This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 31 August 2013, At: 00:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Reflective Practice: International andMultidisciplinary PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20
Media options: a comparison ofpreservice teachers’ use of video,audio, and print journaling forreflective reading responseFrancine C. Falk-Ross aa School of Education, Pace University, Pleasantville, USAPublished online: 08 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Francine C. Falk-Ross (2012) Media options: a comparison of preserviceteachers’ use of video, audio, and print journaling for reflective reading response,Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 13:1, 27-37, DOI:10.1080/14623943.2011.616883
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2011.616883
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 0
0:36
31
Aug
ust 2
013
Media options: a comparison of preservice teachers’ use of video,audio, and print journaling for reflective reading response
Francine C. Falk-Ross*
School of Education, Pace University, Pleasantville, USA
(Received 17 January 2011; final version received 19 August 2011)
Preservice teachers were provided with the choice of using print-based, audio,or video journaling to discuss content and connections to assigned readingmaterial for an undergraduate class including weekly field experiences. Threestudents chose to use Flip Videos, and two students chose to use iPods pro-vided by the educational technology department to record their responses. Thenature of the video and audio journals differed qualitatively and quantitativelyfrom the print-based ones, and all students had interesting comments about thenew technology, providing insight into teacher education methods.
Keywords: reflection; reflective practice; personal connections; technology; tea-cher education; foundational concepts
The importance of teacher reflection on the theory and practice of education hasbeen substantiated as an effective, meaningful, and necessary process (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). Teachers, in general, learn fromtheir critical considerations of literacy resources and classroom connections. Pre-service teachers, specifically, use the process of reflection to work through resolu-tion of confusions and creativity as they pass through field experiences andprepare for their own classroom interventions (Friedman & Schoen, 2009; Liston& Zeichner, 1990; Seban, 2009). The practice of journal writing has been shownto be especially effective in documenting these changes (e.g., Bain, Ballantyne,Packer, & Mills, 1999). In light of the new formats for reflection that are a partof preservice teachers’ new literacy worlds, the topic of matching literacy formatsis informative.
Two equally important areas of rich research in the field of teacher educationduring these times of diversity of student populations and evolution of technologi-cal tools have focused on the advantages of matching individual intelligences(Gardner, 2006) to approaches for classroom instruction (Armstrong, 2009) andthe development of non-print aspects of learning (i.e., technology and media)(Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2009). If teachers are asking their students touse reflection to gain perspective as they learn, then teacher educators need tomodel and provide opportunities for preservice teachers to experience the samechoices in learning style and the same variety in mode of reflection. Recent initia-tives to study preservice English teachers’ reflective practice using choice in
*Email: [email protected]
Reflective PracticeVol. 13, No. 1, February 2012, 27–37
ISSN 1462-3943 print/ISSN 1470-1103 online� 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2011.616883http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 0
0:36
31
Aug
ust 2
013
expressive tools for open format responses have shown promise (Shoffner,2009a).
The purpose of this research study was to track the differences in quality (i.e.,depth of responses and associations with classwork) and quantity (i.e., amount ofdetail and length of responses) of preservice teachers’ journal entires, comparingprint-based and video/language-based approaches. Specifically, the study focused onthe characteristics of both approaches as chosen by students for their own form ofjournaling for the class assignment. A secondary purpose was to develop preserviceteachers’ deeper understanding of the social justice themes that follow literacydevelopment for a diverse, and in this case underrepresented, population of stu-dents. An underlying goal was for the preservice teachers to consider in their reflec-tions the efficacy of audio and video journaling and its usefulness in readingprograms. This study will answer the following research questions:
(1) What are the benefits of choosing format to respond to class content, practi-cum connections, personal conflicts/confusions, and reflective considerations,as perceived by preservice teachers and analyzed by the professor?
(2) What are the challenges of choosing format to respond to class content, prac-ticum connections, personal conflicts/confusions, and reflective consider-ations, as perceived by university students and by the professor?
(3) How do preservice teachers compare their experiences with different medi-ums of journaling?
(4) How does the professor compare the products of preservice teachers usingdifferent mediums?
