beginning science teachers’ use of a digital video annotation tool to promote reflective practices
TRANSCRIPT
Beginning Science Teachers’ Use of a Digital Video AnnotationTool to Promote Reflective Practices
Justin McFadden • Joshua Ellis • Tasneem Anwar •
Gillian Roehrig
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract The development of teachers as reflective
practitioners is a central concept in national guidelines for
teacher preparation and induction (National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education 2008). The Teacher
Induction Network (TIN) supports the development of
reflective practice for beginning secondary science teachers
through the creation of online ‘‘communities of practice’’
(Barab et al. in Inf Soc, 237–256, 2003), which have been
shown to have positive impacts on teacher collaboration,
communication, and reflection. Specifically, TIN integrated
the use of asynchronous, video annotation as an affordance
to directly facilitate teachers’ reflection on their classroom
practices (Tripp and Rich in Teach Teach Educ
28(5):728–739, 2013). This study examines the use of video
annotation as a tool for developing reflective practices for
beginning secondary science teachers. Teachers were
enrolled in an online teacher induction course designed to
promote reflective practice and inquiry-based instruction. A
modified version of the Learning to Notice Framework
(Sherin and van Es in J Teach Educ 60(1):20–37, 2009) was
used to classify teachers’ annotations on video of their
teaching. Findings from the study include the tendency of
teachers to focus on themselves in their annotations, as well
as a preponderance of annotations focused on lower-level
reflective practices of description and explanation. Sug-
gestions for utilizing video annotation tools are discussed,
as well as design features, which could be improved to
further the development of richer annotations and deeper
reflective practices.
Keywords Teacher induction � Reflective practice �Video annotation � Teacher education
Introduction
Teacher educators have used video as a learning tool for
several decades. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the primary
uses of video related to remote student teaching supervi-
sion (Olivero 1965) and studies on microteaching (e.g.,
Acheson and Zigler 1971; Allen and Clark 1967; Limb-
acher 1971). The use of video has grown rapidly in teacher
education and professional development because of its
unique ability to capture the richness and complexity of
classrooms. Sherin (2004) in a review of the role of video
in teacher education notes that the utilization of video has
changed not only with technological advances but also with
changes in theoretical frameworks guiding educational
research from behaviorist views evident in the early mi-
croteaching video research to more cognitive views of
teaching. However, in spite of the valued and dominant
position of video in teacher education, relatively little
systematic research has been conducted on the feasibility
and effectiveness of the use of video in teacher education
(Brophy 2003; Sherin 2004).
Video has a long history in teacher education for
examining and reflecting on one’s own teaching practices
(Grossman 2005). Indeed, the development of teachers as
J. McFadden (&) � J. Ellis � T. Anwar � G. Roehrig
STEM Education Center, University of Minnesota, Learning and
Environmental Science 320, 1954 Buford Ave, St. Paul,
MN 55108, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Ellis
e-mail: [email protected]
T. Anwar
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Roehrig
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Sci Educ Technol
DOI 10.1007/s10956-013-9476-2
reflective practitioners is a central concept in national
guidelines for teacher preparation and induction [National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
2008; Teacher Education Accreditation Council 2008].
NCATE explicitly links the development of reflective
practice to field experiences in teacher preparation as they
‘‘allow candidates to apply and reflect on their content,
professional, and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and pro-
fessional dispositions in a variety of settings with students
and adults.’’ Recent developments in video annotation tools
have expanded the power of video used to examine and
reflect on classroom practice (Rich and Hannafin 2009).
However, as video annotation tools are an emerging tech-
nology, the research base on such tools in teacher prepa-
ration and professional development is limited. Recently,
guidelines for consideration in using video annotation
software have emerged (Rich and Trip 2011), and research
on the use of video in the critical induction period to
develop beginning teachers’ reflective and reform-based
practices is just now beginning to emerge (Martin and Siry
2012) Additionally, Blomberg et al. (2013) in a review of
the literature urge researchers to ‘‘systematically test for
advantages and disadvantages of using video in pre-service
teacher education’’ (p. 106).
This study explores the use of video annotation in an
online induction program designed to provide support to
beginning secondary science teachers. A primary goal of
the online induction program is to better develop reflective
practices of secondary science teachers. In this paper, we
will develop the need for induction support for beginning
secondary science teachers, briefly describe the structure of
the online Teacher Induction Network (TIN), and discuss
the role of video annotation in the development of begin-
ning science teachers’ reflective practices based on data
collected from 3 years of video annotation work within
TIN. Our exploration of the use of video annotation tools
was guided by the following research question:
What is the nature of beginning teachers’ reflective
practices using a video annotation tool as revealed in
their initial annotations?
Supporting Literature
Induction Programs
Concerns about science teacher shortages have been pre-
valent in educational discussions for the past 30 years
(National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983).
Several factors are related to teacher supply and demand.
For example, in addition to teacher retirements due to
aging of the baby boomer generation of teachers, the past
three decades have seen increases in science graduation
requirements, thus increasing the number of students taking
science and the demand for science teachers (Ingersoll and
Merrill 2010). Researchers have argued that the supply of
new science teachers has kept up with this increased
demand and that the critical factor behind teacher shortages
is preretirement teacher turnover (Ingersoll and Merrill
2010; Ingersoll 2012). Indeed, it is reported that up to 50 %
of teachers leave the teaching profession within the first
5 years (Smith and Ingersoll 2004). This revolving door of
beginning teachers has created a situation today where
approximately one-quarter of the teaching force has 5 or
less years of experience (Ingersoll and Perda 2006).
Induction programs have been promoted as a mecha-
nism to reduce teacher attrition and over 90 % of new
teachers now receive some form of induction support
(Ingersoll 2012; Smith and Ingersoll 2004). However,
induction programs vary significantly in quality and the
forms of support (Ingersoll 2001), and the quality of the
induction support dramatically changes the intended
impact on teacher retention (Smith and Ingersoll 2004).
