Content uploaded by Gaudin Cyrille
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gaudin Cyrille on Nov 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review
Video viewing in teacher education and professional
development: A literature review
Cyrille Gaudin
*
,S
ebastien Chali
es
High School of Teaching and Education eUniversity of Toulouse Jean Jaur
es, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31078 Toulouse, France
article info
Article history:
Received 20 August 2014
Received in revised form 29 May 2015
Accepted 26 June 2015
Available online 2 July 2015
Keywords:
Video viewing
Teacher education
Professional development
Preservice teacher
Inservice teacher
Literature review
abstract
This article reviews the international literature on video viewing in teacher education and
professional development. Two hundred and fifty-five articles were collected, summarized
and categorized using a conceptualization that includes four aspects: teachers' activity as
they view a classroom video, the objectives of video viewing, the types of videos viewed,
and the effects of video viewing on teacher education and professional development. The
findings in each of these aspects suggested three main questions that may profitably guide
future research: How can teaching teachers to identify and interpret relevant classroom
events on video clips improve their capacity to perform the same activities in the class-
room? How can we best articulate the diverse objectives of video viewing and the diverse
types of videos in teacher education and professional development programs? How can we
create a “continuum”between teacher education programs and professional development
programs in such a way that video viewing becomes a routine, familiar professional
practice able to produce the desired effects over the course of an entire teaching career?
©2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................42
2. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................43
2.1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................... 43
2.2. Strategy for the literature search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. 43
2.3. Data coding and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................... 44
3. The nature of teachers’activity as they view a classroom video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................45
3.1. Video viewing and selective attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. 46
3.2. Video viewing and knowledge-based reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. 46
4. Objectives of video viewing in teacher education and professional development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............47
4.1. Video viewing to build knowledge on “how to interpret and reflect”.......................... ...................... 47
4.2. Video viewing to build knowledge on “what to do”.................................. ............................. 49
4.3. Hybrid objective of video viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. 49
4.4. Choose the objectives of video viewing based on the learning goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 50
5. The nature of classroom videos viewed in teacher education and professional development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............50
5.1. Viewing videos of unknown teacher activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. 50
5.2. Viewing videos of peer activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................... 50
*Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cyrille.gaudin@univ-tlse2.fr (C. Gaudin), sebastien.chalies@univ-tlse2.fr (S. Chali
es).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Educational Research Review
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/edurev
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.06.001
1747-938X/©2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67
5.3. Viewing videos of one's own professional practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... 51
5.4. Selecting and organizing videos to view in line with learning goals and contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 51
6. The effects of video viewing on teacher education and professional development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................53
6.1. Video viewing and teacher motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... 53
6.2. Video viewing and teacher cognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... 53
6.3. Video viewing and teacher classroom practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... 54
6.4. Recommendations for effective video viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... 55
7. Prospects for research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................57
8. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................59
9. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................59
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................59
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................60
1. Introduction
This review of the research literature reveals that video viewing has been increasingly employed over the past 10 years in
the education of preservice teachers (PTs) and the professional development of inservice teachers (ITs), in all subject areas, at
all grade levels, and all over the world. Video viewing to train PTs and ITs has become a significant part of teacher education
and professional development programs on nearly every continent (Table 1). Videos have been used to train PTs and ITs in a
wide range of subject areas (Table 2). Moreover, video viewing is used today to prepare both primary (e.g., Llinares &Valls,
2010) and secondary school teachers (e.g., Santagata, 2009).
The literature presents three main reasons for the growing reliance on videos in teacher education and professional
development. First, videos give PTs and ITs greater access to classroom events than classic observation (Ball &Cohen, 1999;
Welsch &Devlin, 2006) without sacrificing “authenticity”(Lemke, 2007; Roche &Gal-Petitfaux, 2014; Sherin, 2004; Spiro,
Collins, &Ramchandran, 2007). This method thus constitutes a choice “artifact of practice”(Borko, Jacobs, Eiteljorg, &
Pittman, 2008; Llinares &Valls, 2009) that creates a link between the traditional theoretical education at the university
and classroom practice (Cannings &Talley, 2003; Karsenti &Collin, 2011; Richardson &Kile, 1999; Wang, 2013). Second,
technical progress has greatly facilitated video viewing (Calandra &Rich, 2014; Sherin, 2004). Digitalization, vastly improved
storage capacities, and sophisticated software have all contributed to the development of video in the framework of pro-
fessional practice analysis (Brunvand, 2010; Goldman, 2007). Last, video viewing is increasingly used as a means to facilitate
the implementation of institutional reforms (Wang &Hartley, 2003). In the United States, for example, studies about video
viewing have contributed to the analysis of certain classroom events targeted by reforms and, in this sense, have lent these
Table 1
Examples of studies on video viewing in teacher education and professional development by continent and country.
Continents Countries Examples of studies
Asia China Wang, 2013
Hong Kong Yung, Wong, Cheng, Hui, &Hodson, 2007
Republic of Korea Siry &Martin, 2014
Republic of Singapore Fang, 2010
Taiwan Liu, 2012
The United Arab Emirates Alsawaie &Alghazo, 2010
Turkey Koc, 2011
Europe Belgium Vifquin, 2014
Czech republic Janík et al., 2009
Denmark Davidsen &Vanderlinde, 2014
Finland Kumpulainen, Toom, &Saalasti, 2012
France Leblanc &Ria, 2014
Germany Seidel &Stürmer, 2014
Ireland Harford, MacRuairc, &McCartan, 2010
Israel Michalsky, 2014
Italy Santagata &Angelici, 2010
Luxembourg Martin &Siry, 2012
Norway Dalehefte &Rieck, 2014
Spain Masats &Dooly, 2011
Sweden Harlin, 2014
Switzerland Lussi Borer &Muller, 2014
The Netherlands Brouwer, 2011a
The UK Marsh, Mitchell, &Adamczyk, 2009
Oceania Australia Newhouse, Lane, &Brown, 2007
North America Canada Meyer, Lampron, &Gaz
e, 2014
The United States Zhang, Lundeberg, Koehler, &Eberhardt, 2011
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6742
reforms greater legitimacy (e.g., mathematics teaching in the USA, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM],
2000). In this regard, van Es and Sherin (2008) specified that the “mathematics education reform calls on teachers to base
their instruction on the lesson as it unfolds in the classroom, paying particular attention to the ideas that students raise”(p.
244). In Europe as well, video viewing serves an institutional purpose by inviting teacher educators to “bring to life”the
principle of alternation between sequences of coursework and sequences of classroom practice (e.g., teacher education in
France, Minist
ere de l'Education Nationale [MEN], 2009
1
). As Gaudin and Chali
es (2012) note “video thus appears to be a
privileged means to encourage this alternation because of its unique capacity to capture the richness and complexity of
classroom activity”(p. 115).
Given the rise in video viewing in teacher education and professional development, we conducted a literature review in
order to (a) determine the most vital and productive approaches or paradigms within the international community, (b)
summarize the main results of studies conducted within the framework of these approaches, and (c) identify the questions
that will need to be investigated in the coming years.
2. Methods
This literature review was carried out in three successive steps: definition of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, data
collection, and data analysis.
2.1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria
To be included in this review, each study had to meet the criteria indicated in Table 3.
2.2. Strategy for the literature search
We first conducted a manual electronic search of several databases [ERIC, Science Direct OnSite (SDOS), SAGE Journal
Online, ProQuest, Wiley Inter-Science, ACM Digital Library, and AACE Digital Library/EdITLib] using the following key words:
Table 3
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
a. Must have classroom viewing in the context of teacher education or professional devel-
opment as the main objective
a. Video used outside of teacher education
b. Must examine the learners' activity related to viewing b. Video used to teach teachers the techniques of video
use
c. Must comprise training activities related to viewing c. Video used to show teachers how to use video to teach
their students
d. Must include the identification of teachers' experience (PT or IT). All levels accepted
e. Must be a journal article, a book chapter or a conference paper
f. Must have been published after January 2003
Table 2
Examples of studies on video viewing in teacher education and professional development by subject.
Subjects Examples of studies
Classroom management and learning support van den Bogert, van Bruggen, Kostons, &Jochems, 2014
Cross-disciplinary training Leblanc &Ria, 2014
Educational psychology Brown &Kennedy, 2011
General science and biology Tan, Tan, &Wettasinghe, 2011
Language Brouwer &Robijns, 2014
Literacy Shanahan &Tochelli, 2014
Mathematics Sherin, Jacobs, &Philipp, 2011
Music West, 2012
Pedagogical education Gr€
oschner, Seidel, Kiemer, &Pehmer, 2014
Physical education Calandra, Gurvitch, &Lund, 2008
Physical sciences Seidel, Stürmer, Blomberg, Kobarg, &Schwindt, 2011
Science Siry &Martin, 2014
Social sciences/humanities Blomberg, Stürmer, &Seidel, 2011
Special education Yadav, Bouck, Da Fonte, &Patton, 2009
Vocational technical education Koc, 2011
1
This reform is in line with the recommendations of the Commission of the European Communities, which notes that “Higher Education institutions
have an important role to play in developing effective partnerships with schools and other stakeholders to ensure that their Teacher Education courses are
based upon solid evidence and good classroom practice”(Commission of the European Communities, 2007: COM 392 final, Bruxelles, 3/08/2007, p. 15).
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 43
“video,”“video technology,”“video viewing,”“teacher education,”and “teacher professional development.”We identified
855 studies (see Table 4) and removed 286 doubles. Two researchers then independently confirmed the inclusion/exclusion
criteria for each study. The intercoder agreement rate for coding was 95.29%. Disagreements between the two coders were
resolved through discussion and further review of the disputed studies. In total, 193 studies met the inclusion criteria and
were used in the analyses. We next examined the references of these retained studies and identified 62 additional studies,
whichdalthough older, not found in any of the databases, or not in Englishdwere considered as potentially significant in this
field of research. In addition, we retained theoretical or institutional references from these studies when we judged that they
contained elements of information important to understanding the studies themselves. In all, 255 studies were included for
coding and analysis.