Theoretical framework
This study focused on the characteristics of narratives written by preservice teachersin an undergraduate teacher education program. In order to frame perspectives butnot to limit an open approach to discovering trends, three areas of research informthis study: multimedia for preservice teacher reflection on their own practice andknowledge; multimedia for all learners’ deeper communication for knowledgeenhancement; and knowledge of multimedia for instruction and assessment in class-rooms.
First, the current expanded view of literacy acknowledges that students createand derive meaning from and through several types of text, such as in print, or invisual and auditory formats (e.g., Luke & Freebody, 1997; New London Group,2000). Using media for reflective purposes allows prospective (or preservice) teach-ers to find a more open, more comfortable medium to express themselves and eval-uate their understanding of resources, such as practicum experiences andinformational text, for effective teaching (Jenson, 1994; Richards, 1998; Shoffner,2009a; Struyk & McCoy, 1993), and they may be encouraged to use this opportu-nity to consider the social justice themes embedded in teacher education practices.For example, recent research studies in the United States and Europe have indicatedthat there is a digital divide, or discrepancy, between mainstream and marginalizedstudents that teachers may be able to narrow by using their own experiential knowl-edge and strategies (Banister & Vannata Reinhart, 2011; Guojonsdottir et al., 2008;Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010).
28 F.C. Falk-Ross
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 0
0:36
31
Aug
ust 2
013
Studying this form of journaling, however, is difficult and only recently accessi-ble due to improved annotation tools such as MediaNotes and StudioCode (Rich &Hannafin, 2009). More recently, Stevens (2007) noted the advantage of ‘capturing’the reflection through multimedia products. Second, using these different texts cre-ates communication expressed through speaking, listening, writing, and reading(Hagood, 2000, 2008). Text may encompass any material or situation that communi-cates messages, including visual and aural media (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006;Semali & Watts Pailliotet, 1999), and which transmits selected cultural, economic,political, and historical meanings and values. Third, new state and national standardsfor classroom teachers and reading professionals mandate their knowledge about andintegration of technology tools and media materials in literacy instruction.
Semali (2003) acknowledged the need for teachers to be familiar with video andaudio technology by stating, ‘The explosion of media literacies has outpaced ourpedagogy, our curricula and methods of instruction, and the definitions of what itmeans to be literate in a multimedia society’ (p. 271). Specifically, video has beenshown to be useful for composing projects and expressing critical takes on learning(e.g., Ranker, 2008). In general, teachers are beginning to experiment with integrat-ing media into their instruction; however, they require explicit instruction or profes-sional development and practice to integrate this new knowledge into classroomactivities (e.g., Hobbs, 2007). Using media to teach literacy can help preserviceteachers make connections in academic texts and concepts and can provide greatermotivation for them. This knowledge of uses of educational technology can serveas experience they can pass on to their prospective students. Teachers need tounderstand that students in a diverse population will benefit from educational pro-grams that offer variety in content material and presentation style, and that stay cur-rent with popular culture (Hagood, 2000; Shoffner, 2009b).
Methodology
Participants
Participants in this study included 25 preservice teachers (all members of one class)from a four-year university course in the United States. The preservice teacherswere in their junior and senior years in an undergraduate certified teacher educationprogram and were of ages 22–40 years. They were a mix of genders and ethnicities;no specific participant demographic was the target of the study. The participantsvoluntarily enrolled in this class. The preservice teachers viewed the assignment inprint (i.e., syllabus) and online (i.e., through Blackboard postings), and were giventhe choice of using video, audio, or print as their medium for the reflective/respon-sive journal. They were just becoming familiar with teaching methods and visitedschool classrooms for one full day each week. The preservice teachers had all usedvideo and audio for personal purposes; however, they had few experiences of usingthese formats for reflection or other teaching/learning experiences. Five studentschose to use the Flip Videos and iPods provided by the educational technologydepartment to record their responses.