Research has tended to focus on retention issues, yet
teacher induction programs should also have the goal of
providing ongoing professional development to improve
beginning teachers’ instructional practices, and thus
student learning (Feiman-Nemser 2001). Recent research
has shown that participation in a comprehensive induction
program has a positive effect on classroom practices (In-
gersoll and Strong 2011) and when specifically considering
science teaching practices, induction programs should be
science-specific (Luft et al. 2011). Indeed, with participa-
tion in comprehensive science-specific induction programs,
beginning science teachers ‘‘experienced fewer constraints,
and were more likely to implement inquiry-based instruc-
tion in their classrooms than did secondary science teachers
receiving general induction support or no formal induction
support’’ (Luft et al. 2003, p.78).
Online Induction Programs
Online induction programs have the potential of making
subject-specific support a financially viable option for
districts that may only have one new science teacher at any
given time (Gentry et al. 2008). There have been notable
efforts to develop subject-specific online induction pro-
grams, for example, the National Science Teachers Asso-
ciation eMSS (eMentoring for Student Success) (Jaffe et al.
2006) and the TIN (Roehrig 2012). However, research
suggests that there are challenges involved in developing
and sustaining online professional development environ-
ments (Barab et al. 2003; Donna 2009) and online induc-
tion program design needs to carefully consider the
J Sci Educ Technol
123
technical, educational, and social affordances of online
environments (Roehrig et al., in review).
Norman (1988) coined the term affordance and sug-
gested affordances refer to ‘‘opportunities for actions; the
perceived and actual fundamental properties of technolo-
gies that determine the usefulness and the ways they could
possibly be used’’ (p. 9). Kirschner et al. (2004) further
differentiated this design feature of virtual learning spaces
into three categories: technological, social, and educa-
tional. Technical affordances are the technologies that
‘‘mediate the social and educational contexts such that their
properties induce and invite specific learning behaviors’’
(Kirschner et al. 2004, p. 50). In other words, learning is
directly impacted by the usability of the designed envi-
ronment. Educational affordances refer to the relationships
between the learner and the environment that mitigate
whether and how the intended learning will take place.
Social affordances within an online environment allow for
and encourage interaction, collaborative learning, and
reflection. It is the interaction of these three types of af-
fordances that will impact the nature of the actions and
subsequent learning of the teachers as they interact in an
online environment.
Prior to recent technological advancements, online
programs were limited in their ability to provide beginning
teachers with direct feedback on their instructional prac-
tices (Roehrig 2012) and relied on lesson plans and written
teacher reflections as proxies for direct observations of
classroom practice (Wopereis et al. 2010). Only with the
recent development of video annotation tools have online
professional development and induction programs been
able to meaningfully use video to examine and reflect on
classroom practice in an online environment (Rich and
Hannafin 2009; Martin and Siry 2012). Video annotation
allows teachers to both observe and analyze classroom
practice, supporting reflective practices as teachers’
reflections are linked directly to evidence through video as
documentation (Bryan and Recesso 2006; Rich and Han-
nafin 2008; Sherin and van Es 2005).
Reviews of the use of video in teacher education argue
that the technical affordances of video annotation tools
have not only changed the ways video are used, but also the
frameworks that guide the utilization of video to more
cognitive view of teaching (Sherin 2004). For example, a
common use of video in teacher education is video cases of
expert teachers. However, such videos only provide novice
teachers with the experts’ tacit knowledge, rather than
allowing novices to develop reflective and analytical skills
and/or the skills of knowing what to attend to during
instruction for themselves (van Es and Sherin 2002). The
development of reflective practice requires the analysis of
one’s own teaching, and video provides the opportunity for
teachers to remove themselves from the demands of the
classroom and to step back and examine classroom events
(van Es and Sherin 2008). Other research in this area has
focused on the affordances offered by video to scaffold and
transition teachers into a position where they can take on a
more autonomous role in their development through
enhanced reflection opportunities (McCullagh 2012; Tripp
and Rich 2013).
However, while there are various approaches and sev-
eral video annotation tools available to support reflective
practices, the research related to the use of video annota-
tion software has not kept pace with these technological
advancements (Rich and Hannafin 2009). The limited
existing research on the impact of video annotation of
reflective practices has primarily been conducted in face-
to-face settings. van Es and Sherin (2002) investigated
video annotation as a tool to develop reflective practices
and found that treatment teachers who used video annota-
tion showed more improvement on their reflective abilities
than those in the control group who did not have access to
video annotation tools. In a later study, Sherin and van Es
(2005, 2009) investigated the use of video annotation as
part of a video club for mathematics teachers and reported
on changes in teachers’ ability to interpret student thinking
as a result of their video club participation.
There is an urgent need to investigate the impact of
video annotation in online environments as a tool to pro-
mote reflective practices for beginning science teachers.
The current study explores the educational and techno-
logical affordances of a video annotation tool in developing
reflective practices. The social affordances of peer inter-
actions using video annotation as a collaborative group will
be discussed in subsequent analyses of the TIN data.
The Study
This study employed the convergent parallel design of
mixed methods (Creswell and Clark 2010) to investigate
the reflective practices on beginning secondary science
teachers. The quantitative component of the study was
designed to understand the types and frequency of dif-
ferent reflective stances employed by beginning teachers
in an online video annotation environment. This form of
content analysis is a common research method for study-
ing recorded human communication in varying forms,
including text-based entries in electronic textual databases.
Researchers code and summarize the target communica-
tion, carefully calculate the frequencies and percentages of
items of communication in terms of specified character-
istics, systematically conduct comparisons of the items,
and discuss typical entries of the communication items
(De Wever et al. 2006; Strijbos et al. 2006). The quali-
tative analysis looks more deeply at the nature of the
J Sci Educ Technol
123
reflective annotations and the individual’s levels of
reflective practice. Both the quantitative and qualitative
components of the study draw from the Learning to Notice
theoretical framework (van Es and Sherin 2002) to eluci-
date teachers’ reflective practices facilitated through video
annotation.
