materials, or that they are the ones “doing” the work rather than the student. During the individual reflective space, teachers can see the significance of these practices with respect to encouraging student self-regulation. At other times, teachers note how their own talk, either amount or language choice, affects student learning. Julie, a second year teacher, commented: After watching this videotape, I recognized that I did the majority of the talking throughout this lesson. The times when I asked [Tom] to tell me what was happening in the passages that we read, if he did not respond, or if he responded incorrectly, I gave him the correct information. I was the one who did all of the comprehension work, instead of giving [Tom] the opportunity to respond. When I responded to the given comments or information [Tom] provided, rather than allowing him to get back on the track through prompting him, I just gave him the answers. Because of this I feel that my responses were not very productive.

Teachers also notice when their language becomes more specific and detailed as they analyze their videotapes. For instance, Maria shared changes in the specificity of her language, noting that she moved from commenting good job, to saying, On page six, I noticed you self-corrected. You made sure it made sense. Let’s look at page 12, when you reread, you read so fluently. Julie and Maria are not alone in moving their analysis to the next level. In re-viewing, teachers come to think through their interactions and the implications those hold for learners. With distance, teachers take an agentive stance to analyze their instructional interactions and their instructional decisions.

Engagement In addition to scaffolding student learning, a critical aspect of effective teaching is teachers’ and students’ level of engagement. It is important for teachers to see the effect their own engagement has on their students. Prompting them to look specifically for engagement helps them think about that possibility. We ask teachers to comment on this through prompts such as:

54

THERESA DEENEY AND CHERYL DOZIER

• Comment on your level of engagement/motivation throughout the lesson. • Comment on the level of your student’s engagement/motivation. • What do you notice about the connection between your engagement and your student’s motivation/engagement? Tanya, a new teacher, struggled with her own engagement, often seeming detached from her work with her student. She wrote: I find that the more excited and praising I am of [Renee], the more responsive she is. I think I did a good job with this today. Last semester, it was sometimes a challenge for me to be upbeat. I think I was nervous, and this was a serious drain on the energy. I felt I did a lot better in this video.

Jayne, a first grade teacher who worked with a very quiet middle-school boy, also noted the connection between her engagement and her student’s: There is a clear connection between my motivation and [Sam’s] motivation; he looks to me for guidance in reading but also in enthusiasm.

Engagement matters, for teachers and for learners (Cambourne, 1995). As teachers reflect on their lesson and the ways they seek to engage their learners, they develop a heightened awareness of how their engagement influences learners and the instructional context.

Lesson Transcription, Another Layer of Analysis As part of the video reflection process, teachers can be asked to transcribe two seven-minute segments of their interactions (both reading and writing interactions) to analyze more carefully. The act of physically “rewinding the tape” again and again to capture each word insists that teachers slow down the process to listen carefully (Dozier & Deeney, 2013). The transcriptions add an additional layer of intensive analysis, where the words on the page help them confront and carefully consider the productiveness of their language choices and practices (Dozier et al., 2006). Teachers often choose to transcribe their book introductions, conversations around the texts they are reading, mentor text discussions, and language during writing conferences. After transcribing the segment, teachers then indicate in italics or a different color font why they made particular language choices or instructional decisions. This level of analysis, referred to as teachers’ “in the head thinking,” captures each teacher’s analytic lens. Teachers often note their surprise with particular language choices, Why DID I ask that question in that way? No wonder Zed only gave one-word answers! Or, Here I’m noticing Isabel (finally) gets to talk. I need to change my language in the

Constructing Successful Video Reflection Experiences

55

future. The lesson transcriptions provide another occasion for us, as instructors, to engage with teachers to further reflect on their teaching.

Instructor Feedback Individual written reflection is an important part of the video reflection experience. In writing about their videotape experiences, teachers draw on their videotape lesson in class and feedback from their colleagues and instructor. In stepping back to re-view the experience, teachers note instructional decisions, interactions, and engagement. Teachers spend a lot of time reflecting on and writing about their teaching and student engagement. As instructors, we want to honor that time by responding thoughtfully to their work. In addition to the feedback we offer during the group share time, we respond, in writing, to teachers’ written reflections. This allows us to offer praise and identify issues to consider as they move forward. As an example, we present the following excerpt from the instructor’s response to Mona (featured earlier in this chapter) after reading her written reflection: Mona, you bring up many important points about your responsiveness in your reflection (over-use of praise, talking too much, etc.). I agree those are things to watch for. However, your responsiveness (including praise) is one of the reasons you have developed a strong rapport with [Mark]. I hearken back to the note you so thoughtfully wrote him at the end of this session. He needs praise. Granted, praise can be overused, and you do need to watch for that, but, in general, your positivity is good for [Mark] (and for the rest of us!). You think a lot about [Mark]’s state of engagement and try to respond to it. This flexibility is really what keeps [Mark] going. He was engaged in the Miracle activity, which included both movement and a topic of interest to him. Also, when you saw he was so fatigued by reading, you opted for the screen reader. This was great! You could have read it yourself, but you chose to have the computer read. One step closer to [Mark]’s independence!

We view instructor feedback as a way to acknowledge teachers’ efforts and seed ideas for future consideration.

CONCLUSION Videotaped reflections are an intensive and time-consuming engagement in our practicum courses. Yet, all benefit in meaningful ways. Tutors learn to generate questions to frame discussions about their teaching and identify areas where they would like to refine their practice. Through collaborative conversations in class, teachers learn from and integrate classmates’

56

THERESA DEENEY AND CHERYL DOZIER

feedback. When teachers transcribe their lessons, they slow down the process further, as they carefully and mindfully attend to their language choices and student engagement. The transcription adds an additional layer of analysis. Colleagues, too, benefit from this process as they collaboratively view multiple videos over the course of the practicum. They analyze multiple approaches to teaching, gain new instructional strategies/ideas, and become more mindful of their language as they coach one another in constructive ways. In addition, class members often recognize areas of need in others’ teaching that they might not notice in their own. As class members hear others’ interpretations, questions, and reflections on videos, they come to view teaching and learning from multiple lenses. They see different types of learners, different styles of teaching, and multiple ways to engage. Learners benefit from improved instruction and teacher/student interaction. As teachers share new ideas, learners benefit from a renewed focus on responsive teaching. Instructors also benefit, as the video reflection process provides another way into the teachers’ zones of proximal development. Teachers’ videos, questions, reflections, and group conversations help us understand their strengths, needs, and perceptions of their teaching and teaching practices. In this way, we tailor our scaffolding to build on current expertise and better prepare them for their future teaching.

REFERENCES Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417
436. Brophy, J. (Ed.) (2004). Advances in research on teaching: Using video in teacher education (Vol. 10). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward en educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty years of inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 49(3), 182
190. Davies, P. (2006). Peer assessment: Judging the quality of students’ work by comments rather than marks. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43, 69
82. Deeney, T. (2002, December). Supporting reflection in graduate reading programs. In M. Rozendal (Chair), Research and reflection as pathways to professional development. Symposium presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the National Reading conference, Miami, FL. Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Smit, J., Davis, S., Laster, B., Applegate, M., Cobb, J., … Morewood, A. (2011). Clinic experiences that promote transfer to school contexts: What matters in clinical teacher preparation. In 60th Annual Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association (pp. 111
127). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association.