Procedures
As part of an undergraduate teacher education class, ‘Understanding Learning andTeaching in Today’s Classroom’, the requirements for the reflective journal were
Reflective Practice 29
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 0
0:36
31
Aug
ust 2
013
initially explained to the preservice teachers. Specifically, they were assigned thedevelopment of a series of journal entries that would be responsive to each of 13chapters read for class from their textbook, instructor-selected research articles,guest presentations, and practicum experiences. The preservice teachers were nottaught a specific way to reflect in their journals; instead, the professor/researcherchose four foci that they were to use to organize their thinking, based on generalresearch-based issues for consideration of effective teaching practice. The fourrequired sections in each of the journal responses were content (i.e., material in thetext), connections (i.e., to practicum/field experiences), confusions or conflicts (i.e.,created by close readings), and considerations (i.e., critical level remarks, includingsocial justice themes). These journals were scored for the class using a rubric toguide open-ended comments by requiring three issues or areas of content to benoted in each of the four required sections. The prompt was to focus the preserviceteachers’ writing on the four areas but not on the specifics of what to write, sincethe purpose of the journals was for personal reflection without consequence (unlessthey chose not to write). There were no specifications for length of response; how-ever, the responses needed to loosely ‘make sense’ to receive credit. Feedback fromthe professor/researcher to answer questions that were posed in the reflections wasprovided following submission, and field notes were kept to monitor preserviceteachers’ understandings for future class discussions.
Next, the use of these reflections in a research study was explained in detail tothe preservice teachers, and they were given the choice of using video, audio, orprint modes to express their reflections. Five students chose to use the Flip Videosand iPods (three used Flip Videos and two used iPods) provided by the educationaltechnology department to record their responses. Written informed consent wasobtained from each participant prior to developing and submitting their responsejournal logs for inclusion in the research study.
During the study, the researcher kept observation field notes of the preserviceteachers’ comments during interactive discussions. At the end of the study (and theclass for which the journals were completed), the preservice teachers were directedto comment in a one-question survey on the ‘perceived benefits and challenges ofusing video, audio, or print formats for reflective writing’. This additional set of com-ments was in an open-ended form, and all responses were considered acceptable.
Data collection and analysis
The discovery of characteristics of the preservice teachers’ reflections wasapproached using a qualitative research format with a constructivist stance towardbuilding knowledge. The trustworthiness, or transparency, of the research study wasdeveloped through careful observation of multiple forms of data to make clear thecredibility (i.e., truthfulness) and consistency (i.e., dependability) of observations(Guba & Lincoln, 1998). The systematic approach to gathering data was consideredthrough the evaluative process of using grounded theory to allow the repeated read-ings of data to uncover and categorize trends and relationships in teachers’ thoughts(Corbin & Strauss, 2007).
In all, three forms of data were collected and analyzed to document the findings.First, the preservice teachers were required to submit their journals on three occa-sions during the semester for a grade. Students were introduced to the assignment,the nature of the study, and the rubric for evaluation at the beginning of the
30 F.C. Falk-Ross
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 0
0:36
31
Aug
ust 2
013
semester. Preservice teachers were provided with the choice of using print-based orvideo journaling to discuss content and connections to assigned reading material foran undergraduate class.
A second form of data collection were the field notes taken during class discus-sions. These were kept in a separate log book that the researcher brought to classand kept close during the day so the notes could be entered directly after class andduring reflective periods. The notes were organized as double-entry journals, withdescriptive writing for the body of the writing, and reflective comments added inthe margins. The third form of data were the final written survey comments by thepreservice teachers, focused on their perceptions of the benefits and challenges ofusing different formats for reflection.
Data analysis was completed through open and then axial (reductive) coding ofvideo and audiotape transcriptions and of print-based comments by the researcher.To provide feedback and fairness (i.e., a form of reliability) on terminology thatrepresented coding categories, a knowledgeable graduate student majoring in liter-acy education was asked to review the data.
Findings
Data analysis revealed that, in general, the nature of preservice teachers’ responsesusing the video and audio journals differed qualitatively and quantitatively from theprint-based ones. An important consideration was that all students were able toaddress their reflections in an adequate manner using their own language, whether itbe in a concise and clear format or a flowing and extended form, using a media oftheir own choice. The individual nature of the reflections was clearly illustrated bythe preservice teachers’ responses to the assigned readings, field experiences, andpersonal connections, as well as to the format they used to express those ideas. In allcases, it appears that preservice teachers learned using their reflective narratives,gaining new perspectives about how to use new knowledge and resolve conflictinginformation; however, the depth of critique would benefit from improved modelsand extended experience with teaching activities (Friedman & Schoen, 2009).