Theoretical Framework
In this study, we draw on the framework of reflection-for-
action as a reflective process that occurs in three stages:
description, analysis, and action (Dewey 1933) and the
Learning to Notice Framework of van Es and Sherin
(2002). Dewey suggested reflection that ‘‘does not lead to
action falls short of being responsible’’ (Rodgers 2002,
p. 885). Other researchers argue for a more interpretive
stance to teachers’ reflective analytical practices as
opposed to a critical or action-oriented stance (Hammer
2000; Putnam and Borko 2000). The Learning to Notice
Framework highlights the importance of interpretation to
allow teachers to make informed pedagogical decisions
resulting in action intended to improve their practice.
van Es and Sherin (2002, 2008) proposed that the skill
of noticing for teaching consists of two phases (describing
and analyzing) that encompasses three stances: describing,
evaluating, and interpreting. The describing phase or stance
involves teachers being willing and able to accurately
describe a classroom event. The use of video enhances a
teacher’s ability to recall what occurred during a classroom
event; however, even with the benefit of video, teaching is
still a complex event and not all events can be attended to.
In the Learning to Notice Framework, the first character-
istic of noticing is ‘‘learning to identify what is noteworthy
about a particular situation’’ (van Es and Sherin 2002,
p.573).
In the analysis phase, teachers are expected to make
connections between the specific event and broader prin-
ciples and theories of teaching and learning. Beginning
teachers are pushed to move beyond a literal description
of the event to thinking about why an event occurred.
During the evaluating stance, teachers should use ‘‘using
what one knows about the context to reason about a sit-
uation’’ (van Es and Sherin 2008, p. 245) and determine
what worked or could have been done differently. van Es
and Sherin (2002) note the importance of providing evi-
dence to support claims about the effectiveness of an
event. During the third and final stance, interpreting, van
Es and Sherin (2002) call for teachers to use their
knowledge of content, pedagogy, and context to reason
about the event. In other words, teachers should begin to
make inferences and draw ‘‘connections between specific
events and broader principles of teaching and learning’’
(van Es and Sherin 2008, p. 245).
Context
The TIN is an online induction program for beginning
secondary science and mathematics teachers. The program
is in its seventh year of operation and has served 153
teachers over this time period. TIN is part of the post-
baccalaureate teacher preparation program at the Univer-
sity of Minnesota. The post-baccalaureate nature of the
program ensures that candidates have a bachelor’s degree
in the content area in which licensure is sought. Admission
requirements include content coursework equivalent to an
undergraduate major as well as coursework in the history
and philosophy of science and a required science research
experience. The program includes two components: initial
licensure and completion of the M.Ed. degree. Students
enter the 15-month initial licensure program as a cohort,
completing coursework including a three-course science
methods sequence with extensive, supervised practicum
and student teaching experiences. An additional 12-credits
are required post-licensure to complete the M.Ed. degree;
TIN is offered as a three-credit online course as part of this
12-credit requirement.
Through ongoing assessment of participants’ interac-
tions and feedback, we have continually modified TIN to
best support teachers’ professional growth and develop
reflective, reform-based practices (Roehrig et al., in
review). The four primary components of TIN are reflec-
tive journals, topical response forums, venture-vexation
discussion and professional development inquiries. These
four components are described in detail in Roehrig et al. (in
review) Video annotation is embedded into the profes-
sional development inquiries which are described here in
detail.
Professional Development Inquiries (PDIs)
Beginning teachers enrolled in TIN participate in two PDIs
throughout the year. These PDIs allow teachers to inves-
tigate an area of their teaching that they would like to
improve. Prior to starting each PDI, instructors of the
course, prompt teachers complete a self-assessment using
Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (2007). Many of the
area schools use Danielson’s framework, and thus it helps
teachers to navigate between the language, evaluation, and
expectations of both their schools and TIN. Specifically,
teachers were asked by instructors to self-evaluate and
identify areas for growth related to the five components of
Danielson’s instructional domain: communicating clearly
and accurately; using questioning and discussion tech-
niques; engaging students in learning; providing feedback
to students; and demonstrating flexibility and responsive-
ness The PDIs are designed to help new teachers critically
J Sci Educ Technol
123
examine their own teaching and develop the skills of data
collection, analysis, and reflection. Each PDI is approxi-
mately 8 weeks long and follows a learning cycle in which
the participants plan for action, implement, and reflect on
their actions all while being monitored by the course
instructor. During the PDI, teachers develop lesson plans
and assessments to meet their PDI goal with the culmi-
nating assignment being video-based reflection on the
classroom implementation of the PDI lesson.
Video Annotation
The video annotation software—VideoANT—was designed
to provide teachers the ability to add time-marked text
annotations to their classroom video (Hosack 2010). As the
user views the video, they simply pause the action at the point
they wish to annotate, click ‘‘Add a marker to the timeline’’
and enter their annotation including a subject line in the text
box (see Fig. 1). Each annotation is marked on the timeline
on the bottom of the screen, and as the video is played, the
annotations are highlighted at the time point they were noted
by the user. In Fig. 1, the teacher is reflecting on his PDI plan
to improve real-world connections to learning goals in his
classroom. Multiple users are able to annotate the same video,
allowing the PDI facilitator or peers to view the video and
provide their feedback on the lesson. The ability to allow
multiple users to annotate a teaching segment is illustrative of
VideoANT’s full capabilities. However, for the purpose of
this study as described in this paper, as described in the paper,
only initial annotations by the teacher in the video are
included.
Participants
This study considers beginning teachers enrolled in TIN
over the past 3 years, from 2009 to 2011. Thirty-three
secondary science teachers have enrolled in TIN over this
time period. The criteria for participant selection included:
(1) a complete PDI including access to the beginning
teachers’ video and (2) having extractable annotations from
the video to allow for coding and analysis. A total of 16
teachers in their first or second year of teaching had fully
accessible video and extractable data and were included in
the study. See Table 1 for further information regarding
these teachers.
Data Collection
Data sources included all documents and video related to
the spring PDI in which teachers were asked to identify a
goal for improvement using Danielson’s (2007) third
domain of teaching ‘‘Instruction’’ (see Table 1). Teachers
developed an instructional plan to improve their teaching
within their chosen instructional sub-domain. Teachers
then recorded the implementation of their plan and were
asked to select approximately 30 min of classroom
instruction as evidence for progress toward their goal.
Fig. 1 A beginning teacher’s VideoANT reflections on real-world connections
J Sci Educ Technol
123
This video was annotated to explore growth, followed by a
final reflection paper.