2.3. Data coding and analysis
The retained studies were first coded based on a certain conceptualization of how video viewing is used in teacher ed-
ucation and professional development (Fig. 1). These concepts originated from the collaborative research that we have
conducted for several years with researchers and teachers who use video viewing in initial and continuing teacher education.
This conceptualization comprises four aspects, which are represented by the following questions: (a) What is the nature of
teachers’activity as they view classroom videos? (b) What are the objectives of video viewing in teacher education and
professional development? (c) What type of video is viewed in teacher education and professional development? (d) What
are the effects of video viewing on teacher education and professional development? These four aspects, in turn, correspond
to the categories that we used for coding the studies analyzed. Each category was then broken down into subcategories using
an iterative process for qualitative research analysis (Strauss &Corbin,1990). This in-depth analysis helped us to structure the
categories into subcategories on the basis of description, rather than interpretation, to reflect the results of all the studies
included in our review (Table 5). Ultimately, these four categories and their subcategories were used to structure the different
sections of this study.
Other conceptualizations of video viewing in teacher education and professional development have recently been
mobilized for studying this subject (e.g., Blomberg, Renkl, Sherin, Borko, &Seidel, 2013; Brouwer, 2011a; Santagata, 2014a,
2014b; Yung, Yip, Lai, &Lo, 2010). Santagata (2014a, 2014b) suggests a model comprised of four components represented
by the following questions: (a) What is the teacher learning purpose of using video? (b) What types of video will work for that
Table 4
Results of the search for data on video viewing in teacher education and professional development.
Initial search (database) Number of studies Complementary search
Study references
Number of studies
ACM 9 Studies not found in the databases 33
EdITLib 63 Studies not in English 17
ERIC 475 Studies published before January 2003 12
ProQuest 23 Theoretical references 60
SAGE 19 Institutional references 4
SDOL 182
Wiley 84
Fig. 1. Conceptualization of the use of video viewing in teacher education and professional development.
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6744
purpose? (c) What viewing modality will best serve that purpose? (d) How can we assess that we have achieved our purpose?
As for Blomberg et al. (2013a), they draw on five research-based heuristics concerning how to think about and use video in
order to create well-conceptualized learning environments: (a) identify learning goals, (b) choose instructional approaches,
(c) choose video material, (d) address limitations, and (e) align assessment to instruction/goals. Derived from a literature
review, Brouwer (2011a) designed the Visual Teacher Learning model (VTL) as a conceptual map to serve theorizing and
research about teachers' learning with video. This model represents the possible relationships between nine factors: (a)
teachers’personal characteristics, biography and learning goals, (b) the change environment in which they work on their
professional development, (c) the learning activities they undertake for this purpose in cooperation with colleagues, (d) the
perceptual processes involved in these activities, (e) the kind(s) of feedback theyreceive, (f) how they interpret this feedback,
(g) the reflection processes involved in the foregoing, (h) consequences for professional action, and (i) their personal
development in the teaching profession. Finally, Yung et al. (2010) offer an emerging model to outline the learning outcomes
that teacher education programmes using video should consider. Besides cognitive and psychomotor learning, the affective
and social needs of teachers are also highlighted in the model to inform the development of video-mediated teacher pro-
fessional activities. Three broad strategies are identified in the model for bringing forth the learning outcomes, namely,
critical reflection, meaningful comparison and productive discussion. These interact to shape the landscape of teacher pro-
fessional learning. The model also identifies the key role of facilitators and the importance of video selection in enhancing
teacher learning via video-mediated activities.
3. The nature of teachers’activity as they view a classroom video
The first aspect in our conceptualization refers to the nature of teachers' activity as they view a classroom video. Un-
derstanding the nature of this activity appears to us a pre-requisite for using video viewing in teacher education and pro-
fessional development. This understanding renders possible choosing the objectives of video viewing depending on the
learning goals in a more appropriate manner. Second, such an understanding then enables more effective elaboration and
support of a teacher education or professional development course using video viewing. The following questions, hence, need
to be considered: What is the nature of teachers’activity as they view classroom videos? Does this activity differ from
classroom observation? Is it the same for PTs and ITs? What are the factors that influence this activity?
Watching a video “involves perceptual processes, it is not passive, and along with all perceptual processes, professional
vision
2
is characterized by bottom-up as well as topedown processes.”This quote from Sherin (2007, p. 384) describes the
majority view expressed in the literature about to the nature of PTs' and ITs’activity as they watch a classroom video. The key
feature is their engagement in a perceptual process with two main components: selective attention and knowledge-based
reasoning (van Es &Sherin, 2008). These two interrelated and “dynamic”processes (Sherin &van Es, 2009) are best un-
derstood as being in “circular interplay”(Blomberg et al., 2011). Several authors in fact agree that one of the most important
component of teaching expertise is the ability to identify and interpret relevant classroom events and make instructional
Table 5
Results of the data analysis for video viewing in teacher education and professional development.
Categories and subcategories Number of studies
The nature of teachers' activity as they view a classroom video 58 (12)
Video viewing and selective attention 28
Video viewing and knowledge-based reasoning 18
Objectives of video viewing in teacher education and professional development 141 (69)
Video viewing to build knowledge on “how to interpret and reflect”45
Video viewing to build knowledge on “what to do”12
Hybrid objective of video viewing 7
Choose the objectives of video viewing based on the learning goals 8
The nature of classroom videos viewed in teacher education and professional development 109 (21)
Viewing videos of unknown teacher activity 19
Viewing videos of peer activity 11
Viewing videos of one's own professional practice 38
Selecting and organizing videos to view in line with learning goals and contexts 20
The effects of video viewing on teacher education and professional development 175 (10)
Video viewing and teacher motivation 9
Video viewing and teacher cognition 37
Video viewing and teacher classroom practice 32
Recommendations for effective video viewing 87
Note. The numbers in parentheses refer to studies used in the introduction and the conclusion of each category.
2
Sherin (2001) borrowed the concept of “professional vision”from the linguistic anthropologist Goodwin (1994) for research on teacher professional
development and suggested that teachers need to develop the capacity to notice and interpret the key aspects of classroom interactions. This initial idea of
professional vision was since been discussed and refined by others (Blomberg et al., 2011; Lefstein &Snell, 2011; McDonald &Rook, 2014; Michalsky, 2014;
Seidel &Stürmer, 2014; Steffensky, Gold, Holdynski, &M€
oller, 2015).
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 45
decisions based on those interpretations (Borko, Koellner, Jacobs, &Seago, 2011; Jacobs, Lamb, &Philipp, 2010; Kersting,
Givvin, Thompson, Santagata, &Stigler, 2012; van Es &Sherin, 2008).
3.1. Video viewing and selective attention
Although it is generally acknowledged thatviewing a classroom video engages PTs and ITs in a complex activity that elicits
cognitive, emotional, and motivational processes (Kleinknecht &Schneider, 2013; Koehler, Yadav, Phillips, &Cavazos-Kottke,
2005; Seidel et al., 2011; Yadav et al., 2011), many authors maintain that the main process is selective attention (Fadde &
Sullivan, 2013; Kersting, 2008; Miller &Zhou, 2007; Sherin &van Es, 2009). Whether the term used for this cognitive pro-
cess is “call out”(Frederiksen, 1992), “stopping point”(Jacobs &Morita, 2002), “check point”(Leinhardt, Putnam, Stein, &
Baxter, 1991), “foci”and “threshold”(Fadde &Sullivan, 2013)or“noticing”(van Es &Sherin, 2008), selective attention is
always associated with PTs' and ITs’ability to identify certain classroom events, despite their multiplicity, simultaneity and
complexity. For example, Seidel and Stürmer (2014) conceptualized this cognitive process (“noticing”) by focusing on the
three components, goal clarity and orientation, teacher support, and learning climate, stemming from the model of Seidel and
Shavelson (2007).
Most authors agree that enriching selective attention should be an objective of both teacher education and professional
development. Indeed, both PTs and ITs suffer from an inability to identify relevant classroom events without training and
focus. Concerning PTs, studies indicate that they have a hard time identifying relevant events in classroom videos (Calandra
et al., 2008; Erickson, 2007; van den Bogert et al., 2014), even when they are watching their own classroom practices (Prusak,
Dye, Graham, &Graser, 2010). Without preparation, PTs tend “to focus on superficial matters such as teacher and student
characteristics, fleeting classroom management issues and global judgments of lesson effectiveness”(Castro, Clarke, Jacobs, &
Givvin, 2005, p. 11). One of the main hypotheses to explain these difficulties is that, although the videos in most teacher
education programs are designed to encourage professional development, PTs are limited in their capacity to identify relevant
classroom events by their actual level of professional development. Thus, according to many authors, PTs are unable to
selectively attend to the most relevant events in the classroom video because they lack sufficient knowledge about the
teaching profession and specific subject areas to identify these events (Hiebert, Gallimore, &Stigler, 2002; Sherin &van Es,
2005; Stürmer, K€
onings, &Seidel, 2014; van den Berg, 2001). The study of Blomberg et al. (2011) presents a good example of
how PTs' generic and subject-based knowledge, learned in methodological courses, plays a key role in the process of selective
attention: when PTs lack the necessary knowledge, they simply fail to identify the most relevant events in the videos. Ac-
cording to these authors, selective attention should thus be seen as a “process of subject-specific socialization in teacher
education programs that involves the acquisition of knowledge (generic and subject-specific) and specific norms and beliefs
about teaching a subject matter”(p. 1139). More generally, the studies also point out that the cognitive process of selective
attention is dependent on not only what PTs know, but also their preoccupations at the time of their education, their past
experiences (Yost, Sentner, &Forlenza-Bailey, 2000), and their beliefs (Llinares &Valls, 2010; Yadav &Koehler, 2007). In short,
Fadde and Sullivan (2013) suggest that “an appropriate early step in developing classroom noticing, then, is developing se-
lective attentiondlearning what is worth attending to and what is not worth attending to within the classroom environment”
(p. 161). Concerning ITs, the studies emphasize that they tend to focus more on their own activities than their students’
activities (Colestock &Sherin, 2009; Santagata, 2009; Sherin &van Es, 2009; van Es &Sherin, 2008). Nevertheless, ITs process
visual information faster, and consistently check up on students more regularly than PTs (van den Bogert et al., 2014). Unlike
PTs, they are alsoable to distribute their attention evenly acrossthe classroom (Cortina, Miller, McKenzie, &Epstein, 2015; van
den Bogert et al., 2014).