In response to the study’s first research question (i.e., ‘What are the benefits ofchoosing format to respond to class content, practicum connections, personal con-flicts/confusions, and reflective considerations, as perceived by preservice teachersand analyzed by the professor?’), the data analysis indicated that the positive bene-fits for the preservice teachers as expressed in their in-class comments and theirfinal evaluative survey included being able to play back or re-read the content oftheir journals (in a ‘more comfortable’ form), the ‘power’ of having a choice in themethod of journaling, and a chance to use a form of ‘new literacy’/ies.
For the professor, the field notes indicated that the main benefit of choosing for-mat was insight into the preservice teachers’ strengths when using the different for-mats. For example, preservice teachers who did not contribute much during in-classdiscussions or written assignments were more critical and thoughtful using print for-mats. Preservice teachers who had difficulty transferring ideas on other class assign-ments through written formats provided comments via media formats that werecharacterized by more in-depth comments. Additionally, the professional approach toanalyzing these written/transcribed samples created focused responses to individuals.
The different journaling experiences served to initiate and encourage the processof reflection, consistent with research by Romano and Schwartz (2005). The results
Reflective Practice 31
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 0
0:36
31
Aug
ust 2
013
are consistent with Shoffner’s (2009a) study of the types of technology that preser-vice teachers chose (or did not choose), in that the selections were based on whatwas most familiar to them, not on what provided the most challenges and opportu-nities for new learning.
In response to the second research question (i.e., ‘What are the challenges ofchoosing format to respond to class content, practicum connections, personal con-flicts/confusions, and reflective considerations, as percieved by university studentsand by the professor?’), preservice teachers noted in their survey comments that ifthey were to choose or if they chose a media format, their computers did notalways support the technical requirements for using, downloading, copying, andreviewing the reflective comments. That is, they could rewind on the iPod or FlipVideo, but finding and using software to download long (approximately 40 minute)excerpts of tapes was difficult (for the researcher as well). Technical support wasavailable, but the preservice teachers did not usually access these helpful resources,asking for alternative equipment (such as video cameras instead of the Flip Video,or other websites rather than Blackboard or YouTube for uploading) and ways thatthey could complete these activities by themselves.
In response to the third research question (i.e., ‘How do preservice teacherscompare their experiences with different mediums of journaling?’), the preserviceteachers who used video and audio noted initially in their survey comments thatusing media was ‘more fun and easier’ than print, although they changed theirminds as the technical aspects intruded on their easy access to reviewing the reflec-tions. All media format users were comfortable with their respective choices and‘would do it again’, but admitted that they ‘might have chosen print [in this case] ifI had known that the problems weren’t ironed out first’. Field notes supported thesewritten comments, and throughout the study period, preservice teachers commentedaloud that the use of media for educational purposes was new and challenging tothem. In-class comments (i.e., field notes) included preservice teachers’ discussionabout how providing choice would benefit their own practicum students and howthey might need to know more about the technical aspects and easy access to tech-nological equipment.
In response to the fourth research questions (i.e., ‘How does the professor com-pare the products of university students using different mediums?’), the researcher’sreflective field notes revealed that three trends in journal characteristics occurred:the length of the journals was generally longer (i.e., focused on number of words)for the preservice teachers using print-based journals than for those using themedia-based reflective journals; preservice teachers who used media-based journalsused more ‘common’ or idiosyncratic language to express their thoughts comparedto the use of more academic language in the print-based journals; the considerationof deeper, more critical meaning and social themes was greater for the media-basedjournals than for the print-based journals, with more digressions in topics and moreconnections to past and present practicum experiences. These differences areexplained in more detail in the following paragraphs.
Quantitative differences
The quantitative nature of the preservice teachers’ reflections differed by a smallamount, with the print format being the longest. For example, the print-basedjournal responses ranged in length from around 400 to around 2000 words. Those
32 F.C. Falk-Ross
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 0
0:36
31
Aug
ust 2
013
preservice teachers who chose to respond using a non-print format provided reflec-tions composed of transcriptions of around 500 to around 1100 words. The mostrepresentative entry (i.e., the mode) for a print-based reflective journal was around800 words, and for a non-print response (i.e., video or audio journal) it was around700 words in length.