Constructing Successful Video Reflection Experiences

57

Dozier, C., & Deeney, T. (2013). Keeping learners at the center of teaching. In E. T. Ortlieb & E. H. Cheek, Jr. (Eds.), Advanced literacy practices: From the clinic to the classroom (Vol. 2, pp. 367
385). Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Dozier, C., Johnston, P., & Rogers, R. (2006). Critical literacy/critical teaching: Tools for preparing responsive teachers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942
1012. Johnston, P. H. (2004). Choice words: How our language affects children’s learning. York, ME: Stenhouse. Little, J. W. (2002). Locating teachers in communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday life. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917–946. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4
15. Shanahan, L., McVee, M., Schiller, J., Tynan, L., D’Abate, R., Flury-Kashmanian, C., … & Hayden, E. (2013). Supporting struggling readers and literacy clinicians through reflective video pedagogy. In E. T. Ortlieb & E. H. Cheek, Jr. (Eds.), Advanced literacy practices: From the clinic to the classroom (Vol. 2, pp. 303
323). Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2002). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 163
183. Sherin, M. G., Linsenmeier, K., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Selecting video clips for teacher learning about student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 213
230. Stefani, L. A. (1994). Peer, self, and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 69
75. Tharpe, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Tripp, T., & Rich, P. (2012a). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 728
739. Tripp, T., & Rich, P. (2012b). Using video to analyze one’s own teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 678
704. van Es, E., Tunney, J., Goldsmith, L., & Seago, N. (2014). A framework for the facilitation of teachers’ analysis of video. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 340
356. Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 252
258. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review. Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 37(1), 23
49.

This page intentionally left blank

USING THE GRADUAL RELEASE OF RESPONSIBILITY MODEL TO SUPPORT VIDEO REFLECTION WITH PRESERVICE AND INSERVICE TEACHERS Mary B. McVee, Lynn E. Shanahan, P. David Pearson and Tyler W. Rinker ABSTRACT Purpose
Our purpose in this chapter is to provide researchers and educators with a model of how the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) can be used with inservice and preservice teachers for professional development when teachers engage in reflective processes through the use of video reflection. Methodology/approach
In this chapter we provide a brief review of the literature related to video as a learning tool for reflection and a discussion of the Gradual Release of Responsibility and emphasize the role of a teacher educator or more knowledgeable other who scaffolds

Video Reflection in Literacy Teacher Education and Development: Lessons from Research and Practice Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation, Volume 5, 59
80 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-045820150000005010

59

60

MARY B. MCVEE ET AL.

inservice and preservice teacher reflection across various contexts. Several versions of the GRR model are included. We introduce and explain examples from two class sessions where a combination of inservice and preservice teachers engaged in reflection through video with support from a teacher educator. Findings
We demonstrate that the teacher educator followed the GRR model as she guided preservice and inservice teachers to reflect on video. Through a contrastive analysis of two different class sessions, we show how the instructor released responsibility to the students and how students began to take up this responsibility to reflect more deeply on their own teaching practices. Research limitations/implications
The examples within this chapter are from a graduate level teacher education course affiliated with a university literacy center. The course was comprised of both preservice and inservice teachers. The model is applicable in a variety of settings and for teachers who are novices as well as those who are experienced teachers. Practical implications
This is a valuable model for teacher educators and others in professional development to use with teachers. Many teachers are familiar with the use of the GRR model in considering how to guide children’s literacy practices, and the GRR can easily be introduced to teachers to assist them in video reflection on their own teaching. Originality/value
This chapter provides significant research-based examples of the GRR model and foregrounds the role of a teacher educator in video reflection. The chapter provides a unique framing for research and teaching related to video reflection. The chapter explicitly links the GRR to teacher reflection and video in contexts of professional development or teacher education. Keywords: Gradual Release of Responsibility; video; reflection; preservice teachers; inservice teachers

Since its introduction in 1983 by Pearson and Gallagher, the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) has been a significant and influential model in the reading field. It has been used to describe and explore teachers’ changing roles in the context of reading instruction (Au, 2002), to assist teachers in thinking about independent and collaborative approaches

Gradual Release of Responsibility Model

61

to teaching reading (Fisher & Frey, 2014), and specifically to help teachers and researchers think about reading comprehension and zones of responsibility (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011). The model has demonstrated remarkable staying power across decades, despite the fact that it has been shaped by significant shifts in policy, theory, and pedagogical practice; its adaptability may, in fact, be responsible for its durability across these varying contexts. Despite the major contributions of the model to understanding how teachers and students might work together in classrooms, there have been few attempts to link the model explicitly with studies of teacher reflection in contexts of professional development and teacher education, although some (e.g., Collett, 2012, 2013) have adapted the model to examine literacy coaching. As such, the primary focus of this chapter is to explore the use of the GRR with inservice and preservice teachers for professional development as teachers engage in reflective processes through the use of video reflection. We ask: How might the GRR model be used with teachers engaged in video reflection and applied to teacher education programs or professional development settings? What can be gained by using the GRR to address the use of video reflection in teacher education programs or professional development settings?

VIDEO AS A LEARNING TOOL FOR REFLECTION Using video as a tool for reflection has gained a great deal of attention internationally. Studies focused on video reflection consider video as a tool to mediate teachers’ understandings of teaching and learning events (Shanahan & Tochelli, 2012). Similar to LeFevre (2004) we view video as a mediational tool that can be developed and used in ways to increase teacher learning. Although using video as a tool for reflection holds great promise, there is also reason for concern if video is not used in strategic ways (also see Verlaan & Verlaan, 2015). We caution that just having teachers view video will not result in learning (Brophy, 2004). Instead, analysis and reflection with a clear purpose is necessary for teachers to construct meaning (Loughran, 2002). Variable levels of support must also be offered to scaffold video reflection. This caution is more than just an academic undertaking since at present 10 U.S. states, including New York
the site for work discussed in this chapter
now require or plan to require preservice teachers to analyze

62

MARY B. MCVEE ET AL.

video of their own teaching for certification purposes. Twenty-three other states are taking steps toward adoption of similar protocol. As is typical of many programs, video analysis in New York state is situated at the end of the preservice teachers’ programs as a culminating event. Due to rapid adoption and implementation of the video requirements, preservice teachers in New York have generally had limited exposure to video reflection, but they are expected to produce and reflect upon a video of their own teaching. As teacher educators, we are concerned that hurried implementation of video reflection without clearly conceptualizing its use across a program could prove to be less than successful. Our concerns emanate from a well-established body of research that has demonstrated that modeling, scaffolding, and engagement in video reflection are essential in order to use video as a meditational tool in the reflective process. (For extended reviews see Rosaen, 2015; Shanahan, TochelliWard, & Rinker, 2015.) First, previous research has established that it is common for preservice and inservice teachers to inflate their initial evaluations of their own teaching performance (Osipova, Prichard, Boardman, Kiely, & Carroll, 2011; Ross & Bruce, 2007). Furthermore, it is not unusual for teachers to initially focus analysis specifically on what they were doing during a lesson while at the same time neglecting to attend to the student learning that was, or was not, taking place (Sherin & van Es, 2005). In contrast, when given the opportunity to engage in recursive video analysis over time, teachers’ ability to more critically evaluate their practice increases, and their ability to interpret events also increases (Osipova et al., 2011; Sherin & van Es, 2005). Likewise, over time teachers demonstrate an increased ability to connect classroom interactions viewed through video to pedagogical concepts and principles they have learned in educational coursework (Sherin & van Es, 2005) and professional development (e.g., Osipova et al., 2011; Shanahan & Tochelli, 2014; Tripp & Rich, 2012). These findings alone call for the implementation of a coherent and cohesive plan for the integration of video reflection into teacher education. We are concerned that video, which is a potentially powerful tool to mediate teachers’ learning, will not be used strategically, thus limiting its effectiveness as a mediator. A thoughtful approach is necessary so that inservice and preservice teachers have the time and variable levels of support necessary to develop their analytic abilities in relation to video analysis. At present most of the literature on using video as a tool for reflection in literacy with teachers for professional development has focused on the use of video itself as task or activity. In the field of literacy, we found only one study that investigated the influence of the instructor in facilitating video