3.2. Video viewing and knowledge-based reasoning
As noted by Lefstein and Snell (2011, p. 513), watching a classroom video engages “social practices of seeing”by eliciting
“dispositions to notice”and “capacities to reason.”In their literature review, Seidel et al. (2011) point out that this reasoning
processhas three main characteristics.First, PTsand ITs shouldhave the abilityto describe whatthey haveidentified when viewing
the video. Second, they should have the ability to interpret what they have identified by seeking, for example, to associate a
judgment and the justification for it. Third, they should have the ability to imagine the consequences, and even rectifications, of
what they have identified (Berliner, 1986; Jacobs et al., 2010; Santagata, Zannoni, &Stigler, 2007; van Es &Sherin, 2008). For
example, Sherin and van Es (2002) recorded PTs discussing videotaped classroom situations over the course of their video club
interventions and codedtheir statements accordingto three qualitativelydifferent aspects: (a) describe, (b) explain, and (c) predict
classroom situations. These aspects are conceptualized as distinct but highly interrelated (van Es &Sherin, 2002).
Some studies have specifically examined the nature of PTs' and ITs' activity as they engage in a process of reasoning
(Colestock &Sherin, 2009; Goeze, Zottmann, Schrader, &Fischer, 2010; Santagata &Guarino, 2011; Sherin &van Es, 2009).
The main finding is that the nature of this activity depends in great part on the level of professional development (Putnam &
Borko, 2000;Schwindt, 2008; Seidel &Prenzel, 2007). From a theoretical framework based on the theory of inquiry (Dewey,
1927, 1938), Lussi Borer and Muller (2014) recently identified two levels of reasoning activity in PTs as they viewed videos of
other unknown PTs. They engaged in a “first level”of reasoning activity directly related to the observed events. This activity
can be a simple reaction such as nodding or smiling. It can also be a description, interpretation, explanation or even
assessment of what has just been identified. The PTs also displayed a “second level”of reasoning activity enabling them to
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6746
compare the visualized events with previous events encountered in their education courses and/or their own classroom
situations. Through this activity of comparing observed and/or experienced events, PTs ultimately manage to better describe,
interpret and evaluate what they are able to identify when watching videos. When PTs have access to the classroom expe-
rience of unknown PTs, they engage in the “second level”of reasoning. This reasoning results from the tension created by
comparing an unknown PT's filmed activity and the same PT's comments on it during an interview
3
(Leblanc &S
eve, 2012).
Concerning ITs, Colestock and Sherin (2009) investigated the nature of their activity during the reasoning process. Theyshow
that ITs engage in five more or less cumulative sense-making strategies: comparison, generalization, perspective taking,
reflective thinking, and problem solving. In addition, van Es and Sherin (2008) observed that these sense-making strategies
are more or less well-articulated, depending on the IT. They thus differentiate ITs engaged on a “direct path”(a particular
strategy for video viewing chosen and used holistically), a “cyclical path”(characterized by a teacher cycling between broad
and narrow perspectives over time), or an “incremental path”(these teachers appear to develop their ability to notice
gradually). Sherin and Russ (2014) recently introduced “interpretive frames”to further specify the relationship between the
sub-processes involved in ITs noticing. The authors note that “they are structures that describe the ways in which a teacher’s
selective attention both grows out of and informs his or her knowledge-based reasoning, and vice versa. That is, the ‘cyclic’
and ‘intergrated’nature of the sub-processes of selectiveattention and knowledge-based reasoning are formalized by, evident
in, and defined by the interpretive frame”(p. 5). In their study, they identified a stable set of thirtheen strategiesdor
interpretive framesdthat ITs used during the video-based noticing interviews to make sense of classroom interactions (e.g.,
affective, alternatives, storytelling, metaphor, evaluation, anomaly).
When PTs and ITs talk about what they identify in classroom videos, they do not simply provide a list of items or events
that were identified. Instead, they describe their reasoning about what they identify. Furthermore, theses descriptions are
usually embedded within an extended story or an explanation or hypothesis about what is going on (Leblanc &S
eve, 2012;
Lussi Borer &Muller, 2014; Sherin &Russ, 2014).
4. Objectives of video viewing in teacher education and professional development
The second aspect of our conceptualization points to objectives of video viewing in teacher education and professional
development. These objectives are defined from learning goals. In other words, the question is not how to use video viewing
in teacher education and professional development but the ways inwhich video viewing can contribute to achieving learning
goals, and do so in a way that is specificdbut not systemicdand/or integrated with other programs. The following questions
must be addressed: What are the objectives of video viewing in teacher education and professional development? What are
the foundations of these objectives? Is it possible to conjugate different objectives in the same teacher education or pro-
fessional development course?
Although institutional or technological constraints to using videos exist, the objectives of video viewing generally depend
on the theoretical foundations on which teacher education and professional development courses are built (Gaudin &Chali
es,
2012; Leblanc &Veyrunes, 2011; Meloth, Good, &Sugar, 2008). Studies that examine video viewing in teacher education and
professional development draw on a broad range of theoretical frameworks (Table 6). These theoretical frameworks first
guide the selection of the objectives for video viewing and overall the manner in which teacher education or professional
development programs are designed, and data collected and analyzed. Nevertheless, some studies are not clear as to how
their framework informed the teacher education or professional development experiences they designed and how their
framework guided the collection and analysis of their data (e.g., Abell &Cennamo, 2004).
The literature distinguishes six objectives of video viewing in teacher education and professional development: (a) show
examples of good teaching practices, (b) show characteristic professional situations, (c) analyze the diversity of classroom
practices from different perspectives, (d) stimulate personal reflection, (e) guide/coach teaching, and (f) evaluate compe-
tencies (Fadde &Rich, 2010; Janík et al., 2009; Martin &Siry, 2012; Masats, Sormunen, Hacklin, &Ducos, 2007; Wang &
Hartley, 2003). With the exception of evaluation as an objective (see for example, Admiraal, Hoeksma, van de Kamp, &
van Duin, 2011; Wiens, Hessberg, LoCasale-Crouch, &DeCoster, 2013), the literature thus reveals two main objectives of
video viewing to help PTs to learn to teach and ITs to improve their professional practice. The first is designed from a
“developmentalist”perspective and the objective is thus building knowledge on “how to interpret and reflect on classroom
practices”(Sherin, 2004, p. 14). The second objective is designed from a “normative”perspective, with the objective being the
construction of “what to do”in the classroom (Fuller &Manning, 1973; Lampert &Ball, 1998).
4.1. Video viewing to build knowledge on “how to interpret and reflect”
According to most studies, video viewing is used to expose PTs and ITs to a wide variety of professional practices and to
stimulate their professional reflection (Brophy, 2004; Merseth, 1994; Meyer, David, Cantin, &Aub
e, 2005; Sherin &van Es,
2002). This objective of video viewing targets both teacher education and professional development. The objective is not
3
This interview is like a self-confrontation interview of an unknown PT about his or her classroom activity. In this study, with the support of a teacher
educator, the PTs viewed the videos of the classroom situation and the interview on a web platform: N
eopass@ction. - http://neo.ens-lyon.fr/neo (an
English interface is available. To obtain access, please contact. assistance.neo@ens-lyon.fr)
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 47
to characterize “good”and “bad”teaching practices; that is, practices to reproduce or reject (Hewitt, Pedretti, Bencze,
Vaillancourt, &Yoon, 2003; Santagata &Guarino, 2011). Instead, the aim is to provide PTs and ITs with selected videos of
“‘examples’not ‘exemplars’” that can be used as “springboards for analysis and discussions about teaching and learning”
(Borko et al., 2011, p.184). As an example, viewing a video of another teacher can help PTs to uncover, clarify and refine their
personal theories on teaching and learning, challenge these theories, and develop new understandings about teaching and
learning (Abell &Cennamo, 2004).
“Problem-based learning”has a key role (Maher, Landis, &Palius, 2010; Zhang et al., 2011) in helping PTs and ITs to build
knowledge on “how to interpret and reflect.”The work of Borko et al. (2008, 2011) is frequently evoked in this regard, as these
authors proposed groupwork situations for ITs as “problem-solving cycles”(PSC) from a situated perspective (Lave &Wenger,
1991 ). Santagata et al. (2007), Santagata (2009),Santagata and Angelici (2010),Santagata and Guarino (2011), Santagata and
Yeh (2013) investigated the consequences of a “lesson analysis framework”on the educational decisions made by PTs and ITs
to support student learning in mathematics. In the same vein, Lewis (2000) designed a “lesson-study”in which PTs plan a
lesson together, select a volunteer to teach it, and then watch its video recording focusing on the activities they jointly
planned and on their impact on student learning. “Video clubs”are yet another means to help ITs build the capacity to notice
and interpret certain classroom events (Sherin &Han, 2004; Sherin &van Es, 2005; Sherin, Russ, Sherin, &Colestock, 2008;
Sherin &van Es, 2009;van Es, 2012). Although the succession of these studies indicates that improvements have been made,
video clubs are usually regular meetings where ITs with varying degrees of experience can collectively visualize and analyze
videos of their classroom practice. “Microteaching”programs also use video to develop skills in “how to interpret and reflect”
in teacher education (Amobi, 2005; Ostrosky, Mouzourou, Danner, &Zaghlawan, 2013; S¸ en, 2009; Yamamoto &Hicks, 2007).