Although the content of the entries in the preservice teachers’ journals reflectedtheir familiarity with the topic of the 16 readings, the academic language of theprint-based journals was at a higher level. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002)developed a model of tiers to describe writing samples: tier one words are commonor basic words that require little or no instruction; tier two words are more frequentalong disciplinary lines; tier three are discipline-specific word uses. There are slightdifferences, and all preservice teachers reflected appropriately on the topic of thecontent of the chapter; however, the journal entries of preservice teachers usingprint-based journals included more instances of tier three vocabulary. Reference tothe journal samples listed below may be used to illustrate these differences. Forexample, the iPod user (i.e., sample 1) uses the term ‘them’ to refer to students,and discusses informal assessment as ‘walking around the classroom, seeing ifsomebody’s having trouble with something, helping them out’. The video user (i.e.,sample 2) uses the term ‘kids’ to refer to students, and discusses informal assess-ment as ‘basically just when you are the teacher and you see a kid falling asleep inclass so you decide to ask them a question to see if they’re following along withthe lesson. . .’. The print journalist refers to students as ‘students’ and discusses theimportance of ‘making decisions about students’ learning progress’ using a reflec-tive question and a quotation from the text. This difference in language in writingis supported by Wolsey (2010) in his discussion of the dependence of the complex-ity in writing activities on the type of task in which the writer is involved. In thesecases, the writers chose different modes and the language reflected the characteris-tics of that mode.
Qualitative differences
Language use
Specifically, the students who used print-based methods to journal, includingtyped, posted versions and handwritten, personally submitted forms, used moreformal, academic language to express their (possibly) more deeply considered nar-ratives (e.g., ‘The connection to my practicum experiences can be made in themultiple interactions between the teacher and students’). Their work appeared toderive from repeated readings of the text chapters, and the summaries alignedmore closely with the chapters’ content. In most cases, the nature of students’wording was more concise and organized. The students who used video and/oriPod-based reflections used more language-based wording and seemed to respond/react to the prompt (e.g., ‘So, I can really see how this connects with what I sawin my classroom, the mess of it and all’). There were more words used in thesereflections as students’ initial comments about their thoughts seemed to triggermore thinking and additional responsive comments. The following representativesamples, taken from week 8 (i.e., midway through the semester) were chosen toillustrate these differences using reflections on content for one chapter’s focusedreading on assessment approaches.
Reflective Practice 33
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 0
0:36
31
Aug
ust 2
013
Sample 1: iPod-generated reflection. ‘So, the second key area was assessing themindividually, like walking around the classroom, seeing if somebody’s having trou-ble with something, helping them out, talking to them on the side, giving themfeedback. You know, giving them motivation if they’re doing something right. Tellthem, “Wow, great job”. Or if they’re doing something wrong, give them anotherway of looking at it so that maybe they could figure it out’.
Sample 2: video-generated reflection. ‘In this chapter, one main key idea that reallystuck out to me as far as content was classroom assessment. Classroom assessmentis basically the way in which all the aspects that are used within your classroom tojudge the students’ learning and how much they understand, such as using tests,open ended questions, having kids go on the board, calling out for answers, havingthem do mini lessons or mini group works in class, things like that. And anotherkey idea is informal assessment. And informal assessment is basically just whenyou are the teacher and you see a kid falling asleep in class so you decide to askthem a question to see if they’re following along with the lesson and to try to getthem back engaged so you can see where they’re at, what they’ve learned, whatthey’ve understood and what they’ve taken in. And you can also do it with kidswho aren’t falling asleep in class’.
Sample 3: print-based reflection. ‘Classroom assessments are all processes involvedin making decisions about students’ learning progress. These may include writtenwork, class participation, and performance on teacher-made and standardized tests.There are also decisions after an initial lesson that must be made if the students donot understand the material. Is it necessary to re-teach or review this lesson? Thebook discusses that the primary function of class assessments is to increase learn-ing. Without these assessments, making decisions about understanding andincreased learning cannot be made. Our text states, “research indicates that studentslearn more in classes where assessment is an integral part of instruction than inthose where it isn’t, and brief assessments that provide frequent feedback aboutlearning progress are more effective than long, infrequent ones, like once-a-termtests” (p. 476)’.