Gradual Release of Responsibility Model

63

reflection with inservice teachers (Ayra, Christ, & Chiu, 2014). Other studies focused on teachers’ participation in video reflection but excluded analysis of the instructor’s social mediation within the teaching context. Several other studies with preservice and inservice teachers examined facilitation from an instructor in joint video analysis with teachers (e.g., Tripp, 2009), but the facilitation or the variable level of support from the instructor was not the focus of analysis. Some novice teachers did report that they preferred debriefing with an instructor (Tripp & Rich, 2012) because they valued the more knowledgeable perspective, but again, the instructor was not a focal point of the study. Most often authors of studies of video reflection have explained how a particular participation structure was set up and introduced to learners (see Shanahan et al., 2015 for an analysis of different reflection structures). Typically, the authors have then described how reflection was facilitated and how teachers participated in the reflective process. Overall, the primary focus of analysis is on teacher participation. In contrast, there are limited studies that focus on the instructor’s facilitation of reflection leading up to teachers’ full participation in video analysis. In sum, these studies demonstrate that within the professional literature, there is little consideration of the teacher educator’s role in scaffolding the video reflection experiences of novices. In short, the Gradual Release of Responsibility is not a prominent consideration. The benefit of using the Gradual Release of Responsibility model in the context of video reflection is that it helps to conceptualize the variable sharing of responsibility between a more knowledgeable other (e.g., an instructor) and a learner (e.g., a teacher). What is missing is a comprehensive theoretical model that considers Gradual Release of Responsibility for Video Reflection. Pearson (2013) has observed that while the original GRR was developed from a cluster of theoretical perspectives (e.g., Brown & Campione, 1996; Feuersein, Feuerstein, Falik, & Rand, 2002; Vygotsky, 1987; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1978), it could easily have been extracted from a close examination of good practice. As such, one of the benefits of the GRR model is that it is easily situated across theory, research, and practice in many domains (e.g., supporting reading comprehension for primary students or supporting reflection for adults). We iteratively drew upon research, theory, and practice (see Fig. 1) to develop the GRR model for video reflection that will be presented in this chapter. We envision the GRR model being used to inform teacher education programs and professional development providers on both a macro and micro level. On a macro level, the model can inform the cohesion and coherence of enacting video reflection across time either in a teacher education program or in a

64

MARY B. MCVEE ET AL.

Fig. 1.

Process of Developing the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model (Pearson, 2013).

sustained professional development. At a micro level, the model addresses considerations of video reflection within a course, unit, or lesson.

GRADUAL RELEASE OF RESPONSIBILITY IN A VIDEO REFLECTION CONTEXT In unpacking their version of the GRR model, Au (2002) identified five levels of support moving from: explicit instruction, modeling, scaffolding, facilitating, and participating. While we realize that in many cases, teacher educators or coaches may have provided explicit instruction, modeling, or scaffolding, most of the studies in the literature do not focus on how to scaffold or share the responsibility for reflection between learners (i.e., teachers) and more knowledgeable others (i.e., instructor, teacher educator, coach, professional consultant). As noted above, more often, studies explore how instructors introduce or facilitate reflection and how teachers as learners participate in reflection. Such approaches assume that reflection as a common goal in professional learning is both easily understood and easily attained over time with practice opportunities. Thus, there exists a gap between introduction of reflection (facilitation by a more knowledgeable other) and production of reflection (independent participation in reflection). Although it is implied in many studies that instructors support preservice and inservice teacher reflection through different means and with variable levels of support, what is largely absent is direct attention to how instructors provide variable levels of support for teacher reflection.

Gradual Release of Responsibility Model

65

Attending to the gap is essential because a large body of work around reflection with teachers has already documented the need for instructors to be explicit with regard to what they mean by the term “reflection” or the verb “to reflect” and the means through which reflection is accomplished.

Variable Types of Support When planning instruction centered on reflective video analysis, the amount of cognitive responsibility a viewer must employ during video analysis can be thought about in two specific dimensions: support by others and support through the video analysis task itself. This means instructors must consider the amount of social support provided to teachers by their peers and by the instructor in the video analysis context. By increasing or decreasing the amount of social support from peers or from an instructor, there will be an increasing or decreasing amount of cognitive responsibility placed on the learner during video analysis, resulting, of course, in complementarily varying amounts of responsibility placed on other learners. Also, the video analysis task and the video chosen for reflection also play a role in determining these complementary distributions of shared responsibility. We can represent this through an adapted model of the gradual release (see Fig. 2). Over time learners will move from novices toward independence.

Fig. 2.

Teacher and Student Responsibility in the Gradual Release of Responsibility over Time.

66

MARY B. MCVEE ET AL.

The arrows at the bottom of the picture represent the recursive nature of learning; the gradual release is not a straight slide down an even line, but a process that will include multiple iterations of support and responsibility for instructors and learners.

Varying Amounts of Video Analysis Social Supports In relation to any macro or microanalysis conducted via video reflection, the amount of social and cognitive support provided by others (e.g., peers, instructor) should be strategically and purposely planned. Fig. 3 outlines five levels of social support available for teachers: instructor/whole group; instructor/small group (think aloud or modeling); instructor/small group (facilitating); trios and/or pairs; and individual. Whole Group When video analysis occurs in a whole group context with the instructor, the level of support provided to an individual learner from others is high if the learner is actively engaged. In instructor/whole group context, the instructor can provide explicit instruction about reflective video analysis through detailed explanations, think alouds, or modeling. Furthermore, through the responses of other learners, a group can collaboratively construct insights centered on video reflection. In addition, using a pedagogical technique such as a think aloud affords the preservice and inservice

Fig. 3.

Amount of Responsibility Shared across social Contexts.

Gradual Release of Responsibility Model

67

teachers the opportunity to see the analysis strategies they should be using to engage in different types of analysis during video reflection task. For a think aloud, the instructor demonstrates effective video analysis strategies showing when and where to apply them. In a whole group context the cognitive responsibility is distributed across the learners and the instructor. A drawback of whole group instruction is that it is more difficult for the instructor to provide specific support to individuals due to the number of participants. Therefore the instructor may want to incorporate an individual written response to the analysis that is discussed collaboratively as a group to ensure learners are effectively engaging in the reflection. Small Group A small-group video analysis context is comprised of approximately 6
8 teachers. Instructors determine the level of support they will provide. Support may range from explicit explanations of analysis, think alouds, or modeling. Instructors may also play the role of facilitator by setting up the task framework and opening up space for the learners to take more responsibility for supporting one another in video analysis discussion. In Fig. 3 notice the shift from modeling to facilitating that can occur quite easily in the small group context, more easily than in the whole group setting. In a small group, if the instructor decides to model the cognitive support, the instructor’s cognitive responsibilities are higher than the distributed social support across learners. However, if the small group context is opened up for the learners to think aloud with others, there is increased cognitive support from peers and less from the instructor. Instructors need to decide how much support is needed for successful reflection to occur during video analysis. The benefit of a small group setting over the instructor/whole group setting is that the instructor can more effectively scaffold learners by monitoring and adjusting instruction in ways that meet both the collective and individual needs. Moreover, small group settings can potentially increase the cognitive responsibility for the preservice and inservice teachers. Small groups provide learners with opportunities to practice reflective capabilities while also reducing and the responsibility for the instructor. When the instructor shifts to a facilitator’s role, this allows more space for distributed learning. In the instructor/small group an instructor playing the role of facilitator would move from group to group listening and entering in with instruction, not too little, but just enough to orchestrate higher level reflections.