Based on Vygotsky's theory of social constructivism (1978), for example, a recent study by Koc (2011) offers a broad outline for
teacher education using videos of PTs who elaborate, carry out, and analyze role plays of classroom situations. Last, “video
annotation”methods have shown great promise for guiding sophisticated analysis of self-video by PTs. For example, teacher
education courses that allow for “critical incident analysis
4
”(Griffin, 2003; Tripp, 1993) have been studied (Calandra,
Brantley-Dias, &Mcneal, 2007, 2008; Calandra, Brantley-Dias, Lee, &Fox, 2009; Calandra &Brantley-Dias, 2010; Calandra
&Puvirajah, 2011; Calandra &Rich, 2014; Fadde, Aud, &Gilbert, 2009; Fadde &Rich, 2010; Fadde &Sullivan, 2013; McFadden,
Table 6
Examples of theoretical frameworks used by studies on video viewing in teacher education and professional development.
Examples of theoretical frameworks Studies
An activity-centred approach to work analysis (Durand &Poizat, 2014)
Enaction theory (Varela, Thompson, &Rosch, 1991), Course-of-action theory (Theureau, 2003)
Leblanc &Ria, 2014
Cognitive Development Process Model (Chan &Harris, 2005)Brouwer &Robijns, 2014
Cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, &Coulson, 1992)Yadav &Koehler, 2007
Constructivist perspective (Prosser &Trigwell, 1998)Yung et al., 2007
Culturalist anthropology based on the analytical philosophy of Wittgenstein (1996) Gaudin, Flandin, Ria, &Chali
es, 2014
Enaction theory (Varela et al. 1991)Coles, 2013
Generative theory (Wittrock, 1974)egenerative theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 1997)Calandra &Brantley-Dias, 2010
Inquiry theory (Dewey, 1927, 1938)Lussi &Muller, 2014
Learning and Teaching Geometry model (LTG)
Teaching and learning perspective (Cohen, Raudenbush, &Ball, 2003)
Seago, Driscoll, &Jacobs, 2010
Learning to Notice Framework (LNF)
Linguistic anthropology eProfessional vision (Goodwin, 1994)
Situative perspective eSituated cognition (Brown, Collins, &Duguid, 1989), expertise (Lesgold et al., 1988),
teaching-incontext theory (Schoenfeld, 1998)
van Es &Sherin, 2008
Lesson Analysis Framework (LAF)
Experiment model for teaching (Hiebert, Morris, &Glass, 2003), lesson study (Lewis &Tsuchida, 1998)
Santagata et al., 2007
Levels in Learning framework (Korthagen &Lagerwerf, 1995)Calandra, Sun, &Puvirajah, 2014
Multi-theory and practice based approach
Distributed cognition (Perkins, 1992), situated learning (Greeno, Collins, &Resnick, 1996), new research
on expertise (Bransford, Brown, &Cocking, 2000)
Kale &Whitehouse, 2008
Pragmatic philosophy (Mead, 1982)Harlin, 2014
Problem-Based Learning approach (PBL)
Ill-structured problems (Hung, 2006), facilitation (Hmelo-Silver &Barrows, 2008), collaborative discussion
(Mennin, 2007), and self-directed research (Savery, 2006)
Zhang et al., 2011
Problem-Solving Cycle model (PSC)
Situative perspective ecommunities of practice (Lave &Wenger, 1991), situated learning and artifacts
of practice (Greeno et al., 1996)
Borko et al., 2008
Reflective practitioner (Sch€
on, 1983; Van Manen, 1977)Calandra et al., 2008
Social constructivism theory (Vygotsky, 1978)Koc, 2011
Sociocultural perspective eDialogic inquiry (Wells, 2002; Wenger, 1998)Llinares &Valls, 2010
Teachers' professional vision: Noticing and knowledge-based reasoning (e.g., Sherin, 2001; Berliner, 1991)Blomberg et al., 2011
4
By “critical incidents”,Griffin (2003) mean teaching moments participants experienced or observed during the lesson that amused or annoyed, were
typical or atypical, or were something the participants found to be a difficulty or success.
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6748
Ellis, Anwar, &Roehrig, 2014; Rich &Hannafin, 2008, 2009; Rich &Tripp, 2011). PTs are usually asked to (a) videotape their
lessons, (b) watch the video in order to select and edit video clips focused on critical incidents, (c) analyze the clips through a
written reflection, and (d) post the clips on the PTs' electronic portfolio or a learning management system. Video annotation
can also work with peer video (Fadde &Sullivan, 2013) or unknown teacher's video (Kucan, Palincsar, Khasnabis, &Chang,
2009). Nevertheless, the comparative study of Fadde and Sullivan (2013) has shown that these sophisticated methods of
video annotation seem more beneficial for late-stage PTs than for early-stage PTs. These last benefit more from a simplified
guided video viewing activity. Moreover, the simplicity of the guided video viewing activity may help overcome the resistance
of teacher education faculty and cooperating teachers to using video annotation tools for analyzing the teaching practice of
PTs (Shepherd &Hannafin, 2008, 2009). Fadde and Sullivan (2013) thus suggest that “incorporating simpler video observation
activities early in teacher education may lead to greater acceptance of advanced video observations activities later during
student-teaching and professional practice”(p. 170). More generally, Scott, Kucan, Correnti, and Miller (2013) emphasize that
video viewing needs to be introduced early in teacher education because when video is used as a “mediating tool,”reflection
on instruction and learning can emerge early in PTs' development.
4.2. Video viewing to build knowledge on “what to do”
In some cases, the primary interest of videoviewing is not its potential to develop teachers’reflective practice, but instead to
present the “best practices”in a variety of circumstances in the teaching profession(Andre, Schmidt, Nonis, Buck, &Hall, 2000;
Goldman &Barron, 1990; Merseth, 1994). Selected and shown from this perspective, videos show examples of good teaching
practices (Marsh et al., 2009; Seago, 2004) or typical classroom lessons (Clarke et al., 2008; Yung et al., 2007). They thus
contribute to building teaching knowledge about “what to do”(Brouwer, 2011b). This objective of video viewing targets more
specifically teacher education. For example, showing PTs videos of several “best practices”raises their awareness of the di-
versity of approaches to teaching and learning (Oonk, Goffree, &Verloop, 2004; Rosaen, Degnan, VanStratt, &Zietlow, 2004)
and avoids demotivating them (Wong, Yung, Cheng, Lam, &Hodson, 2006). However, showing PTs and ITs videos of other
teachers and usingthem to determinewhether they are good practices or not raises ethical issues (Arafeh &McLaughlin, 2002).
Whatever the objective, videos can be viewed using several settings that can sometimes be combined. As an example, a
video can be viewed as a class activity (Koc, 2011; Rosaen et al., 2010a) or as a distance-learning activity (Karsenti &Collin,
2011; Krammer et al., 2006), live (Mitchell, Marsh, Hobson, &Sornsen, 2008; Whyte, 2011) or recorded (Kleinknecht &
Schneider, 2013; Wang, 2013), as an occasional activity (Calandra et al., 2008; Tripp &Rich, 2012a) or as part of regular
activities (Santagata, 2009; van Es &Sherin, 2008), and alone (Star &Stirkland, 2008; van den Berg, 2001) or in a group (Borko
et al., 2008; van Es, 2012). Video viewing is also sometimes combined with other technologies such as electronic portfolios
(Cooper, 2015; Fadde et al., 2009), online discussions (Koc, Peker, &Osmanoglu, 2009; Llinares &Valls, 2009; Yamamoto &
Hicks, 2007), video-conferencing (Dyke, Harding, &Liddon, 2008;Marsh et al., 2009;Wiesemes &Wang, 2010), “multimodal
resources”: digital pictures and texts (Roche &Gal-Petitfaux, 2015), DVD and CD-ROM (Chan &Harris, 2005; Yung et al.,
2007), TV programmes,
5
or web platforms
6
(Aub
e, David, Cantin, &Meyer, 2003; Baecher &Kung, 2011; Leblanc &Ria,
2014). However, the number of tools remains limited due to the high time investment required, particularly for organiza-
tion and management (Krammer et al., 2006), and the high cost (Koc, 2011). Studies have also shown the resistance of
university supervisors and cooperating teachers to use video annotation tools for analyzing the teaching practice of PTs
compared with the simplicity of the guided video viewing activity (Fadde &Sullivan, 2013; Shepherd &Hannafin, 2008).
4.3. Hybrid objective of video viewing
Although their theoretical bases are difficult to reconcile, many authors recommend incorporating these two objectives
(“developmentalist”and “normative”) in the same teacher education or professional development course (Dooly &Masats,
2011; Kale &Whitehouse, 2008). From a holistic, socioconstructivist perspective, Masats and Dooly (2011) suggest, for
example, an “integrative model”incorporating periods of video coaching or “zooming in,”in which PTs can review and analyze
their own classroom practice, and periods of video modeling or “freeze-framing,”in which they are presented with examples of
best practices. In the same vein, the suite of MTP
7
(“My Teaching Partner”) professional development supports contains three
specific resources that may be used eitherindividually or in tandem (Allen, Pianta, Gregory, Mikami, &Lun, 2011): a video library
of annotated examples of bestpractice, a college course and a web-mediated individualized coaching. The coaching program isa
partnership between the ITand a trained consultant that provides relevant,interactive, and ongoingfeedback and support from
a consultant and online curriculathroughout the school year. Every two weeks, using a simple video camera set up on a tripod in
their classroom, ITs videotape their own instruction and send this footage to their coach. Last, Borko et al. (2011) suggest a
“continuum”of objectives that includes the professional development of ITs. At one end of the continuum, the authors propose
positioning a “highly adaptive”objective of video viewing, with goals and resources derived from the local context and facili-
tation based on general guidelines. They associate this objective with video clubs (Sherin &Han, 2004) and problem-solving
5
For example, see: https://www.teachingchannel.org.
6
For example, see: https://teknoclips.org;http://videomosaic.org;http://www.unterrichtsvideos.ch.
7
For more information concerning MTP, see: http://curry.virginia.edu/research/centers/castl/mtp.
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 49
cycles (Borko et al., 2008). At the other end of the continuum, they position a “highly specified”objective of video viewing, with
goals, resources and facilitation materials specified for a particular, predetermined professional development experience. They
associate this objective with, for example, programs like “Learning and Teaching Geometry”(Borko et al., 2011).