Critical thinking
Characteristics of the preservice teachers’ reflective comments that indicated the nat-ure of their critical thinking were found in the sections focused on their connec-tions, conflicts, and considerations of the assigned readings and additionalresources. Over half of the preservice teachers included critical comments that indi-cated they were considering the deeper meaning of what they were learning, andapplying this to their critiques of the classroom students they visited each week.The students using media were less formal in their explanations; however, they allentered comments that could be categorized as themes of fairness for students andknowledge of students’ individual strengths.
For example, one preservice teacher using an iPod reflection about assessment,stated that, ‘I feel it’s very, very important to assess each student so you knowwho’s working to the best of their ability and who’s not. So, the ones who aren’tyou can help them out’. A preservice teacher using video to talk through her reflec-tions commented, ‘I think both kinds of assessments are important for teachers to
34 F.C. Falk-Ross
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 0
0:36
31
Aug
ust 2
013
use because some students don’t do as good on tests or other written activities so,the teacher needs to maybe assess them in group activities or when they participatein the classroom, while other students may do better on tests. So I just think it’s justa good way to really make it fair for the students and assess them on their skills’.A preservice teacher using print format noted, ‘I observed in the third grade class-room and although the students knew how to write in complete sentences, theywere unable to create a flowing story. These skills would be beneficial to start ear-lier, wouldn’t they?’
The above examples of comments from preservice teachers’ reflections indicatetheir awareness of social justice themes focused on considering students’ individualneeds and equity in the classroom, regardless of the format in which they areexpressed. This is an important observation considering they will be working with adiverse population of students in schools today.
Educational implications
This study contributes to knowledge about the nature of preservice teachers’ think-ing about pedagogical principles, specifically in foundational teacher educationcourses, and how responsible attitudes about providing personal choice to studentscan follow a model in which they were given personal choice for expression ofresponses to new knowledge, new ideas. The model of allowing students to matchthe format through which new connections are mediated is central to their internali-zation of this principle. It is not enough to tell preservice teachers to be fair andmeet the needs of marginalized students; teacher educators must provide those samechoices. In the present educational environment in which technology is evolving ineveryone’s lives, but not so much in educational institutions, educators (preserviceand university instructors) need to ‘walk and talk’ in multimodal ways, providingmedia options for reflective purposes.
Another consideration that is presented to educators through the findings of thisstudy is that much of what teacher educators must impart in undergraduate classesto build knowledge of teaching and learning theory is based on seminal researchreadings and review of representative case studies to construct understandings.However, these resources are often in forms that do not match the multimodalworld that surrounds them and their practicum students. The preservice teachers intheir reflections maintained the language structure consistent with previous experi-ences. That is, they talked through iPods and Flip Videos as they talk to friends. Inour new environments, where audio and images need to be infused into educationalexperiences (i.e., teaching and learning formats), we need to help preservice teach-ers apply discipline-specific language to media other than print. In this study, themajority of preservice teachers chose not to use video or audio. However, fromtheir in-class conversations, it appeared that one of the reasons might be that themodels for use of these tools are less than perfect (e.g., they break down or fail toupload). An implication is that teacher educators should master the tools and guidethe preservice teachers toward mastery.
Learning about what motivates preservice teachers through their reflections ontextual readings, class presentations, case study applications, and field experiencesis important for teacher educators. For inexperienced but enthusiastic preserviceteachers, providing some guiding categories (i.e., content, connections, confusions,considerations) and a good deal of freedom of expression (i.e., their own reflective
Reflective Practice 35
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 0
0:36
31
Aug
ust 2
013
organization) allowed them opportunities to learn to think like teachers in this study.With these guidelines and freedoms, all the preservice teachers found a way and astyle to discuss their understandings and their confusions. Given the opportunity tothink on paper for some, and out loud for others, preservice teachers began askingquestions in their reflections, which was truly representative of an inquiry-basedapproach to best practice. Although the nature of the reflections varied, all preser-vice teachers were able to address their new understandings more than adequately.As in this study, teacher educators are encouraged to provide both guidance andfreedoms for reflective exercises.
Also, this study contributes to a growing body of evidence about best practicesfor teacher education for literacy activities in classes for preservice teacher instruc-tion. Issues in the need to demonstrate to teachers the importance and social justiceresponsibilities for understanding foundational theory to support flexibility and dif-ferentiation in literacy applications to monitor, support, and improve students’ liter-acy development and achievement are a topic to impart and model to preserviceteachers.