68

MARY B. MCVEE ET AL.

Trios or Pairs Trios and pairs shift the relative distribution of responsibility even more than small groups. Video analysis in trios or pairs increases the amount of social support contributed by other leaners because the instructor moves from group to group. Learners are asked to increase their collaborative efforts around the video analysis when the instructor is not present. This means that the instructor carries less cognitive responsibility for the reflection activity. Also, because there are fewer participants in trios or pairs than with small or large groups, each member of the trio/pair bears a greater share of the overall cognitive responsibility for reflection. Hence learners must have a clear concept of what critical reflection is all about, and they must be proficient at the practice of reflective analysis. Individual/Independent Individual video analysis is when each teacher engages in video analysis independently. While independent thought is always mediated by previous social interactions (Vygotsky, 1987), individual video analysis places the responsibility of analysis on individuals with no immediate distribution of support from other learners or the instructor. Hence strong assumptions about the ability and motivation of individuals to engage in reflection are called for. In conclusion, we wish to be clear that these different contexts represented in Fig. 3 require variable levels of support, and no one of these socially supported contexts is better than another. The instructor must consider how much social support is necessary from the instructor and from peers, and how much support is needed across a program, sustained professional development, unit, lesson, or conversation. Altering the amount of social support means the instructor is varying the shared responsibility for video analysis with the goal of increasing a learner’ ability to reflect critically and independently around video. These varied socially supportive contexts are not mutually exclusive. Several social settings can be sequenced or even combined in a single session to support inservice and preservice teacher video analysis. For example, participants could engage in an initial independent analysis of a video in preparation for a small group video analysis session. To paraphrase Rueven Feuerstein’s admonition about dynamic assessment, the central question for an instructor is: “How much support must an instructor provide in order for the teachers to effectively complete the task assigned?” (quoted in Pearson, 2013).

Gradual Release of Responsibility Model

69

A PEDAGOGY OF VIDEO REFLECTION: INTRODUCING VARIABLE RESPONSIBILITY IN VIDEO ANALYSIS A Definition of Reflection Thus far in the chapter, we have been using terms such as “reflection” and “reflective analysis” without much refinement. However, whether using the video reflection adaption of the GRR model at a macro or micro level, it is essential for instructors to develop a definition of reflection that includes a typology of practice to facilitate the reflective process. Without a clearly articulated and understood definition of reflection that includes a framework outlining different levels of reflection, teachers’ reflections are likely to remain on a descriptive level, never reaching a critical dimension. This will, in turn, impact the level of shared discussion around video. For example, realizing the importance of a definition and typology for reflection, Shanahan and her colleagues (2013) constructed the following definition of reflection for use in a pedagogy of video reflection. They established this definition, in part, to set clear expectations for the preservice and inservice teachers who use video reflection in the reading center (Shanahan et al., 2013). Reflection is: A goal-directed process that moves teachers to identify a situation, process, or experience that is puzzling, interesting, celebratory, or otherwise intriguing and view it through multiple lenses. Developing particular skill sets or dispositions is necessary for reflection, but a particular set of skills or dispositions is not sufficient to become a reflective practitioner. Reflective teachers strive to gain strategic knowledge of a situation in order to develop and explore questions, recognize, or acknowledge complexity of situations, processes or experiences, and make adaptations to their actions, beliefs, positions, and classroom and pedagogical practices. Reflection is interpretive in that individuals bring their knowledge and experiences to the situation. Reflection is selfdirected and collaborative in nature. (p. 305)

In video reflection, it is essential that learners have the opportunity to work together to learn how to view and respond to video in order to interpret and learn from video text. However, working together is not enough. Inservice and preservice teachers need explicit instruction and strategically planned space and time to reflect (Dozier & Rutten, 2005). This space and time includes variable levels of support from the instructor and other teachers. To illustrate how enacting a pedagogy of video reflection with varying levels of social support and different reflective dimensions might look in practice, we share the following example.

70

MARY B. MCVEE ET AL.

As part of a state required practicum, the preservice and inservice teachers in a graduate Literacy Specialist program engaged in assessment and instruction for children with significant reading or writing difficulties. During practicum sessions, all tutoring interactions were recorded on digital video. Teachers could view their teaching interactions at any time by accessing their videos online through a protected access website. In the following sections, we provide a contrasting analysis of the group’s initial struggle to engage in video analysis using reflection and their deeper, more engaged reflection after their instructor Dr. Grace Walker (a pseudonym) had provided opportunities for explicit instruction, modeling, scaffolding, facilitating, and participating in video reflection. The participants had been introduced to the Gradual Release of Responsibility and even included a version of it in their lesson plans (see Fig. 4). Grace also used the model in conceptualizing her approach to a pedagogy of video reflection described in this chapter. Below we describe a pedagogy of video reflection emphasizing varying reflective dimensions. We then present two different nights where the graduate students and Grace engaged in a pedagogy of video reflection.

An Example of Variable Responsibility in Video Analysis In the following example, Grace, an experienced teacher educator, introduced her students to a video viewing session. Use of recorded teaching

Fig. 4. Gradual Release of Responsibility Model Used by Clinicians in Lesson Planning. Adapted from Pearson and Gallagher (1983) and Routman (2008) by Ashlee Ebert for use in Center for Literacy & Reading Instruction (CLaRI).

Gradual Release of Responsibility Model

71

sessions is part of an overarching pedagogy of video reflection (Shanahan et al., 2013). A pedagogy of video reflection includes not only the use of video for reflection, but intentional pedagogical choices that support teachers’ use of video as a tool to mediate deeper understandings, questions, observations, and assessment of teaching through the use of video. Prior to the video viewing session, Grace provided some explicit instruction to help the teachers’ reflections such as asking all of her students to read Jay and Johnson’s (2002) Typology of Reflection. In their article, Jay and Johnson define reflection: Reflection is a process, both individual and collaborative, involving experience and uncertainty. It is comprised of identifying questions and key elements of a matter that has emerged as significant, then taking one’s thoughts into dialogue with oneself and with others. One evaluates insights gained from that process with reference to: (1) additional perspectives, (2) one’s own values, experiences, and beliefs, and (3) the larger context within which the questions are raised. Through reflection, one reaches newfound clarity, on which one bases changes in action or disposition. New questions naturally arise, and the process spirals onward. (p. 76)

Jay and Johnson (2002) also provide three different dimensions of reflection: descriptive (Describe the matter for reflection), comparative (Reframe the matter for reflection in light of alternative views, others’ perspectives, research, etc.), and critical (Having considered the implications of the matter, establish a renewed perspective) (p. 77). Grace discussed the Jay and Johnson article with her students before introducing the video viewing exercise, thus providing learners with explicit instruction in the meanings of reflection and different types of reflection. On the night when the video viewing task was first introduced, Grace also provided her participants with a video viewing guide. She explained the video viewing guide (see Fig. 5), linking it to previous readings or activities and even referencing prior courses that the students had already completed. As noted earlier one of the challenges to instructors has been helping teachers to understand the multi-faceted nature of reflection. Grace helped address this issue by providing explicit instruction in reflection (e.g., reading the article by Jay and Johnson and discussing it). Grace linked the explicit instruction around reflection with a scaffolded activity
the use of a viewing guide specifically designed to help support teachers viewing and reflection on practice across the descriptive, comparative, and critical dimensions of practice.

72

Fig. 5.

MARY B. MCVEE ET AL.