4.4. Choose the objectives of video viewing based on the learning goals
Many authors think the choice of a video viewingobjective should be based on the learning goals of the teacher education
and professional development programs (Blomberg et al., 2013a; Borko et al., 2008; Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, &
Terpstra, 2010b; Santagata, 2014b). As noted by LeFevre (2004, p. 235), “video is not a curriculum. Video is rather a me-
dium which can be developed into a resource and used in specific ways to enhance learning.”The learning goals to be pursued
are in turn chosen in accordance with teachers’needs (Borko et al., 2008); that is, within the central context of teaching-
learning (Borko et al., 2011) and always in relation to the reality of what they experience in their classrooms (Hewitt et al.,
2003). For example, according to Seidel, Blomberg, and Renkl (2013), using a video as “an anchor”(example-rule) helps
PTs in planning their lessons, whereas using it as “an illustrative example”(rule-example) promotes the ability to reproduce
factual knowledge and evaluate videotaped classroom situations.
5. The nature of classroom videos viewed in teacher education and professional development
The third aspect of our conceptualization relates to the nature of classroom videos viewed in teacher education and
professional development. Understanding the affordances and challenges related to the viewing of each type of video is
important for choosing them and using them well, specifically in terms of the context and the visioning objectives sought. The
following questions need to be considered: What types of video are viewed in teacher education and professional devel-
opment? What are the affordances and challenges related to viewingeach type of video? What are the most appropriate ways
to view the video, depending on the type of video? How can one choose and associate different types of video? Should the
focus be placed on teachers or students’activity while viewing videos of classroom interactions?
Three types of videos are used in teacher education and professional development: classrooms videos of unknown
teachers (Hatch &Grossman, 2009), classrooms videos of peers (Sherin &Han, 2004), and classroom videos of one's own
activity (Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, &Terpstra, 2008).
5.1. Viewing videos of unknown teacher activity
The main advantage of this type of video is that it facilitates the appropriation of a method for analyzing professionalpractices.
PTsand ITs can then apply these methodswhen they view theirown classroomactivity or thatof their peers (Santagata&Guarino,
2011;Zhanget al.,2011). In addition,PTs and ITstend to become moreinvolvedin peer discussions and reflectionas they watch this
type of video than they would be if they were watching their own classroom practice (Kleinknecht &Schneider, 2013; Mitchell
et al., 2008; Seidel et al., 2011). Although somewhat counterintuitive, ITs' emotional and motivational engagement is higher
when they viewthe professional practices of unknown teachers, according to recent studies (e.g., Kleinknecht &Schneider, 2013).
However, the major limitation of this type of video is that the educational contexts are often far removed from PTs' and ITs’actual
classroom experiences, which ultimately may lessen their utility (Leblanc, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011).
Some studies provide recommendations for using this type of video. These studies emphasize that it is important to first
describe the educational context in which the video was made (Brunvand, 2010; Coles, 2013; Leblanc, 2012;Moreno &
Abercrombie, 2010;Zhang et al., 2011), particularly those elements (the teacher's educational objectives, lesson plans, stu-
dent work, the context of the establishment, etc.) that will inform the PTs and ITs as they watch. For instance, the teaching
methods being used should be explained (Santagata &Angelici, 2010;Borko et al., 2008; Meloth, 2008; Santagata, 2009). Other
studies underline the importance of enriching the viewing experience by incorporating comments on the teacher'sactivity over
the course of the video (Brunvand, 2010; Leblanc, 2012; Renkl, Hilbert, &Schworm, 2009; Zhang et al., 2011). These comments
help PTs and ITs to access implicitelements that are hard to discern, suchas the teacher's preoccupations,intentions or emotions
(Zhang et al., 2011), and avoid misinterpretations (Koc et al., 2009). Often brought up again during post-practice interviews
(Leblanc &Ria, 2014), these comments can be provided on paper or directly integrated into the video as hyperlinks to texts or
audio (Brunvand &Fishman, 2006). Some authors even suggest having the videoed teacher participate in the viewing session in
order to comment on his or her own classroom practice (Marsh et al., 2009). Last, innovative technologies offer the prospect of
associating the video with feedback from peers, experienced teachers and researchers via a web platform (Leblanc &Ria, 2014).
5.2. Viewing videos of peer activity
The main advantage of peer videos is that PTs and ITs are reassured and feel less isolated in their classrooms and schools.
They see what their peers are doing in teaching circumstances similar to their own, as if they were “seeing an echo”(Leblanc
&S
eve, 2012). Zhang et al. (2011) also note that this type of video provides PTs and ITs with a “window into practice”that
engages them in comparative and critical thinking. Through this “mimetic experience”(Durand, 2008), they are able to “see
the other as oneself”(Leblanc, 2012) and understand that they face similar problems (Borko et al., 2008), which ultimately
makes it easier to change classroom practices after successfully identifying, interpreting and discussing with others new ways
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6750
of doing things (Baecher &Tuten, 2011; Borko et al., 2008; Harford et al., 2010; van Es &Sherin, 2008). To give an example,
Flandin and Ria (2012) show that viewing a peer video can generate dissatisfaction with one's own classroom practice and
push PTs to “move toward”new and more satisfactory ways of teaching. The main criticism of this type of video is that PTs and
ITs are often reluctant to engage in a deep analysis of a peer's professional practice, even though one's preservice peers have
much about their practice that can be criticized (Leblanc, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011).
5.3. Viewing videos of one's own professional practice
8
This is “like having a mirror placed in my face”(Zhang et al., 2011). The main interest of watching videos on one's own
classroom practice is that it provokes the development of descriptive and critical reflection. Although not systematic
(Kleinknecht &Schneider, 2013), seeing oneself increases PT and IT activation in terms of immersion, resonance, authenticity
and motivation compared with viewing the practice of other teachers (Borko et al., 2008; Brouwer, 2012; Rosaen et al., 2008;
Seidel et al., 2011). When they watch their own classroom experience on video, PTs and ITs gain a certain distance (Downey,
2008; Shepherd &Hannafin, 2009), which allows them to gradually come to “know and recognize”themselves (Leblanc, 2012),
and they learn to spot elements in their teaching practices that bear improvement (Borko et al., 2008). With repeated use of
these videos, PTs and ITs enhance their cognitive powers of observation, identification and interpretation, as well as their
capacity for classroom action (Coffey, 2014; Krammer et al., 2006; Sherin &van Es, 2009; Star &Stirkland, 2008). PTs and ITs
also learn to seek specific evidence from the video to support claims and to be more cautious in making judgments (Baecher &
Kung, 2011). The videos also reveal classroom events they had missed during the actual lesson (Borko et al., 2008, 2011; Coffey,
2014; Romano &Schwartz, 2005; Zhang et al., 2011). For example, they see more clearly the effects of their interactions with
students, the activities of student groups that were outside of their range of vision, and their own “mannerisms”(Snoeyink,
2010). Similarly, “seeing oneself”can also create dissonance when PTs and ITs perceive a difference between what they
remember of their activity and what they are seeing on video (Baecher &Kung, 2011; Harlin, 2014; Rosaen et al., 2008). More
generally, PTs perceive viewing their own classroom teaching as a beneficial experience (Downey, 2008; Snoeyink, 2010; Wu &
Kao, 2008). The presence of peers also provides PTs and ITs with a “double mirror,”with observations that they might not have
thought of and positive support to counteract the tendency toward harsh self-criticism (van Es, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011).
Although this type of video hasmany advantages, quite a few PTs and ITs are uncomfortable with being filmed or having the
results be viewed by others. They mayset up self-defense mechanisms (Eraut, 2000; Krone, Hamborg, &Gediga, 2002)oreven
refuse to participate (Borko et al., 2008; Sherin &Han, 2004). To overcome these difficulties, several studies recommend
building a community of support (Borko et al., 2008; Coyle, 2004; Lasagabaster &Sierra, 2011; Sherin &Han, 2004). As pointed
out by Borko et al. (2008,p.422),“to be willing to take such a risk, teachers must feel part of a safe and supportive professional
environment. They also should feel confident that showing their videos will provide learning opportunities for themselves and
their colleagues, and that the atmosphere willbe one of productive discourse.”Some studies thus suggest that PTs and ITs need
to learn norms for interacting with one another before they can focus on analyzing the events in the video clips (Ostrosky et al.,
2013; van Es, 2012). Snoeyink (2010) adds that it is also important to have teacher educators inform the participants that they
will not be evaluated and that the data will not be shared with anyone else. Building an effective support community, however,
takes time (Borko et al., 2008; van Es, 2012) because an atmosphere of mutual trust must be created among the PTs and/or ITs,
and between them and their teacher educators (Lasagabaster &Sierra, 2011; Tripp &Rich, 2012a; Zhang et al., 2011). One
solution to some of the problems of working with PT and IT videos is a better balance between individual and collective ed-
ucation efforts. Most studies have focused on sessions in which viewing and analysis were conducted either individually
(Rosaen et al., 2008; Yerrick, Ross, &Molebash, 2005) or collectively (Borko et al., 2008; Harford &MacRuairc, 2008). Yet some
studies suggest combining these sequences so that PTs and ITs can enrich their reflective skills of description, comparison, and
interpretation and optimize their own professional practice (Roche &Gal-Petitfaux, 2014; Zhang et al., 2011). Another solution
is to create the conditions that prompt the development of teacher learning communities (Hatch &Grossman, 2009; Sherin,
2007; van Es, 2012). For example, van Es (2012) suggests a “framework for the development of a teacher learning community in
a video club”based on the three central features of teacher learning communities: collegial and collaborative interactions,
participation and discourse norms for productive collaboration, and the focus of activity on teaching and student learning.
Teachereducators can use this framework as a guide to design experiences to help ITs to build learning communities, as well as
to gauge their progress as they move toward this vision. In addition, recent studies show that teachers' prior knowledge
influenced their ability to effectively reflect on video of their own teaching (Calandra et al., 2014; Seidel et al., 2011). Calandra
et al. (2014) underline thus the importance to consider carefully teachers’prior knowledge when making decisions about how
much guidance to provide during video-aided reflection. More generally, Kleinknecht and Schneider (2013) note that watching
oneself teaching requires more preparation and scaffolding than does watching other teachers.