The primary data source was the initial video annota-
tions. Annotations from the beginning teachers were to
total at a minimum 11. This was set as a safeguard to
ensure adequate participation. We note that in most cases,
this minimum number of annotations requirement was
surpassed (9 of the 17 teachers). The teachers were
prompted by instructor-generated prompts located within
the course management system to annotate the video(s) at
moments that they believed represented the manifestation
of specific efforts related to their goal(s). The first anno-
tation was to restate the goal, while the next five were to
focus on instruction. The last five annotations were to be
remark(s) about other aspects of their teaching practice that
they noticed. While reflective partners were asked to
annotate responses to what their partner had or had not
annotated, we have not included these partner annotations
in our initial analysis as the focus is on what the beginning
teacher themselves notice in the teaching video.
Data Analysis
Cases files were created for each teacher that included all
of the documents and video annotations from the PDI. The
video annotations were coded using a modified version of
Sherin and van Es’s (2005) Learning to Notice Framework.
A small number of annotations were not included as they
included superfluous social commentary or administrative
information unrelated to this analysis. In total, 229 anno-
tations from the 16 teachers were coded. Annotations were
coded for four dimensions: annotation topic, actor, anno-
tation stance, and PDI focus.
Annotation Topic
Annotations were first coded by the topic being reflected
on, these codes included Pedagogy, Classroom Manage-
ment, Student Behavior, and Communication. Pedagogy
encompassed description and reflections on the strategies
used by the teacher to address their PDI or other instruc-
tional goals. For example, one teacher described how he
chose to start his lesson,
My question is ‘‘How can I keep my students engaged
while they are doing practice problems’’. I have just
started class by putting four molecules on the board
for the students to name, they know that I will call on
four students to each put a name on the board.
He went on to further describe and reflect on his peda-
gogical choices,
Again I am giving the student the opportunity to talk
amongst themselves first so that they are better pre-
pared, more confident, and hopefully then more par-
ticipatory when we come back together as a class.
Does it take more class time? In a way, and there is a
risk of off task behavior, but it really makes for more
meaningful discussions!
Classroom management included annotations that
focused on the logistics of managing a classroom. For
Table 1 Information for 16 teachers and details of their PDI
Name Year in TIN Teaching position PDI lesson topic Domain of instruction explored in PDI
David 09–10 High School Physics Force and Acceleration 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Morris 09–10 High School Physics Simple Machines 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
Jenna 09–10 High School Physics Velocity and Acceleration 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
Jasmine 09–10 High School Chemistry Molecular Structure 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
Hilary 09–10 High School Biology Ocean Ecosystems 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
Steve 10–11 High School Chemistry Balancing Chemical Equations 3d: Providing Feedback to Students
Briane 10–11 High School Biology Water Quality and Pollution 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Luke 10–11 High School Earth Science Earth’s History 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
John 10–11 High School Earth Science Sedimentary Rocks 3d: Providing Feedback to Students
Paul 10–11 High School Chemistry Acids and Bases 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Ben 10–11 High School Physics Balloon Engineering Drop 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
Erica 11–12 High School Biology Ecological Succession 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Natalie 11–12 High School Physics Catapult Engineering Lab 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Chris 11–12 High School Physics Voltage and Circuits 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Pete 11–12 Middle School Biology Genetics and Ethics 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Clara 11–12 High School Biology Food Webs 3d: Providing Feedback to Students
J Sci Educ Technol
123
example, one beginning teacher made the following
observation and annotation a few minutes into her lesson,
I noticed here that I need to develop a better system
for how to handle students who do not complete
homework assignments. I know it would be nearly
impossible for me to grade everything on my own,
which eliminates the problem of having half my class
go out to the hall because they don’t have it com-
pleted. However, that simply is unrealistic. I don’t
grade everything for accuracy but feel like students
should sometimes be held accountable for more than
just finishing the assignment. With a stronger home-
work policy regarding incomplete and late work, I
think I could reduce the seemingly ‘‘so what’’ attitude
about being sent out to the hall.
Student behavior involved annotations related to how
students were behaving in the classroom. For example, one
teacher made the following observation and annotation,
By asking the class to help out Rachel with the
number of events I am trying to keep the whole class
engaged, in case some students know that Rachel is
answering the question so they may check out.
Lastly, communication pertained to verbal and non-
verbal strategies employed by either teachers or students in
the classroom. The following annotation provides an
example coded as communication,
One way I provide feedback to the class is to point out
specific errors I’ve observed (or know are common
errors). While not completely individualized, it is often
the most efficient way for me to provide relatively
individualized feedback to the class. Providing indi-
vidual feedback to 30? students for every in-class
problem would take far too long to be of any value.
Actor
Next annotations were coded to clarify the primary actor
referred to in the annotation: teacher or student. For
example, in the following annotation, while students are
implicitly discussed, the primary actor is the teacher,
I would like to stress the thought that went into the
structure of the lesson. If I was to get maximum
participation in a discussion about a topic as tough as
this one I was going to have to make sure everyone
understood the reading. Bringing the class together to
ask questions to them about what they read provides
that opportunity.
Whereas the following example focused specifically on
an individual student in the classroom,
Working with this girl has been rewarding this year—
I am fairly certain she is homeless and I know she has
very little support at home. She has made a ton of
progress in science, and has learned that she can
overcome her difficulties :)
Annotation Stance
The next set of coding involved the reflective stance
teachers took in analyzing their practice. These codes
were derived Sherin and van Es (2005) and van Es and
Sherin (2002, 2008) and included Describe, Evaluate,
and Interpret. A fourth stance of Explain was also added
as an extension of Describe. The first three codes come
directly from Sherin and van Es (2005) and are defined
as follows,
Describe refers to statements that recounted the
events that occurred in the clip. Evaluate refers to
statements in which the teachers commented on what
was good or bad or could or should have been done
differently. Interpret refers to statements in which the
teachers made inferences about what they noticed.
(p. 250).
The fourth code, Explain, was added due to the nature of
certain annotations and was attributed to the nature of the
online environment. That is, teachers were not co-present
with their partners or synchronously viewing the video as
was the case with the work of Sherin and van Es, so they
often chose to not only describe what was being viewed in
the video, but to also provide an explanation about the
action and their decisions that was neither entirely evalu-
ative nor interpretive.