Video Viewing Guide Completed while Watching Video Excerpt of Jeter and Rosalie.

Gradual Release of Responsibility Model

73

Overview of the First Night with Video Viewing Session First Night Context To introduce the video, Grace explained the video they would be viewing contained a lesson between Rosalie, a teacher, and Jeter, a student (all names are pseudonyms). Rosalie was a teacher who had previously taken part in the university-based practicum experience as a tutor and who had granted permission for others to view and learn from her teaching videos. Jeter’s parents had also granted permission for his video to be viewed. Before viewing the video Grace handed out copies of the Rosalie’s lesson plan to provide context. The lesson plan described how Rosalie planned to model prefixes (e.g., “un-”) and suffixes (e.g., -ly) and continue to work with Jeter on breaking words into syllables, a skill that had been introduced in a previous lesson. Grace explained that the eight-minute segment that the class would view was part of a longer 40-minute lesson. The segment focused on modeling and breaking multisyllable words linking these to syllabication rules posted on the wall of the tutoring cubby. Grace then played the video segment for the teachers and allowed them to spend 8.5 minutes writing their reflections and connections on the Video Viewing Guide (Fig. 5). First Night Independent Reflection on Video of Teaching While the verbal reflection took place in the Instructor/Whole Group context (see Fig. 3) with a high degree of support from Grace and support from other class participants, it should be noted that the video viewing activity was preceded by the Independent activity of completing the video viewing guide. We point this out as a reminder that the GRR model is a recursive and iterative model. Learners and instructors need not move in linear fashion but may move back and forth between variable levels of support as they continue to move toward independence (Fig. 2). First Night Instructor/Whole Group Reflection on Video of Teaching After writing some notes on the video viewing guide independently, the class spent 30 minutes as a whole group discussing the descriptive, comparative, and critical reflections of the teaching in the video. Because this was their first video reflection exercise, they required a significant amount of scaffolding and support from Grace. Originally, as has been established in other studies, learners observed only those aspects of the lesson they felt were positive (e.g., the teacher used both verbal and visual cues, the child’s response was “cute” when he tried to help the teacher; the teacher had

74

MARY B. MCVEE ET AL.

prepared materials ahead of time). These comments are not particularly insightful or complex. Grace supported the exploration by calling directly on participants and also by occasionally revoicing learners’ comments or asking questions to prompt further responses. After 13 minutes of discussion, Grace told the class that she wanted them to “piggyback” their comments off of each other to build the discussion. She stated, “I want to do a gradual release here. I’m backing off, so I want you to reflect.” With this move, she opened the conversational floor and positioned the learners to take the lead. Although she released some of the control, Grace continued to play an active role as needed in the conversation. This is particularly apparent as the class began to take up the critical dimension of reflection. Faith initiated this critical dimension by observing that it probably would have been helpful if Rosalie had more “concrete direction” in the lesson to support Jeter. Sydney had observed earlier that the teacher did not seem confident about what a suffix was, and when Jeter was confused and could not answer after a 30-second pause, Rosalie’s strategy was to ask the same question again which again yielded silence from Jeter. Faith continued with her comments to develop a particularly insightful analysis based in critical elements of reflection. Faith stated specific steps that would have helped the Jeter: First, tap out the syllables of the word, then draw on the “syllabication kits” that he had for reference; third, “look at the word” and “break it up,” and then “say what set of rules applies to this word.” The video showed Rosalie modeling, explaining, and then moving Jeter to independent work. At this point, there was a great deal of overlapping talk among the participants in the class as they began to respond to the video and the comments. At this mid-point in the conversation, Bailey clearly interjected as she voiced a concern, “I do feel bad judging her [Rosalie] though.” Grace responded that the class was engaging in “constructive criticism,” and she asked Bailey: “Why do you think I want you to do this?” Bailey responded, “To be able to reflect on our own video.” Grace responded: “Bingo, to be able to reflect on your own video. That’s exactly right and at these different dimensions [descriptive, comparative, and critical].” Grace continued to emphasize that there might be positive aspects of individual teaching but there might also be aspects that were “not so positive.” She reminded the class each of them had chosen a particular goal for reflection and that goal also specifically targeted an area for improvement. Despite all of Grace’s assurances that the focus was not limited to negative “critique,” Bailey responded, “I just felt, I don’t know. I felt like we were ripping her [the teacher] apart.” Grace quickly responded to correct this supposition by noting

Gradual Release of Responsibility Model

75

that rather than “ripping the teacher apart” the focus was on modeling and demonstration, positives, and she acknowledged, constructive criticism. Brooke also attempted to reframe the viewing session as overly critical. In both cases, Grace redirected class talk toward constructive criticism or other analysis of the lesson. Grace artfully supported and prompted the preservice and inservice teachers, assisting learners as they engaged in the descriptive, comparative, and critical dimensions of reflection. In sum, on this first night of whole group video viewing, class participants struggled to find their footing. The inservice and preservice teachers’ comments moved between superficial observations such as the teacher’s preparation ahead of time to Bailey’s extreme suggestion that critical feedback was “ripping someone apart” to Faith’s thoughtful response of those steps that could have been included to provide better support for the child and to make changes in the lesson. Overall, Grace provided extensive support for the teacher talk and explorations.

Overview of the Fifth Night with Video Viewing Session This first night of the video viewing sessions contrasts substantially with what happened just five weeks later. By this time, the class participants and Grace had taken part in four video viewing sessions. Learners had also engaged in some important additional independent activities related to video reflection. Fifth Night Context and Independent Reflection on Video of Teaching By the fifth night of viewing sessions, the class participants had conducted approximately 14 tutoring sessions with their children. By watching and reflecting upon videos of their own teaching, they had written three indepth reflections using the Jay and Johnson typologies to help guide their reflective thinking. Thus throughout this period teachers worked in both Whole Group settings with a high degree of instructor support and independently (see Fig. 3). Participants co-planned lessons from time to time and often reflected on their videos together in pairs (occasionally in a trio with Grace). Fifth Night Instructor/Whole Group Reflection on Video of Teaching On this night, the class was engaged in what Grace called an “open forum.” This did not rely upon viewing a video of another teacher but upon the preservice and inservice teachers’ reflection on their own teaching in the

76

MARY B. MCVEE ET AL.

clinical setting as supported by video reflections they had completed independently. In her field notes for this night of class, the first author Mary observed, “There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm and energy in the room. [Learners] seem excited to participate in this forum.” While this was an open forum, Grace acknowledged the movement that learners had demonstrated along the GRR model when she opened the forum conversation. Rather than providing an introduction or overview to the evening, Grace acknowledged that the teachers had chosen the particular topics “questioning” and “wait time” as areas for targeted reflection. Again, Grace had scaffolded this by providing an article related to this topic to help deepen learners’ understandings of these issues. After a very brief overview from Grace, the class began conversing. The difference in their talk when compared to the first night was immediately apparent. Brennan opened the conversation by giving an example from her own tutoring session where she was focused on questioning as an engagement strategy but then realized that questioning also accomplished something more: “Questioning is useful; it helps them [students] think as well.” This was followed by four other participants, all of whom built on each other’s talk about questions and wait time. Each turn began with a reference to the comments of previous speaker(s) in an intricately threaded line of collective reflection: Brianna, referring to Brennan: “Going off of that I agree with what she’s saying … [about questioning].” Tim: “I agree a lot with Brianna …” [addressing questioning] Brooke: “I think that something Tim has talked about too …” [links questions and wait time] Grace: Interjects that wait time and questions are closely related. Marnie: “Back to what everyone said about engaging your student …”

These five speakers each continued to build on the common topic; talk was very cohesive, with each speaker building upon the previous speaker’s utterance to continue exploring the issues of questioning. The dialogue continued across the next 10 minutes. During this 10-minute period, the cognitive responsibility was distributed across 11 of the 14 teachers, each extending or elaborating the conversation around questioning and interacting with children. Much of this talk was comparative reflection, with speakers referring to readings or examples related to questioning. This quickly moved into a combination of all three types of reflection: descriptive,

Gradual Release of Responsibility Model

77

comparative, and critical. Some speakers described a teaching situation and included a comparative reflection. In many instances they included a specific critical assessment of themselves based on their video observations. For example, Kelsey observed: I’m doing my reflections on wait time and when I was viewing my first lessons, I would ask and I didn’t even realize I was doing it at first. But, I would ask maybe three questions right off the bat and the poor kid didn’t even have time to think about the first one when I’ve already slammed him with two more! … I’m paying more attention … I’m counting in my head to three or five …. I never even realized until I looked at it this critically.