5.4. Selecting and organizing videos to view in line with learning goals and contexts
Few comparative studies have examined the impact on PTs and ITs of viewing different types of videos (Seidel et al.,
2011; Zhang et al., 2011). The conclusions of these studies nonetheless suggest how to most effectively select and
8
For a literature review, see: Tripp and Rich (2012b).
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 51
organize videos in line with learning goals and contexts. First, viewing the videos of unknown teachers seems best adapted
for use in the context of methodological core courses given by university lecturers (Blomberg et al., 2011; Leblanc, 2012;
Zhang et al., 2011) in the context of teacher education. In this context, Zottmann et al. (2013) show that ITs have more
difficulty than PTs in applying knowledge to view videos for three main reasons: they have forgotten knowledge that is little
used, they have never acquired the knowledge, or they refuse to apply empirical research or theory. Moreover, some re-
searchers suggest that the videos of unknown teachers be used at the beginning of the course while PTs and ITs are learning
a method of analysis (Santagata &Guarino, 2011; Zhang et al., 2011). Leblanc (2012) finds it preferable to choose clips based
on PTs' evolving concerns. According to the author, videos of unknown PTs facing the same “typical”difficulties should be
used initially and then, once the PTs feel more confident, they will be ready to have videos of their own practice viewed by
others (Escobar Urmeneta, 2010; Fadde &Sullivan, 2013). Second, viewing videos of peer activity and one's own profes-
sional practice is better adapted to learning how to teach in the context of practicum seminars or study groups with a
facilitator (Leblanc, 2012; Seidel et al., 2011; van Es &Sherin, 2008). Viewing these two types of vidoes can be adapted for
both teacher education and professional development. Studies have particularly shown that watching their own profes-
sional practice facilitates the activation of prior knowledge and experiences about teaching and learning (Faïta, 2007; Siedel
et al., 2005, 2011). From this perspective, Faïta (2007) proposes, for example, having PTs use video as an investigative tool in
three stages: (a) “simple”
9
self-confrontation of the PT with his or her teaching practice, in the presence of the teacher
educator, (b) “crossed”
10
self-confrontation of the PT with his or her own teaching practice, in the presence of a peer as well,
and (c) video viewing and crossed self-confrontation with a group of PTs. However, the videos viewed in the two contexts
need to show a “family resemblance”(e.g., the educational objectives, student characteristics, obstacles encountered by the
teacher) so that PTs and ITs can spot the resemblances and give them meaning (Gaudin &Chali
es, 2011). More generally,
Leblanc (2014a) recently proposed a “continuum of teacher professionalization”over the course of several years in teacher
video-enhanced education. With a progressive entry into the profession, this continuum of teacher video-enhanced edu-
cation begins with a situation such as an allo-confrontation
11
conducted at the university and targeting PTs doing obser-
vation and/or teaching with the assistance of a cooperating teacher. Then, this situation is combined with a type of self-
confrontation for PTs doing student teaching in their own classes and at the university or the school. Finally, “simple”or
“crossed”self-confrontation situations are privileged methods for enriching ITs groups within school institutions. Moreover,
“the potential value of using both kinds of video material depends on one's learning goals”(Blomberg et al., 2013a, p. 100).
In this sense, Seidel et al. (2011) show that a video of one's own professional practice more effectively promotes ITs'
reflection on teaching and learning, whereas a video of other teachers is more useful for developing a critical stance toward
instruction.
Some research also suggests the need to think about the primacy given to videos that focus on the teacher's activity. These
studies point out the interest of taking student activity as a starting point for teacher education and professional development
(Borko et al., 2008; Kersting et al., 2012; Palius &Maher, 2013; van Es &Sherin, 2008). Ball and Cohen (1999, p. 9) note that
“teachers need to learn how to read children to know more about what they are thinking and learning.”Video can show the
complexity of classroom practice and make student thinking visible (Barnhart &van Es, 2015; Santagata &Yeh, 2013).
Santagata and van Es (2010), for example, designed the “Learning to Learn from Teaching”(LLfT) course to develop
elementary and secondary PTs' skills in three domains: (a) attention to student thinking, (b) interpretation of student
thinking, and (c) planning and enactment of strategies to make student thinking visible. Influenced by research on teacher
noticing, lesson analysis, and teacher reflection, this course consists of three main phases. The first phase introduces PTs to
theories about analytic and responsive teaching practice. The second phase focuses on providing structured practice using
frameworks such as those proposed by Hiebert, Morris, Berk, and Jansen (2007) and Rodgers (2002) to analyze student
thinking and strategies that teachers in video case studies employed to promote classroom discourse to make student
thinking visible (Hufferd-Ackles, Fuson, &Sherin, 2004;Lemke, 2002;van Zee &Minstrell, 1997). In the final phase, PTs apply
these skills to design, video record, and reflect on their own teaching practice. In a recent study examining this course (Sun &
van Es, 2015), analysis of secondary mathematics PTs' videos reveals that they engaged in more student-centered practices
compared with a cohort of candidates who did not participate in the course. In the same vein, Santagata and Guarino (2011)
show the interest of asking PTs to film and transcribe (including descriptions of the child's non-verbal behavior) an interview
with a student to “develop PTs' appreciation of the complexity of students' mathematical thinking and ability”(p. 136). More
generally, the use of video viewing in teacher education and professional development appears to be an effective way for PTs
and ITs to learn to implement innovative instructional strategies (Siry &Martin, 2014; Sun &van Es, 2015). Maher, Palius,
Maher, Hmelo-Silver, and Sigley (2014) note that “video can provide opportunities for teacher professional development
by encouraging teachers to focus on teaching and learning in ways that they would not be able during classroom instructional
time and by providing virtual experiences that allow detailed studies of student thinking”(p. 32).
9
“Simple”self-confrontation (confronting subjects to their own activity) reveals the cognitive processes underlying the activity (Mollo &Falzon, 2004).
10
“Crossed”self-confrontation is based on a video clip made by the researcher that presents the notable differences in doing things of two teachers in
similar situations. The researcher encourages comments from the teacher whose activity is not shown. The second teacher, whose activity is shown, listens
to these comments. Professional disagreements can then be engaged.
11
Allo-confrontation (confronting subjects to an activity they practice but which is performed by someone else, without the latter being present) allows
subjects to develop their knowledge by getting aware of other types of representations (Mollo &Falzon, 2004).
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6752
6. The effects of video viewing on teacher education and professional development
The fourth aspect of our conceptualization relates to the effects of video viewing on teacher education and professional
development. Awareness of these effects is crucial to assess the potential value of video viewing for teacher education and
professional development, and, ultimately, to enrich one's understanding of the nature of teachers' activity as they view a
classroom video. The following questions should be raised: What are the effects of video viewing on teacher education and
professional development? Should these effects be observed in teachers' activity or also that of students? Under which
conditions can video viewing truly generate effects on teacher education and professional development?
Assessing the effects of video use on teacher education and professional development is inherently complex (Brophy,
2004; Seidel et al., 2011; Sherin, 2004) particularly because it is often associated with other technology tools in education
programs (Masats &Dooly, 2011). With few exceptions (e.g., Yadav et al., 2009), most studies nevertheless underline the many
benefits of video viewing (Calandra &Brantley-Dias, 2010; Sherin &van Es, 2009; Tripp &Rich, 2012a; Wang &Hartley,
2003). Llinares and Valls (2009) (citing Wells, 2002) note that programs using video encourage “not just the development of
the learner's meaning potential, conceived as the construction of discipline-based knowledge, but the development of the
resources of action, speech, and thinking that enable the learner to participate effectively and creatively in further practical,
social and intellectual activity”(p. 268). Among the most significant benefits are heightened motivation, optimized selective
attention and knowledge-based reasoning, and improved classroom practice.
6.1. Video viewing and teacher motivation
Studies show the effects of video on teacher motivation (Barnett &Tyson, 1999; Lim &Pellett, 2009; Moreno &Valdez,
2007; Sherin, 2004). As Sherin (2004) points out, video has demonstrated its attractiveness. It is similar to authentic expe-
rience in that it positively affects intrinsic motivation and interest. Studies demonstrate a higher level of satisfaction when
teacher education courses use video rather than textual support or narrations of experience (Barrett &Rasmussen, 1996; Choi
&Jonson, 2007; Moreno, Abercrombie, &Hushman, 2009; Moreno &Valdez, 2007). The study by Harris, Pinnegar, and
Teemant (2005), for example, describes an effort to expand traditional written case study methods to include hypermedia
video ethnography (HVE) cases studies in teacher education. The authors propose a set of design principlesthat overcome the
limitations of written case studies. These principles are authenticity, problem representation, multiple perspectives, and
juxtaposing theory and practice. These studies also report an impact of increased motivation on teacher cognitive abilities.