A single annotation could be coded as multiple stances;
for example, annotations could describe an event while also
explaining and/or evaluating an event. For example, in the
following annotation, the beginning teacher both describes
what students were doing in the video segment and
explains his rationale for the pedagogical decision,
Students are balancing an equation to describe the
single replacement reaction that occurs when an iron
nail is placed in a solution of Copper II Sulfate.
We’re going over the balancing of the reaction sim-
ply because if we did not do this as a class, many
students either will not write out the reaction, or will
not understand the reaction.
In other cases, an explanation was provided in isolation
from a description, as in the example,
By asking the class to help out Rachel with the
number of events I am trying to keep the whole class
engaged, in case some students know that Rachel is
J Sci Educ Technol
123
answering the question so they may check out. Same
thing when Alex comes up to answer the question.
Evaluate and interpret move beyond the preliminary
stance of describing and explaining a teaching event. For
example, this teacher provided an annotation that
describes, explains, and evaluates, as he evaluates his
decision not to move on as students are doing meaningful
work toward generating their own solutions,
Students are starting to finish, this is a place I often
struggle with. What do I do when some students are
done, but others are still working. I don’t want to
move on yet, because it will be more meaningful if
most students have found a solution on their own.
Interpretation represents a reflection that connects the
teaching event to educational theory and literature. For
example, in the following annotation, a beginning
physics teacher connects the use of constraints in an
engineering design lesson to the literature on engineering
education that calls for authentic activities and draws
heavily on the reliance of teamwork in the engineering
practice.
The reasoning behind the ‘‘costs’’ was because I
wanted it to be similar to a project that they might
have to work on for work. There was a limited
amount of supplies that they could use, but no budget.
It’s also relevant as they had to work in groups, so
team work was very important.
PDI Focus
The final round of coding considered whether the anno-
tation related to the PDI goal or whether the video
prompted the teacher to notice something else in their
teaching. These codes were included to document evi-
dence of VideoANT’s ability to enable reflection toward a
self-determined goal. For example, one teacher focused
their PDI on ‘‘engaging students in learning’’ and pro-
vided the following annotation as evidence related to this
goal,
I like how students were able to use the information
presented in order to answer this very quick formative
assessment over primary succession. One thing I
could have done differently here in order to add an
additional level of engagement was require students
describe the picture on the screen to someone sitting
near them. This would force students to phrase the
concepts in their own words and it provides the stu-
dent insight on whether or not they actually grasp the
information.
Results
First, preliminary descriptive analyses of the frequency of
codes for the four dimensions were performed. In total, 16
teacher candidates generated a total of 229 annotations
with dimensions and codes as shown in Table 2.
The annotation topics and PDI focus codes were gen-
erally related given the nature of the PDI topics as evi-
denced in the totals for PDI focus in Table 2. Along similar
lines, it is also evident that VideoANT was used as a tool
by participants for focused reflection, but was also viewed
as being flexible and capable of allowing a wide variety
annotation. PDI topics were selected from Danielson’s
instructional framework and included the following:
questioning and discussion techniques (eight teachers),
engaging students in learning (three teachers), demon-
strating flexibility and responsiveness (three teachers), and
providing feedback to students (two teachers). These topics
naturally generated annotations focused on pedagogy and
communication, while non-PDI focused annotations tended
to invoke reflections on classroom management and stu-
dent behavior. It is also notable that annotations focused on
the teacher (290) were coded more than twice as often as
annotations focused on students (128).
Three hundred and fifty-two reflective stances were
coded from the 233 annotations; note that a single annotation
could be coded as multiple stances. Describe (43 %) and
explain (30 %) accounted for the majority of coded stances,
describe/explain was also the most commonly multiple-
coded stance. It is interesting to note that the percentage of
Table 2 Frequency of video annotation codes
09–10
(n = 5)
10–11
(n = 6)
11–12
(n = 5)
Total
Annotation topic
Pedagogy 11 36 46 93
Classroom management 2 12 4 18
Student behavior 10 27 11 48
Communication 14 30 6 50
Actor
Teacher 25 62 58 145
Student 13 42 9 64
Annotation stance
Describe 28 74 49 151
Explain 7 55 45 107
Evaluate 6 29 37 72
Interpret 2 13 7 22
PDI focus
PDI 22 49 44 115
Non-PDI 16 56 20 92
J Sci Educ Technol
123
high-level reflective stances (evaluate and interpret)
increase across subsequent cohort years (19, 25, and 30 %,
respectively). This was attributed to the experiences and
knowledge gained by those involved in teaching the course
and will be addressed further in the discussion.
We also compared the distribution of annotations to the
specific domain area (as defined by Danielson) selected by
each beginning teacher (see Fig. 2). Candidates who selected
domain 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
had a higher incidence of explain, evaluate, and interpret
stances. It is also notable that domain 3b was the only domain
in which describe was not the most frequent stance.
Interestingly, more teachers selected domain 3b as their
PDI focus in later cohorts, so it is difficult to isolate an
explanation for trends in lower- versus higher-level
reflective stances. It is possible that with each subsequent
year, the TIN instructors were better able to develop
beginning teachers’ reflective practices. It is also possible
that the nature of the instructional domain 3b provides a
topic that connects more strongly to the teachers’ exposure
to theory and teaching philosophies presented in their
methods sequence.
Levels of Reflective Practice
Figure 2 also illustrates the decrease in frequency of
reflective stance from describe to explain to evaluate and
lastly interpret. Analysis of the quantitative data at the
group level became evident there existed a spectrum of
development related to the reflective practices of the
beginning teachers. Teachers could be grouped into three
levels of reflective practice: beginning, developing, and
developed (see Table 3). Five teachers were categorized as
demonstrating beginning reflective practices. These teach-
ers had almost exclusively stances coded as describe and
explain. Four teachers were categorized as having
developing reflective practices as they had some stances
coded as evaluate. The remaining seven teachers were
categorized as having developed reflective practices, dis-
playing a balance of describe, explain, evaluate, and
interpret stances. It is also noteworthy to mention that
teachers in all three levels of reflective practice were more
likely to focus their annotations on themselves (i.e., tea-
cher) with half or more of the annotations being coded as
such.