In her three written reflections, which were completed independently, Kelsey had also documented her growing understanding. She reflected upon the importance of wait time as well as her attempts to be strategic about wait time as she learned how to help guide her student toward independence. Within the open forum on this night of the course, the teachers maintained an in-depth 25-minute conversation engaging across all three dimensions of reflection: descriptive, comparative, and critical. Grace still maintained a key position in the conversation occasionally calling on a participant who had raised his or her hand to make a point, or by querying a speaker for more information or clarification. However, compared with the first night when she explicitly and directly redirected talk to keep participants moving toward reflection, Grace’s role was much less direct. Staying true to the model of variable responsibility, learners demonstrated how they were taking up the cognitive responsibility for reflecting on their own teaching and engaging in collaborative reflection with their peers. The culminating example of variable responsibility occurred when Leah and Brooke shared an excerpt of their own teaching to get feedback from their peers. This example was of particular interest since Brooke was the one who on the first viewing night felt that watching a video and reflecting upon it amounted to “ripping apart” the teacher. Brooke even volunteered a critique of her own teaching. She had chosen to focus on feedback in her reflections: I realized in my first session [tutoring session] I can’t even tell you how many times all of my responses were like “OK”, and then I said something like “perfect” every time. It [the feedback] wasn’t specific at all. So now I’ve tried to get better like “Oh I like that you made that connection. I like that you used your schema.” Because literally every feedback I gave was “perfect” and “Oh, OK.” And then I [would] just move on.

78

MARY B. MCVEE ET AL.

In her field notes on this night Mary recorded that the conversation on this night represented “cohesive conversation” (Tannen, 1989). In addition to the serious reflective talk Mary noted a great deal of humorous banter and exchange observing that class participants “seem to have a great rapport with one another.” In sum, this night demonstrated learners stepping up to the level of independent practices of reflection. To be sure, the scaffolding tools that Grace put in place through a pedagogy of video reflection (e.g., video viewing guide, reflective writing, modeling viewing sessions) all helped learners to achieve this level of independence.

CONCLUSION Instructors similar to Grace demonstrate that when preservice and inservice teachers begin to engage in video reflective analysis they need to learn to notice (Dozier, 2008; van Es & Sherin, 2002, p. 175). An instructor cannot merely state: “Let’s reflect on video.” Instead the instructor must help teachers “read” the text of video just as children learn to “read” books. Reading and making sense of video is not an innate process that happens naturally any more than reading just magically happens. Reflection requires specific skills and strategic supports from more knowledgeable others. Grace’s recursive and iterative use of the GRR for Video Reflection resulted in the teachers’ increased proficiency when reading the text that prepared them to reflect across different dimensions. Given the increased use of video for teacher learning, teacher educators, coaches, and professional development providers need to be strategic in designing how video will be used as a tool to effectively mediate teacher learning whether they are working with novice teachers or experienced teachers. Applying the Gradual Release of Responsibility to a context for teacher learning has the potential to inform the variable levels of social support that are necessary to develop teachers’ capacity to engage in the full range of reflective practices that lead, ultimately, to improved classroom practice.

REFERENCES Au, K. H. (2002). Balanced literacy instruction: Addressing issues of equity. In C. M. Roller (Ed.), Comprehensive reading instruction across the grade levels: A collection of papers from the Reading Research 2001 Conference (pp. 70
87). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Gradual Release of Responsibility Model

79

Ayra, P., Christ, T., & Chiu, M. M. (2014). Facilitation and teacher behaviors: An analysis of literacy teachers’ video-case discussions. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 111
127. Brophy, J. (2004). Using video in teacher education (Vol. 10). Advances in Research on Teaching. Oxford: Elsevier. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289
325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Collett, V. (2012). The Gradual Release of Responsibility model: Coaching for teacher change. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27
47. Collett, V. (2013). The gradual increase of responsibility model: Mentoring for improved intervention. In E. Ortlieb & E. H. Cheek (Eds.), Advanced literacy practices: From clinic to classroom (Vol. 2, pp. 327
351). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Dozier, C. L. (2008). Literacy coaching: Engaging and learning with teachers. The Language and Literacy Spectrum, 18, 11
19. Dozier, C. L., & Rutten, I. (2005). Responsive teaching toward responsive teachers: Mediating transfer through intentionality, enactment and articulation. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(4), 459
492. Duke, N., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & J. S. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205
242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51
93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Feuersein, R., Feuerstein, S., Falik, L., & Rand, Y. (2002). The dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability. Jerusalem, Israel: ICELP Press. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the Gradual Release of Responsibility (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73
85. LeFevre, D. M. (2004). Designing for teacher learning: Video-based curriculum design. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (Vol. 10, pp. 235
258). Advances in Research on Teaching. Oxford: Elsevier. Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33
43. Osipova, A., Prichard, B., Boardman, A. G., Kiely, M. T., & Carroll, P. E. (2011). Refocusing the lens: Enhancing elementary special education reading instruction through video self-reflection. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26(3), 158
171. doi:10.1111/ j.1540-5826.2011.00335.x Pearson, P. D. (2013). Ideas with traction: The Gradual Release of Responsibility. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Council of Teachers of English, Boston, MA. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317
344.

80

MARY B. MCVEE ET AL.

Rosaen, C. (2015). The potential of video to help literacy pre-service teachers learn to teach for social justice and develop culturally responsive instruction. In E. Ortlieb, M. McVee, & L. Shanahan (Eds.), Video reflection in literacy teacher education and development (Vol. 5, pp. 3
19). Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for facilitating professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 146
159. Routman, R. (2008). Teaching essentials. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Shanahan, L. E., McVee, M. B., Schiller, J. A., Tynan, E. A., D’Abate, R. L., FluryKashmanian, C. M., … Hayden, H. E. (2013). Supporting struggling readers and literacy clinicians through reflective video pedagogy. In E. T. Ortlieb & E. H. Cheek (Eds.), Advanced literacy practices: From the clinic to the classroom literacy (Vol. 2, pp. 303
323). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Shanahan, L. E., & Tochelli, A. L. (2012). Video study group: A context to cultivate professional relationships. In P. J. Dunston, S. K. Fullerton, C. C. Bates, K. Headley, & P. M. Stecker (Eds.), 61st literacy research association conference yearbook (pp. 196
211). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association. Shanahan, L. E., & Tochelli, A. L. (2014). Examining the use of video study groups for developing literacy pedagogical content knowledge for Critical Elements of Strategy Instruction with elementary teachers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53(1), 1
24. Shanahan, L. E., Tochelli-Ward, A. L., & Rinker, T. W. (2015). Insights into inservice teachers’ video-facilitated reflection of literacy practices. In E. Ortlieb, M. McVee, & L. Shanahan (Eds.), Video reflection in literacy teacher education and development (Vol. 5, pp. 21
40). Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475
491. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tripp, T. R. (2009). Understanding the use of video analysis tools to facilitate reflection among pre-service teachers. Thesis unpublished Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University. Retrieved from http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/singleeitem/collection/ETD/id/2056/ rec/2 Tripp, T. T., & Rich, P. J. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 728
739. van Es, R. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571
597. Verlaan, W., & Verlaan, S. (2015). Using video-reflection with pre-service teachers: A cautionary tale. In E. Ortlieb, M. McVee, & L. Shanahan (Eds.), Video reflection in literacy teacher education and development (Vol. 5, pp. 151
171). Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In L. S. Vygotsky (Ed.), Collected works (Vol. 1, pp. 39
285) (R. Rieber & A. Carton, Eds.; N. Minick, Trans.). New York, NY: Plenum. (Original works in 1934, 1960). Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1978). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89
100.