6.2. Video viewing and teacher cognition
Numerous studies show that video use enhances selective attention. Using video, teacher educators can develop strategies
to focus attention on the most relevant classroom events (Brunvand, 2010). PTs and ITs thus develop and enhance their ca-
pacity to identify pertinent events because, as they watch the video, theyare able to focus not only on the teacher's activity, but
on the activities of the students as well (Fox, Brantley-Dias &Calandra, 2007; Sherin &van Es, 2005; van Es &Sherin, 2002;
Yerrick et al., 2005). For instance, Snoeyink (2010) shows the effectiveness of video self-analysis to help PTs identify relevant
classroom interactions and, more precisely, to see themselves from the students' perspective and to become better able to
identify how well students have understood. Other studies report that video use also enriches the capacity to interpret the
observed events, and in a more effective manner than “traditional”courses (Stürmer, K€
onings, &Seidel, 2012). It promotes the
shift from partial, more or less detailed, descriptive analysis to more focused, specific, and interpretative analysis, and this in
both ITs (Borko et al., 2008; Santagata, 2009; Tekkumru Kisa &Stein, 2015; van Es &Sherin, 2008) and PTs (Calandra et al.,
2008; Rosaen et al., 2008; Sherin &van Es, 2005; Star &Stirkland, 2008). Santagata and Guarino (2011), for example, show
that in training programs that use video, PTs learn to better interpret the reasons for and consequences of the decisions made
by the videoed teacher. Studies also show that video viewing challenges PTs' assumptions and helps them to critically examine
their beliefs and values about teaching and learning (Abell, Bryan, &Anderson, 1998; Boling, 2007; Scott et al., 2013; Yadav &
Koehler, 2007). Last, exploratory studies on the beginning teachers' activity when they view videos of peers' classroom
practice and post-practice interview (Leblanc &Ria, 2014; Leblanc &S
eve, 2012; Lussi Borer &Muller, 2014; Ria &Leblanc,
2011) have already identified the following effects: (a) reassurance and removal of guilt among beginning teachers thanks
to their new awareness of the more or less inevitable passages they must go through to acquire skills in this occupation, (b)
spontaneous recall of real experiences favored by video-based classroom situations possessing a “family resemblance”with
their own ways of exercising the profession, (c) comparison of users' real experiences with experiences presented in classroom
practice and post-practice interview videos allowing them to evaluate their own practices as they see themselves through the
eyes of others, and (d) projection into the future leading to the anticipation of as-yet-unknown scenarios, and foreseeing other
possible ones to be tested in one's own classroom, while drawing from experience acquired by peers.
A number of recent studies aiming to foster the “professional vision”have promoted the design of instruments for its
assessment (Kersting, 2008; Santagata, 2009; van Es &Sherin, 2008). At least, three instruments have recently been
developed and validated to quantify PTs' and ITs' ability to identify and interpret pertinent events portrayed in videos: The
“Observer”(Seidel, Schwindt, Stürmer, &Blomberg, 2008; Seidel et al., 2013; Seidel, Blomberg, &Stürmer, 2010; Seidel &
Stürmer, 2014), the “Classroom Video Analysis”(CVA) (Kersting, 2008; Kersting, Givvin, Sotelo, &Stigler, 2010; Kersting
et al., 2012; Kersting, Sherin, &Stigler, 2014), and the “Self-Regulated Learning-Professional Vision”(SRL-PV) scheme
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 53
(Michalsky, 2014). For example, this SRL-PV scheme is used for assessing PTs' integration of professional vision considerations
(noticing/describing/explaining/predicting) while analyzing two deliverymodes for teaching of self-regulated learning (SRL):
direct SRL teaching (explicit/implicit) and indirect SRL teaching (via environment). PTs have to analyze a videotaped lesson
using the three reasoning levels of professional vision to describe, explain, and predict the different SRL delivery modes via an
online platform (Instructions: “Please specify the time stamp in the lesson when you notice that the teacher taught SRL
[referring to direct or indirect events]. Describe what was done at each marked time to develop students' SRL. What do you
think were the teachers' considerations? Explain and predict how and why the events you describe will develop students'
SRL.”). Also, recent studies show that eye-tracking methodology makes an important addition to a mixed-method study of
PTs' and ITs' identification and interpretation of classroom events portrayed in videos (Cortina et al., 2015; van den Bogert
et al., 2014). Theses studies introduce eye-tracking as a means to directly assess PTs and ITs' ability to identify pertinent
events in classroom situations. For example, Cortina et al. (2014) used the “GINI coefficient”as a measure of the distribution of
visual fixations on students. van den Bogert et al. (2014) note that “eye-tracking is not an alternative for other methods as the
interpretation of eye-tracking data will almost always require combinations with data from other sources (e.g., verbal reports
or timestamps) that are used to signal when teachers notice particularevents”(p. 204). The added value of eye-tracking is that
it can be used to assess aspects of PTs and ITs’perception and cognition that are not accessible to conscious thought, and
therefore do not show up in verbal reports.
6.3. Video viewing and teacher classroom practice
Paradoxically, little empirical evidence has been presented on how video use benefits actual classroom practice (Christ,
Arya, &Chiu, 2014; Seidel et al., 2011; Tripp &Rich, 2012a; Whitehouse, 2010). Some studies have nevertheless shown
that teachers redeploy in the classroom capabilities first developed in video clips viewed in class (Grant &Kline, 2010;
Leblanc, 2014b; Prusak et al., 2010; Santagata &Yeh, 2013; Tripp &Rich, 2012a). Most of theses studies have inferred such
relationship from “indirect”evidences (e.g., questionnaires, written commentaries) and not from “direct”evidence, that is,
the analysis of their actual classroom practice (e.g., self-confrontation interviews). For ITs, the results of the study by Sherin
and van Es (2009) show, for example, that the “professional vision”developed by ITs during “video club”training is then
reproduced in the classroom. ITs thus rely on similar strategies in the two contexts to notice and interpret student thinking,
although the way the strategies are mobilized differs somewhat. According to the authors, “the interaction between selective
attention and knowledge-based reasoning in the classroom is quite complexdmore so than in the video club and interview
contexts when ITs were given only a small slice of instruction to consider and extended time to do so”(Sherin &van Es, 2009,
p. 33). For PTs, the results of the study by Gaudin et al. (2014) highlight that video viewing influences their classroom practice,
provided that: (a) PTs' professional concerns “resonate”with what they are viewing, and (b) PTs adopt, adapt or invent a new
way to act from what they viewed. However, PTs' and ITs’classroom practice is not only influenced by video viewing. In most
cases, their classroom practice is simultaneously influenced by others experiences: training experiences (e.g., the explana-
tions of a facilitator, discussions, etc.) and/or past teaching experiences in their own classroom (Gaudin &Chali
es, 2015). For
example, in the study by Christ et al. (2014), PTs and ITs participated in video-based reflective discussions and documented
their learning, sources of knowledge that contributed to their learning, and application of this learning to their teaching in
their practical courses. Results show that PTs and ITs reported applying 40% of their learning; particularly, what they learned
about methods and materials for instruction, and that they learned from both video and discussion almost equally.
Conversely, other studies suggest that changes in classroom practice are not due to the development of cognitive abilities
through video use. According to these studies, PTs and ITs take ways to doing things directly from the videos and then
reproduce them in the classroom as best they can but without actually being able to justify or explain the reasoning for their
actions (Gaudin et al., 2014; LeFevre, 2004). Still other studies have shown that the main effect of video use is to prepare PTs
and ITs emotionally and intellectually for the classroom (Abell, Cennamo, Anderson, &Bryan, 1996; Koc, 2011; Wang, 2013;
Zhang et al., 2011) and improve their “withitness”(Snoeyink, 2010). For example, studies have shown the impact of online
teaching videos on the development of self-efficacy beliefs in PTs (Karsenti &Collin, 2011) and ITs (Meyer, 2012). More
generally, video use has been found to help “inspire habits of praxis”(Hewitt et al., 2003, p. 500) in three broad areas: (a)
planning and preparation for differentiation, (b) teaching and learning, and (c) classroom management (Harford et al., 2010).
As such, the formative nature of video for training is also situated at the level of “proofs”that teachers can access in terms of a
“change process”in their classroom practices (Harlin, 2014; Tripp &Rich, 2012a). As an example, Brown and Kennedy (2011)
report that the discussions between educational psychologists and ITs based on videos of their own classroom teaching
helped the ITs to modify aspects of their interactional styles with disruptive students. They were able to show these changes
by comparing the videos of classroom practices at the beginning and the end of the professional development project. In the
same vein, Santagata and Yeh (2013) examined the impact of a video- and practice-based course on prospective teachers’
mathematics classroom practices and analysis of their own teaching. Findings reveal that the course assisted participants in
making student thinking visible and in pursuing it further during instruction and in conducting evidence-based analyses of
their own teaching.
Last, some authors have suggested to measure these effects, not only in terms of PTs' and ITs' activity, but from the analysis
of its effectiveness in students' work (Kersting et al., 2012; Santagata, 2014a). For example, the results of the study of Allen
et al. (2011) with 78 secondary school ITs and 2237 students show that the programme MTP, “My Teaching Partner”, im-
proves teacherestudent interactions, which in turn, increases student learning and development. All three MTP resources (a
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6754
video library of annotated examples of best practice, a college course and a web-mediated individualized coaching) rely on a
standardized observational assessment of teacherestudent interactions - the Classroom Assessment Scoring System, or
CLASS - as the primary way to observe and define effective practice. Likewise, Kiemer, Gr€
oschner, Pehmer, and Seidel (2014)
show that the Dialogic Video Cycle
12
(DVC) enhances ITs' performance in classroom discourse and affects students’interest in
the subject, self-efficacy and domain-specific self-concept of ability positively. Thus, the DVC seems a promising tool to foster
teacher learning with an impact on perceived student motivation and learning.
6.4. Recommendations for effective video viewing
The first recommendation relates to the nature of the videos. Studies about video viewing should match PTs’capacity to
identify and interpret classroom events (Gaudin &Chali
es, 2011; Kersting et al., 2010; Santagata &Guarino, 2011). Santagata
and Guarino (2011) thus point out that “the practices portrayed in the videos need to be within the zone of proximal
development of the viewer”(p. 144).
The second recommendation is inferred from the limitations of video viewing in teacher education (Blomberg et al.,
2013a; Goldman, 2007). As pointed out by Blomberg et al. (2013a),“when deciding whether or not to use video, one
should weigh such weaknesses against the perceived strengths of video as a technological tool for teacher education.