Beginning Reflective Practice
Teachers coded as beginning to develop reflective practice
described and explained their instructional steps and deci-
sions but rarely extended their reflection to include evalu-
ating or interpreting. For example, the following annotation
from Morris, a physics teacher, illustrates a simple
descriptive annotation common of this group of teachers,
‘‘Here, instead of showing a graphic showing simple
machines I ask the class their recollection and then write
them down on the board.’’ This annotation was similar to
his ten other annotations in that each was descriptive of the
circumstances unfolding in the video. In two annotations,
he also went on to provide an explanation in combination
with the description. For example, Morris described and
explained his reasoning for modifying a laboratory on
simple machines. He annotated, ‘‘the original cookbook lab
I was working with did not give the equation for converting
mass to force so to make this even more ‘cookbooky’ I
added a section which walked them through the two step
mathematical process.’’ Annotations of other teachers
demonstrating beginning reflective practices were similar
in nature to Morris’.
Developing Reflective Practice
The annotations of this group of teachers were most fre-
quently coded as describe and explain, with some annota-
tions moving toward evaluation and an occasional
annotation being interpretive. In general, teachers with
developing reflective practices were beginning to under-
stand the need to make evaluative choices in their class-
rooms, and these choices and actions had impacts on the
learning that took place with their students. For example,
Steve, a chemistry teacher, annotated about working with
small groups during a chemistry laboratory activity,
Most of the feedback I am able to provide in a lab
involves the ability to answer questions students have
as they come up. One of the greatest difficulties I
have during labs is cycling to each of the groups,
especially when the ones with questions are typically
the same groups over and over.
Fig. 2 Frequency distribution of stances by domain
J Sci Educ Technol
123
In this annotation, Steve is starting to evaluate his
instructional choices related to his PDI goal of providing
feedback to students. While he is able to evaluate and
identify an area of concern in his teaching, Steve did not
include possible solutions that would result in action in his
classroom; thus, his reflective practice is denoted as
developing. In a later annotation, Steve appeared to address
his earlier annotation and he described an in-action
response to the issue of repeat questions related to the
laboratory activity, ‘‘I’m starting to get repeat questions
from many students so I’m directing students to the other
half of the class where I can address them all simulta-
neously.’’ As was common with teachers in the developing
group, this annotation includes description and explanation
of a decision made in-action during the course of the lesson
without any on-action evaluative reflection of the impact of
instructional decisions on student learning.
Developed Reflective Practices
Teachers identified as exhibiting developed reflective
practices were placed in this group for three distinguishing
reasons: (1) annotations included all four reflective stances
(though not necessarily in equal proportions), (2) the depth
and insightfulness of the annotations, and (3) when appli-
cable, interpretive stances were included which made
connections to broader principles of teaching and learning.
For example, Ben a physics teacher doing a balloon drop
engineering activity provides an annotation in which he
described, explained, and interpreted his actions. His
annotation includes a conversation he had with a student
during the activity,
Mr. M, can we cut off the bottom of our balloon?’’
‘‘Well, that sounds like an idea.’’ ‘‘But that’s going to
be a lot of work…’’ ‘‘Don’t worry, you can come in
before or after school, I’ll be here.’’ That’s right; it’s
an ‘idea’, not a good or bad idea, just an idea. It
ended-up being the best idea they could have had…but if I would have told them that here, they wouldn’t
have thought about the many other possibilities for
re-engineering. Giving a student a firm answer, I am
learning, is not always the most effective way of
teaching. Perhaps, that is why Americans will con-
tinue to lead the way in the creativity department: we
allow for other possibilities, and accept failure as a
boost toward success.
In this annotation, Ben not only evaluates his response
to the student in terms of promoting learning and critical
thinking, but also takes an interpretive stance connecting
this teaching event to broader principles of engineering
education (Brophy et al. 2008).
Discussion
Video annotation provides educational affordances that
allow for the development of reflective practices in an
online induction program. VideoANT provided a mecha-
nism for teachers to reflect directly on their classroom
Table 3 Frequency of annotation stance by teacher
Name Domain Describe Explain Evaluate Interpret Level
David 3b: Questioning and Discussion Techniques 0 2 2 2 Developed
Morris 3c: Engaging Students in Learning 11 2 1 0 Beginning
Jenna 3c: Engaging Students in Learning 6 0 2 0 Beginning
Jasmine 3c: Engaging Students in Learning 5 3 1 0 Beginning
Hilary 3e: Flexibility Responsiveness 6 0 0 0 Beginning
Steve 3d: Providing Feedback to Students 15 10 5 1 Developing
Briane 3b: Questioning and Discussion Techniques 4 4 5 2 Developed
Luke 3b: Questioning and Discussion Techniques 0 2 4 3 Developed
John 3d: Providing Feedback to Students 36 17 7 2 Developing
Paul 3b: Questioning and Discussion Techniques 0 7 1 1 Beginning
Ben 3e: Flexibility and Responsiveness 19 15 7 4 Developing
Erica 3b: Questioning and Discussion Techniques 13 13 10 2 Developed
Natalie 3b: Questioning and Discussion Techniques 10 8 8 2 Developed
Chris 3b: Questioning and Discussion Techniques 10 10 11 0 Developed
Pete 3b: Questioning and Discussion Techniques 8 6 7 3 Developed
Clara 3d: Providing Feedback to Students 8 7 4 0 Developing
J Sci Educ Technol
123
practices and supported reflection-on-action (Schon 1983).
This reflection-on-action does not necessarily infer quality
teaching, but rather is a practice that can help teachers at all
levels develop their practice. Given the design of the class
(teachers across various school districts and asynchronous/
online), the technology was a vital component that afforded
opportunities for growth and development that would not
have been possible without it. The advent of this Web 2.0
technology provides a technological affordance that
removes the need for expensive in-class observations and
in addition allows beginning teachers to view and co-reflect
on the classroom practices of their peers.