A VIDEO-BASED MENTORING TOOL FOR COOPERATING TEACHERS COACHING PRESERVICE TEACHERS: SUPPORTING REFLECTION AROUND LITERACY PRACTICE Melissa Mosley Wetzel, James V. Hoffman and Beth Maloch ABSTRACT Purpose
Our purpose in this chapter is to present a model of coaching used in a preservice elementary teacher preparation program that relies on video as a mentoring tool. We call this tool RCA, or Retrospective Coaching Analysis, and it is based on Goodman’s (1996) work on Retrospective Miscue Analysis. We also provide examples of how cooperating teachers used videos to identify important moments of practice to elicit reflection with their preservice teachers.

Video Reflection in Literacy Teacher Education and Development: Lessons from Research and Practice Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation, Volume 5, 81
103 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-045820150000005011

81

82

MELISSA MOSLEY WETZEL ET AL.

Methodology/approach
We collected video recordings of cooperating teacher/preservice teacher pairs engaging in mentoring conversations using videos of preservice teachers’ practice. Findings
In this chapter, we focus on the cooperating teachers’ choices about when to stop the video to engage in reflection with their preservice teachers. In selecting a focus point for the RCA Event, the CTs chose moments that met some of these four criteria: appreciative, learnerfocused, disruptive, and/or generative. We also found the challenges in selecting focus points and in staying with moments of video long enough to generate reflection, which made the model of mentoring challenging to implement. Research limitations/implications
The analysis of this reflective mentoring tool has led to revisions in our theoretical model of coaching, as described in this chapter. The research suggests the importance of closely examining reflective talk between cooperating teachers and preservice teachers. Our work also illustrates a shift in the use of video in preservice teaching from a video-case based perspectives to reflection embedded in practice. Practical implications
Our study suggests the importance of selecting moments of practice as the basis for mentoring and coaching, but the research helped us to understand that RCA has affordances and constraints, and therefore, should be a tool for teachers to use flexibly within our theoretical model of Coaching with CARE. Originality/value
Teacher educators will find the RCA model to be a new way of approaching collaborative work with teachers in the field within a practice-based teacher education program. Keywords: Video; mentoring; preservice; literacy; stimulated recall

Kimberly, an experienced cooperating teacher (CT) is mentor to Sylvia, a preservice teacher (PT) in an elementary literacy teacher education program. After showing a video clip of her coaching conference, Kimberly reflected with her peers who are also CTs: Sylvia just pointed out how talking about things like the Holocaust, or like our Civil Rights unit that we previously studied, they’re very uncomfortable, tension-filled conversations, that carry a lot of weight. And they’re not the easiest things to talk about.

Video-Based Mentoring Tool: Supporting Reflection around Practice

83

She was observing in our post-conference that this set-up [putting the students in a larger circle] made it [the discussion] easier. It was a more comfortable space, a safe space to have these conversations when we were arranged in a circle. […] I asked a follow-up question, because one of the things she was talking about was, she had asked a question that she didn’t know the answer to. And I think that kind of made her nervous […], and I asked her, “Did y’all figure out an answer?” And I was trying to point out, “There isn’t always an answer, and that’s okay! Like you know, this is an opportunity where you’re constructing that answer together.” […]

Our focus of this chapter is on the role of video
what we call Retrospective Coaching Analysis (RCA)
as a mentoring tool. Here, Kimberly relied on a video of her coaching practices to reflect on choices she made in her mentoring: to choose to open a conversation about how classroom arrangements can foster critical discussions; to enter into a conversation about what is uncomfortable or difficult about letting students guide their own learning; and to accept uncertainty and inquiry as part of the teaching and learning process. Kimberly demonstrated her developing expertise in enacting a reflective model of mentoring, one that disrupts previous patterns of directive mentoring that she, herself experienced in her own development. In research on teacher education, little attention has been paid to the critical role cooperating teachers (CTs) play in academic and practicum experiences. The majority of CTs responsible for guiding practicum experiences have little or no formal preparation in mentoring or coaching (e.g., Dunne & Bennett, 1997; Gardiner, 2009; Lemma, 1993). In the absence of preparation, teachers tend to mentor the way they have been mentored (Hawkey, 1998). To date, few studies in preservice teacher preparation have examined how mentor teachers’ work with preservice teachers is shaped when introduced to new models of mentoring. In response, a group of literacy faculty teaching in this program has engaged in a design and development (Edelson, 2002), longitudinal, multicohort study of teacher mentoring, discourse, and professional learning at a large Southwestern University. Our focus is on undergraduates in an evolving elementary literacy teacher education program and Master’s students in a program focused on mentoring and leadership. Through the Master’s program, teachers in area schools receive tuition assistance in exchange for their service to the university as a mentor to a PT for one year. We work with both groups of participants around a reflective, strengths-based, appreciative model of coaching
the CARE model, which we describe below. Our initial research explored how CTs appropriated this

84

MELISSA MOSLEY WETZEL ET AL.

reflective model, extended this model, and identified tensions that arose in association with appropriation (Hoffman et al., 2014a, 2014b). From this earlier work, we identified the need to further explore the role of video in mentoring. Video has had a role in re-imagining teacher education (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009). Grossman and her colleagues have argued that video can not only provide “representations” of practice but also offer opportunities to “deconstruct” or make sense of practice with others who are watching and reflecting together (cf. Levin, 1997; Scho¨n, 1983). Although many researchers have used video in their methodology of studies of mentoring, using stimulated recall to elicit reflections from mentors about their practice (e.g., Clarke, 1995; Franke & Dahlgren, 1996; Nillssen, 2010), few studies have drawn on video as a learning tool for mentors to examine, reflect, and coach around practice. In this chapter, we explore the theoretical and practical foundations of RCA, drawing on data as illustrations of practice. We consider how video can support the development of reflective practices of mentoring, building on research that examines how video shapes the ways that CTs develop their thinking about mentoring (e.g., Crasborn, Hennissen, Brouwer, Korthagen, & Bergen, 2010, 2011; Hennissen, Crasborn, Brouwer, Korthagen, & Bergen, 2010, 2011). Ultimately, we argue that video has affordances that shape possibilities for mentoring in literacy teacher preparation that go beyond traditional models.