Furthermore, it is important to consider ways to address these limitations”(p. 102). Three limitations can be identified. First,
video frames are so rich in information content that they may overwhelm novice viewers (Erickson, 2007). To reduce the
cognitive load on PTs (Feldon, 2007; Sweller, 1994), it is important to plan carefully how the videos will be used (Kirschner,
Sweller, &Clark, 2006; Miller &Zhou, 2007; Quintana et al., 2002; Schworm &Renkl, 2007). For example, Brunvand (2010)
suggests focusing on short clips with “explicit prompts”embedded in the video (e.g., onscreen text or title overlays). Next,
as a video represents only one aspect of classroom reality (Sherin, 2004), having been filmed from a certain angle (Krammer
et al., 2006), PTs do not always find it easy to interpret events or they do so erroneously. To compensate for this “keyhole
effect”(van Es &Sherin, 2002), Miller and Zhou (2007) suggest giving them background information on the video and a
“particular filter”for viewing. Last, video use should be wisely chosen to produce specific PT effects. In other words, not all
teaching skills require video use to be developed, although this tool can sometimes improve skills. For instance, the activity
of “seeing the other”can be worked on by observing a peer in the classroom in vivo or by watching a video of his or her
activity (Flandin &Ria, 2012). In the same vein, video clips can be too particular to invite inference for people who teach in
settings too different from those in which the video was recorded (Herbst &Chazan, 2006; Smith, McLaughlin, &Brown,
2012). Animations
13
of nondescript cartoon characters may thus reproduce for these viewers the temporal and tactical
demands of real classroom interaction, while inviting them to project onto the scenarios the individualities of the settings in
which and the people with whom they practice (Chazan &Herbst, 2012). As an example, the study of Herbst, Nachlieli, and
Chazan (2011) shows that experienced ITs of geometry may feel more comfortable criticizing the actions of cartoon teachers
(in animation artifacts) than criticizing the actions of human teachers (in video artifacts). Furthermore, studies have shown
that animation helps PTs and ITs learn to identify and interpret relevant classroom events (Chazan, Sela, &Herbst, 2012;
Chieu, Herbst, &Weiss, 2011) as effectively as video viewing (Herbst &Kosko, 2014; Smith et al., 2012). Future studies
should therefore be conducted to examine how video and animation viewing can be combined, especially as computer
animation provides more flexibility than video in terms of variation in the situations depicted and the characterizations
used. Smith et al. (2012) indeed points out that “rapidly advancing animation technology may offer multiple advantages or
viable alternatives to staged actors and static content of live-action video in creating dynamic professional learning ex-
periences”(p. 41).
The third recommendation relates to the way to film a classroom situation because this influences the PTs' and ITs'
possibilities of identifying and interpreting classroom events on video clips with accuracy and pertinence (Borko et al., 2008;
Shepherd &Hannafin, 2008; Snoeyink, 2010; van Es &Sherin, 2008). van Es and Sherin (2008) in fact suggest adapting video
recording to the type of classroom interaction. For example, during wholeeclass activities, the video camera is zoomed out in
order to record as many interactions and as much of the discourse taking place as possible. During small-group work, the
camera remains focused on one or two groups of students working together. During individual seat-work, the camera follows
the teacher as he or she moves throughout the classroom. However, given that the camera is generally placed at the back of
classrooms to capture the central activities of the lesson with as wide an angle as possible, it may be quite difficult to see and
hear what all the student groups are doing simultaneously: forexample, facial expressions, deskwork, and student comments
(Snoeyink, 2010; Zhang et al., 2011). To overcome this limitation, some studies have used two cameras, one focused on the
teacher and one on interesting classroom interaction (Borko et al., 2008; Snoeyink, 2010). A 360
camera
14
enables also the
observer to pan, tilt and zoom around the classroom during an observation. The observer can pin point different areas within
12
Gr€
oschner et al. (2014) built a new and innovative video-based teacher professional development program, the Dialogic Video Cycle (DVC), fostering ITs'
skills to provide their students with productive classroom discourse. Productive, in this context means, that ITs verbally engage students in classroom
discourse (e.g. by activating students' pre-knowledge through open questions) as well as scaffold student learning by giving concrete and learning oriented
feedback.
13
For example, see: https://www.lessonsketch.org/login.php.
14
For example, see: http://www.irisconnect.co.uk/products/cameras.
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 55
a classroom zoom in and focus upon the activity: this can range from whiteboard notes to activities students are undertaking
in groups. Other studies have used mobile eye-trackingmethods (e.g., Cortina et al., 2015) or wearable video camera mounted
on a cap worn by the teacher (e.g., Sherin et al., 2008) to study teacher situation awareness in the course of teaching, and to
look at what viewers learn from watching teacher-perspective video as compared to traditional classroom video, which
shows the students’perspective. In addition, studies have equipped the teacher being filmed with a wireless HF microphone
(Borko et al., 2008; Snoeyink, 2010) and/or have distributed several external microphones throughout the classroom in order
to record as much of the classroom talk as possible (Marsh et al., 2009; van Es &Sherin, 2008). In addition, others suggest the
need to help PTs and ITs use the camera effectively, as they have demonstrated for the most part a lack of videotaping skills
(van Es, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011). More generally, the presence of cameras does not have a substantial effect on what takes
place in classrooms (Mitchell et al., 2008).
The fourth recommendation is related to the need to support PTs and ITs as they view video clips. For many authors, this
activity should be guided and scaffolded (Baecher &Connor, 2010; Erickson, 2007; Santagata &Angelici, 2010; van Es, Tunney,
Goldsmith, &Seago, 2014). The facilitator must therefore adjust the level and/or type of guidance to the needs of participants
while working through video-aided reflection (Brouwer &Robijns, 2014; Calandra et al., 2014; Crawford &Patterson, 2004;
Tripp &Rich, 2012b). For PTs, Dymond and Bentz (2006, p. 99) indeed stipulate that “video instruction must be highly
structured in order to positively affect their views, knowledge, and skills.”Miller (2009) proposes, for example, to guide
problem-based conversations under “Critical Friends Group”protocols. To optimize this assistance and overcome the theory-
practice gap, Escobar Urmeneta (2010) underlines that it is important for university tutors and school mentors to investigate
questions of teaching and learning together during video viewing tasks with PTs. For ITs, Coles (2013) suggests, for example,
five key aspects or decision points that the discussion facilitator should take into account for group viewing of their own
professional activity: (a) selecting the video clip, (b) setting up discussions norms, (c) rewatching the video clip, (d) moving to
interpretation, and (e) metacommenting. He adds that if the training session takes place in their own school, “the role of the
facilitator cannot be separated from a consideration of the historical context in which discussion takes place”(p. 165). More
generally, the support while viewing can be human (Sherin &van Es, 2005), technological (Calandra et al., 2007)orboth
(Fadde et al., 2009). It should be noted that some studies have shown that human support is more effective than video
feedback alone (Cuper, Gong, Farina, &Manning-Osborn, 2007; Halter, 2006; Rich &Hannafin, 2009), even when it takes
place online (Koc et al., 2009). The “facilitator”providing the human support (Le Fevre &Richardson, 2002) may be a
cooperating teacher (Fox, Brantley-Dias, &Calandra, 2006), a university supervisor (Mitchell et al., 2008), a peer (Arya, Christ,
&Chiu, 2014), an experienced peer (Fadde &Sullivan, 2013) or a researcher (Sherin &van Es, 2005). Whatever the status, the
main functions are as follows: (a) explaining how to use the tools; (b) selecting or helping PTs and ITs to select the best-suited
videos, taking into account the learning goals and anticipating the elements that may be identified and their interpretations;
(c) structuring a framework for questions (e.g., asking for critical thinking, information, observations, and connections); (d)
guiding the analysis and avoiding in particular the pitfall of merely evaluating the teacher who has been filmed; and (e)
promoting discussions among PTs and/or ITs (Arya et al., 2014; Borko et al., 2008, 2011; Santagata, 2009; Tripp &Rich, 2012a;
van Es &Sherin, 2008). This last point appears to be crucial (Brantlinger, Sherin, &Linsenmeier, 2011; Borko et al., 2008;
Rosaen et al., 2010a; van Es, 2012). By stimulating and supporting discussions based on classroom videos, the facilitator
helps PTs and ITs to maximize their reflective practice (Borko et al., 2008; Rosaen et al., 2008; Sherin &van Es, 2005)by
inviting them, for example, to work on their misinterpretations (Zhang et al., 2011) or to build new knowledge and skills
(Barab, Hay, &Duffy, 1999; Hughes, Kerr, &Ooms, 2005; Zhang et al., 2011). However, the way the facilitators view teaching
and the way the video-based teacher education and professional development is designed shape a unique professional vision,
and ultimately the nature of learning by PTs and ITs as they view the videos. Indeed, Lefstein and Snell (2011) argue that
power relations are necessarily implicated in the development of professional vision as a social activity that involves
privileging certain practices of seeing or speaking about classroom practice while marginalizing others. As a means of dealing
with these asymmetrical power relations, the authors propose first seeking to level the field by empowering ITs in the
conduct of sessions and by giving more space and deference to their professional vision (e.g., greater IT participation in
selection of video clips and facilitation of the workshops). Second, the facilitators and ITs should share their professional
visions honestly because ITs can benefit from elements of facilitators' professional visions, and vice versa. In the same vein,
since many studies that use video viewing to support PTs and ITs learning are situated in strongly guided contexts and
encourage particular kinds of thinking, very little is known about how more loosely guided contexts can support PTs and ITs to
think about the dilemmas of practice associated with their own goals by reflecting about video. According to recent studies
(Gaudin et al., 2014; Danielowich, 2014), PTs learning can be powerfully supported with loosely guided video-framed con-
texts. For instance, the study of Danielowich (2014) explores how video-based and peer-based reflections about one's own
and others' practices both indicate and guide the development of PTs' change-directed thinking when they are sequenced
before supervisor feedback. While PTs whose reflections were intermediately different from the peer group were better
supported by it, most teachers found direct support from the self-video and/or peer-video contexts to advance change-
directed thinking associated with their own goals for teaching. In sum, the high degree of scaffolding used in many
studies may, however, be prompting PTs and ITs to simply express more of what they perceive are the “right”reform-minded
ideas, just as they might do over time in response to classroom observation reports. More loosely guided scaffolds for
responding to video can help diminish this “mimicking”effect by encouraging PTs and ITs to articulate and explore the
conceptual frameworks they use to make everyday decisions about instruction and develop change-directed thinking they
will more likely enact in practice.
C. Gaudin, S. Chali
es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6756