Preliminary examination of the teachers’ annotations
revealed a predominance of the lower-level reflective
stances of describe (43 %) and explain (31 %) with the
majority of annotations related to the teacher as the actor
(69 %). This is not overly surprising given that the partic-
ipants are beginning teachers. However, it is critical to note
that many teachers were moving beyond the level of simply
describing and explaining teaching events as they unfolded
and were beginning to evaluate and interpret their practice,
considering plans of action for the future grounded in evi-
dence and educational theory (Dewey 1933; Hammer 2000;
Putnam and Borko 2000). It is also important to note that
quantity does not trump quality in this learning space. The
quality of the annotations of the teachers identified as
developing and developed reflective practitioners clearly
illustrated their movement beyond simply describing
teaching events as they unfolded to evaluating and inter-
preting their practice while considering plans of action. On
the other hand, teachers with beginning reflective practices
were unable to provide annotations that described what was
unfolding in the teaching scenario. In moving beyond
describing typical classroom events, a reflective practitioner
is able to extrapolate broader issues of teaching and learning
and identify specific actions for improvement. We do not
argue that these beginning teachers necessarily exhibited
expert teaching practices, but instead suggest that they
displayed the reflective practice skills of analysis and
interpretation necessary for their ongoing development
toward becoming expert teachers. This is encouraging and
is considered a technological and educational affordance
(Kirschner et al. 2004) of VideoANT.
Some prior research has been conducted using video
annotation, and while very little of this research focused on
beginning teachers, it is still instrumental to consider our
data in light of these existing studies. Sherin and van Es
(2005, 2009) used video clubs in a series of studies to
improve the reflective practices of mathematics teachers in
a single school. Using a similar coding scheme, they
reported more balanced frequencies of the various stan-
ces—describe (31 %), evaluate (38 %), and interpret
(31 %). These video clubs occurred face-to-face with small
groups viewing a video under the guidance of a facilitator.
While a few teachers in the group were beginning teachers,
the majority were more experienced teachers. The affor-
dances of face-to-face conversations between teachers in a
single school are clearly very different from those in an
online induction program where teachers are working at a
distance and asynchronously accessing and annotating
video. However, we argue that annotating video and
‘‘asynchronous video clubs’’ can be viewed as a tool that
induction programs and teacher preparation programs can
and should continue to use. The ability to provide virtual
spaces for teachers to further develop and reflect upon their
practice is a critical step in bringing beginning teachers
together to view and reflect upon classroom teaching in
action and has been shown to increase the depth of
reflective thought related to classroom management and
professional knowledge of teaching (Kong 2010).
Implications
The technological affordances provided by the accessibility
and usability of annotation tools must be complemented by
thoughtfully structured assignments and facilitation within
the space itself. While our analysis focused on the video
annotations created by teachers, the ability of VideoANT to
develop reflective practices is related to the structure of the
PDI. The PDI provides a purpose for reflection with care-
fully structured prompts and scaffolding, providing a crit-
ical educational affordance to the development of reflective
practitioners. This is further evidenced by the differences
seen across cohort years 2009–2012. Through improved
use of course prompts related to the PDI and yearly
adjustments (e.g., facilitation of online learners toward an
identified course objective) made by the instructors who
learned year-to-year what was effective and what was not,
beginning teachers in later cohort years were more likely to
exhibit characteristics of a developing or developed
reflective practitioner. Informal conversations and strategic
planning sessions among instructors prior to each year may
have also been an explanation for this. Courses are not
individualistic endeavors in the induction program and
cooperation amongst instructors is commonplace and
encouraged. This can be attributed to the educational af-
fordances of the content management system (Moodle) and
VideoANT, which were used in combination more effec-
tively in later years. For example, a critical improvement
was the addition of a teacher self-assessment and Daniel-
son’s (2007) framework for teaching, which provided a
clear purpose for annotations related to a specific teaching
and/or learning goal. Whereas during the first year of the
PDI less structure and purpose was provided, this is visible
in the nature of the annotations provided. The instructor
J Sci Educ Technol
123
provides a critical role in activating and promoting
reflective practices; the technology alone would not have
afforded the results seen here.
Future Research
This paper did not include direct discussion or analysis of
the social affordances of video annotation tools within an
online induction program. With the exception of the
reflective journal, all of the components of TIN were
structured as small group or learning community activities.
The video annotation component of the PDI started with
individual annotation by the classroom teacher before peers
within the small group added their reflections. To conform
to journal limitations, we limited our analysis in this study to
the initial annotations posted by beginning teachers within
their PDI. In future work, we intend to explore the annota-
tions provided by peers in response to shared videos and
consider the social affordances provided by these interac-
tions in the use of video to develop reflective practices.
Acknowledgments This study was made possible by National
Science Foundation grant 0833250. The findings, conclusions, and
opinions herein represent the views of the authors and do not nec-
essarily represent the view of personnel affiliated with the National
Science Foundation.
References
Acheson KA, Zigler CJ (1971) A comparison of two teacher training
programs in higher cognitive questioning. Far West Laboratory
for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco
Allen DW, Clark RJ (1967) Microteaching: its rationale. High Sch J
51:75–79
Barab SA, MaKinster JG, Scheckler R (2003) Designing system
dualities: characterizing a web-supported professional develop-
ment community. Inf Soc 19(3):237–256
Blomberg G, Renkl A, Sherin MG, Borko H, Seidel T (2013) Five
research-based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher
education. J Educ Res Online 5(1):90–114
Brophy J (2003) Chapter 11 discussion. In: Brophy J (ed) Using video
in teacher education (pp. 1–27). Elsevier Science, New York,
pp 287–304
Brophy S, Klein S, Portsmore M, Rogers C (2008) Advancing
engineering education in the P-12 classrooms. J Eng Educ
97(3):369–387
Bryan LA, Recesso A (2006) Promoting reflection with a web-based
video analysis tool. J Comput Teach Educ 23(1):31–39
Creswell JW, Clark VLP (2010) Designing and conducting mixed
methods research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Danielson C (2007) Enhancing professional practice: a framework for
teaching. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
ment, Alexandria, VA
De Wever B, Schellens T, Valcke M, Van Keer H (2006) Content
analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous
discussion groups: a review. Comput Educ 46(1):6–28
Dewey J (1933) How we think. Henrey Regney, Chicago
Donna JD (2009) Surviving and thriving as a new science teacher:
exploring the role of comprehensive online induction
(unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis
Feiman-Nemser S (2001) From preparation to practice: designing a
continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teach Coll Rec
103:1013–1055
Gentry L, Denton C, Kurz T (2008) Technologically-based mentoring
provided to teachers: a synthesis of the literature. J Technol
Teach Educ 16(3):339–373
Grossman P (2005) Research on pedagogical approaches. In:
Cochran-Smith M, Zeichner KM (eds) Studying teacher educa-
tion. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 425–476
Hammer D (2000) Teacher inquiry. In: Minstrell J, van Zee E (eds)
Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Amer-
ican Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington,
DC, pp 184–215
Hosack B (2010) VideoANT: extending online video annotation
beyond content delivery. TechTrends 54:45–49
Ingersoll R (2001) Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: an
organizational analysis. Am Educ Res J 38(3):499–534
Ingersoll R (2012) Beginning teacher induction: what the data tell us.