THE USE OF VIDEO IN TEACHER PREPARATION The use of video in support of learning to teach has had an extensive history in the United States. Much of the initial attention on the use of video in teacher education centered on the pioneering work at Stanford University in the early 1960s around “microteaching” (Allen, 1966; Allen & Eve, 1966). The roots of microteaching were around students preparing to teach in high school who would “practice” teach a lesson with a small group of peers who assumed the role of “high school students.” The lesson would then be reviewed and critiqued by the “teacher,” “students,” and the supervising faculty member, focused on performance leading to corrective recommendations. There was widespread enthusiasm for this approach as a tool that could make teacher education practices more authentic and provided a solution to logistical challenges of working in

Video-Based Mentoring Tool: Supporting Reflection around Practice

85

schools. The research findings around the method (in its many variations), however, were inconclusive in terms of effects on teaching skills (Copeland, 1975). Students generally responded positively and the common view was that microteaching was a good bridge between the university methods classroom and the student teaching experiences ahead. The method was widely popularized throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s. Looking back at this initial period from today’s perspective, a number of things stand out regarding the early uses of video: first, the focus on teaching behaviors in isolated tasks is consistent with this period of thinking around teacher preparation; second, the attention to feedback that involves correcting teaching behaviors is seen as a primary goal; and third, there is a general “utility” rationale about use of video as a viable substitute for actual work in classrooms (Brophy, 2003); and an attempt to use video and microteaching to simplify context from complexities of “normal teaching” (Allen & Eve, 1966, p. 181). The use of video in teacher education transformed in the 1990s toward more case-based learning models that offer more situated views of the complexity of teaching and learning (Shulman, 1992; Sykes & Bird, 1992). Within the language and literacy and teacher education community, the attention turned to the use of video cases (Bransford, Kinzer, Risko, Rowe, & Vye, 1989; Hughes, Packard, & Pearson, 2000; Kinzer & Risko, 1998) in which PTs and practicing teachers had the opportunity to view cases of literacy teaching and engage in discussion around these cases with other teachers and faculty using hypermedia. Research on these approaches tended to focus on analytic skills built around teaching as well as increased levels of discussion around practice. PTs often reported appreciation for videos as providing images of teaching to discuss rather than just reading and hearing about methods. Additionally, the affordances of the hypermedia features of these programs extended what could be learned from watching the videos. Like the work with microteaching, these experiences sometimes operated as substitutes for practicum experiences in classrooms. This shift in video use is aligned with Sherin’s (2004) assertion that video use in teacher education has followed ways in which the field has thought about teacher learning as in the movement from behaviorism, with microteaching, to case-based teacher knowledge construction with video cases as the content to be discussed and the process by which principles of teaching could be internalized. Recently, there has been another shift to use video cases in combination with classroom practicum experiences, what we will call a reflective

86

MELISSA MOSLEY WETZEL ET AL.

practice-based view of video. This shift, again, follows a change in thinking about learning to teach toward a more practice-based, apprenticeship model of teacher preparation with an emphasis on experience and reflection (Grossman & McDonald, 2008). Hoffman et al. (2009) applied the combination of video and hypermedia in support of a tutoring program. Multiple videos were captured of various tutoring practices. These videos were viewed, discussed, and then used to guide and reflect on student’s work in the tutorial. Shanahan et al. (2013) similarly used video as a reflective tool in the context of practice. In a clinic-based literacy specialist practicum, teachers used video to collaboratively reflect on their work with a struggling reader. They began in a Video Study Group, collaboratively analyzing cases of learning, and moved to individual video analysis of their own teaching. The Video Study Group provided experience in seeing videos from multiple perspectives and acted as a support for teachers as they moved toward using video as a reflective tool for their practice. The emphasis in these approaches, in contrast to the video case work in the 1990s, was the immediate application in practice. Today, video is inexpensive, easy to transport and operate, and offers features for editing that expand the possibilities of use in a variety of settings and for a variety of purposes. Video is a tool that can be used instantly and in the moment inside of everyday classroom teaching contexts. These records, in teacher education, can provide a tool to complement first-hand practicum experiences. Further, we see the affordances of video tools as means to not just capture the complexity of classroom teaching (in words and images) but also to provoke spaces for reflective thinking and learning through practice. One of the primary paths for this movement into practice and reflection has been in the form of video-elicited reflection (Sewall, 2009, p. 14). In this approach, video viewing/reflection is being explored as an alternative to traditional post-observation conferences. Students are encouraged to ‘think aloud’ around their practice. Sherin and van Es (2005) found that the use of videos was helpful: CTs were able to move the PTs from a level of narrating and describing to become more discriminating. Further, they noted that teachers moved from an evaluative stance (i.e., judging moves as right or wrong) toward a stance of understanding what particular moves had on learning. In this tradition, we designed a video tool for mentoring situated within a reflective, strengths-based, appreciative model of coaching, which we discuss later.

Video-Based Mentoring Tool: Supporting Reflection around Practice

87

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS Theoretical Background: The Coaching with CARE Model Our evolving model of coaching
the Coaching with CARE model
is based on theoretical foundations of learning through experience; our review of literature regarding mentoring models; and our analysis of the work of mentor teachers in our master’s program. The CARE model is grounded in a view of coaching as a relational interaction between a caregiver (i.e., in this context a mentor teacher) and the care-receiver (i.e., the PT) around practice. This caring relationship, as Noddings (1992) argues, is not in the spirit of transmission but transaction
both the care-giver and the care-receiver are changed. The CARE acronym highlights features of the coaching cycle. In describing the features, we often reverse the order of the letters in CARE. Experiential The model is focused on learning in and through experience. This model of experiential learning draws on the work of scholars from Dewey (1910/ 1991) to, in teacher education, Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1992), Zeichner (e.g., Zeichner, Payne, & Brayko, 2012), and Grossman (e.g., Grossman & McDonald, 2008). The model is oriented toward paying the most attention to the students being taught (in the context of practice)
teachers grow most when reflecting on students’ response and learning. If we can finetune the ways in which teachers attend to and respond to students in the context of teaching, we will have taken major steps toward preparing them as lifelong learners. PTs work with CTs to experiment with practice in the context of working with real students for authentic purposes. Reflective Dewey (1910/1991) argues that all learning is tied to reflection. Reflection occurs at times when we are puzzled, disrupted, uncomfortable, and unsure. These moments of choice are filled with uncertainty and, as Dewey suggests, require that we assess situations, make choices, suspend judgment, and monitor the outcomes of our choices. A teacher’s life is filled with these moments in the context of planning, presenting or even making sense of what just happened in a lesson. We also draw on Scho¨n’s (1983) distinctions between reflecting in action and on action. We have extended these in

88

MELISSA MOSLEY WETZEL ET AL.

our work to also include attention to reflecting into practice and reflecting for practice (planning). Appreciative The CARE model assumes an asset-based, appreciative stance toward learners (Bomer, 2011). The stance we take toward PTs is the same stance that we encourage them to take toward their students: We assess the known and build on strength. We take all attempts as approximations that we can scaffold to more powerful levels and forms. Failures, flaws, and faults are not part of the coaching discourse. Critical The CARE model is rooted in a critical pedagogy philosophy (Freire, 1995). We resist the fragmentation of skills of teaching into a set of behaviors to be transmitted to preservice teachers. Teaching as a practice involves thinking, feeling, and doing. We ask that our teachers constantly engage in reflection that questions the “governing variables” (Argyris, 2002) associated with sources of power and authority that limit the choices that teachers make in their teaching or even the considerations teachers are open to in their teaching based on assumptions of what can and can’t be done. The CARE model is operationalized into a series of conversations around practice, drawing on a number of models such as Joyce and Showers (1981) and Costa, Garmston, Anderson, and Glickman (2002). The CARE model is organized around four events or processes that surround practice (see Fig. 1). These are the spaces where the CT and PT interact through practice.

The Structure of the CARE Model Coaching Cycle The Pre-Conference The pre-conference is a brief meeting (