Phi Delta Kappan 93(8):47–51
Ingersoll R, Merrill E (2010) Who’s teaching our children? Educ
Leadersh 67:14–20
Ingersoll R, Perda D (2006) What the data tell us about shortages of
mathematics and science teachers. Paper presented at the national
commission on teaching and America’s future meeting on math-
ematics and science teachers. November, 2006, Wingspread, WI
Ingersoll R, Strong M (2011) The impact of induction and mentoring
for beginning teachers: a critical review of the research. Rev
Educ Res 81(2):201–233
Jaffe R, Moir E, Swanson E, Wheeler G (2006) EMentoring for
student success. In: Dede C (ed) Online professional develop-
ment for teachers: emerging models and methods. Havard
Education Press, Cambridge, pp 89–116
Kirschner P, Strijbos J-W, Kreijn K, Jelle Beers P (2004) Designing
electronic collaborative learning environments. Educ Tech Res
Dev 52(3):44–66
Kong SC (2010) Using a web-enabled video system to support
student–teachers’ self-reflection in teaching practice. Comput
Educ 55(4):1772–1782
Limbacher PC (1971) A study of the effects of microteaching
experiences upon the classroom behavior of social studies
student teachers. Paper presented at the American Education
Research Association, New York
Luft JA, Roehrig GH, Patterson NC (2003) Contrasting landscapes: a
comparison of the impact of different induction programs on
beginning secondary science teachers’ practices and beliefs.
J Res Sci Teach 40:77–97
Luft JA, Firestone JB, Wong SS, Ortega I, Adams K, Bang E (2011)
Beginning secondary science teacher induction: a two-year
mixed methods study. J Res Sci Teach 48(10):1199–1224
Martin S, Siry C (2012) Using video in science teacher education: an
analysis of the utilization of video-based media. In: Fraser B,
Tobin K, McRobbie C (eds) Using video in science teacher
education: an analysis of the utilization of video-based media by
teacher educators and researchers. Springer, Netherlands,
pp 417–433
McCullagh J (2012) How can video supported reflection enhance
teachers’ professional development? Cult Sci Edu 7(1):137–152
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) A nation at
risk: the imperative for educational reform. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008)
NCATE unit standards. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/
Standards/NCATEUnitStandards/UnitStandardsinEffect2008/
tabid/476/Default.aspx
J Sci Educ Technol
123
Norman DA (1988) The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books,
New York
Olivero JL (1965) The use of video recordings in teacher education.
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service No. ED 011 074)
Putnam RT, Borko H (2000) What do new views of knowledge and
thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educ
Res 29(1):4–15
Rich PJ, Hannafin MJ (2008) Decisions and reasons: examining pre-
service teacher decision-making through video self-analysis.
J Comput High Educ 20(1):62–94
Rich PJ, Hannafin M (2009) Video annotation tools: technologies to
scaffold, structure, and transform teacher reflection. J Teach
Educ 60:52–67
Rich PJ, Trip T (2011) Ten essential questions educators should ask
when using video annotation tools. TechTrends 55(6):16–24
Rodgers C (2002) Defining reflection: another look at John Dewey
and reflective thinking. Teach Coll Rec 104(4):842–866
Roehrig GH (2012) The Minnesota teacher induction network:
providing continued support to our teacher candidates during
their first year of teaching. National Science and Mathematics
Teacher Imperative Conference, Washington, DC
Roehrig GH, Donna J, Billington BL, Hoelscher M (in review)
Design of online induction programs to promote reform-based
science and mathematics teaching. Contemp Issue Technol
Teach Educ
Schon DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think
in action. Basic Books, New York
Sherin MG (2004) New perspectives on the role of video in teacher
education. In: Brophy J (ed) Using video in teacher education.
Elsevier Science, New York, pp 1–27
Sherin MG, van Es EA (2005) Using video to support teachers’ ability
to notice classroom interactions. J Technol Teach Educ
13(3):475–491
Sherin MG, van Es EA (2009) Effects of video club participation on
teachers’ professional vision. J Teach Educ 60(1):20–37
Smith TM, Ingersoll RM (2004) What are the effects of induction and
mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? Am Educ Res J
41(3):681–714
Strijbos JW, Martens RL, Prins FJ, Jochems WMG (2006) Content
analysis: what are they talking about? Comput Educ 46(1):29–48
Teacher Education Accreditation Council (2008) Accreditation goal
and principles. Retrieved from http://www.teac.org/wp-content/
uploads/2009/03/accreditation-framework.pdf
Tripp TR, Rich PJ (2013) The influence of video analysis on the
process of teacher change. Teach Teach Educ 28(5):728–739
van Es EA, Sherin MG (2002) Learning to notice: scaffolding new
teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. J Technol
Teach Educ 10(4):571–596
van Es EA, Sherin MG (2008) Mathematics teachers’ ‘‘learning to
notice’’ in the context of a video club. Teach Teach Educ
24:244–276
Wopereis I, Sloep P, Poortman S (2010) Weblogs as instruments for
reflection on action in teacher education. Interact Learn Environ
18(3):245–261
J Sci Educ Technol
123