Notes on contributorFrancine C. Falk-Ross is the literacy coordinator at Pace University in New York, USA,where she teachers undergraduate and graduate course for the School of Education. Herresearch interests focus on the integration of new literacies into teacher education and schoolclassrooms.
ReferencesArmstrong, T. (2009). Mutliple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Bain, J.D., Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Mills, C. (1999). Using journal writing to enhance
student teachers’ reflexivity during field experience placements. Teachers and Teaching:Theory and Practice, 5(1), 51–73.
Banister, S., & Vannata Reinhart, R. (2011). TPCK for impact: Classroom teaching practicesthat promote social justice and narrow the digital divide in an urban middle school.Computers in the Schools, 28(1), 5–26.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabularyinstruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later.Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D.J. (2009). Handbook of research or new lit-eracies. New York: Routledge.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). The basics of qualitative research: Techniques and prac-tices for development of grounded theory (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications.
Friedman, A., & Schoen, L. (2009). Reflective practice interventions: Raising levels ofreflective judgement. Action in Teacher Education, 31(2), 61–73.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice. New York:Basic Books.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K.Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 195–232).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Guojonsdottir, H., Cacciattolo, M., Dakich, E., Davies, A., Kelly, C., & Dalmau, M.C.(2008). Transformative pathways: Inclusive pedagogies in teaching education. Journal ofResearch on Technology in Education, 40(2), 165–182.
Hagood, M.C. (2000). New times, new millennium, new literacies. Reading Research andInstruction, 39(4), 311–328.
36 F.C. Falk-Ross
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 0
0:36
31
Aug
ust 2
013
Hagood, M.C. (2008). Intersections of popular culture, identities, and new literacies research.In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on newliteracies (pp. 531–551). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hobbs, R. (2007). Reading the media: Media literacy in high school English. Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
Jensen, R.A. (1994, February). Fear of the known: Using audio-visual technology as a toolfor reflection in teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Associ-ation of Teacher Educators, Atlanta, GA.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices & classroom learn-ing (2nd ed.). New York: Open University Press.
Liston, D.P., & Zeichner, K.M. (1990). Reflective teaching and action research in preserviceteacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(3), 235–254.
Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1997). Shaping the social practices of reading. In S. Muspratt, A.Luke, & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning tex-tual practice (pp. 185–225). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc
New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B.Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of socialfutures (pp. 9–37). London: Routledge Falmer.
Ranker, J. (2008). Making meaning on the screen: Digital video production about theDominican Republic. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(5), 410–422.
Rich, P.J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools: Technologies to scaffold, struc-ture, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52–67.
Richards, R.T. (1998). Infusing technology and literacy into the undergraduate teacher educa-tion curriculum through the use of electronic portfolios. T.H.E. Journal, 25(9), 46–50.
Romano, M., & Schwartz, J. (2005). Exploring technology as a tool for eliciting and encour-aging beginning teacher reflection. Contemporary Issues in Technology and TeacherEducation. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol5/iss2/general/article1.cfm
Seban, D. (2009). Researching reflective field practices of elementary pre-service teachers:Two dimensional analysis of teacher narratives. Reflective Practice, 10(5), 669–681.
Semali, L. (2003). Ways with visual languages: Making the case for critical media literacy.The Clearing House, 76(6), 271–277.
Semali, L.M., & Watts Pailliotet, A. (1999). Introduction: What is intermediality and whystudy it in US classrooms? In L. Semali & A. Watts Pailliotet (Eds.), Intermediality: Theteachers’ handbook of critical media literacy (pp. 1–29). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Shoffner, M. (2009a). ‘Because I know how to use it’: Integrating technology into preserviceEnglish teacher reflective practice. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Edu-cation, 9(4). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss4/languagearts/article1.cfm
Shoffner, M. (2009). Personal attitudes and technology: Implications for preservice teacherreflective practice. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(2), 143–161.
Stevens, R. (2007). Capturing ideas in digital things: A new twist on the old problem ofinert knowledge. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S.J. Derry (Eds.), Video researchin the learning sciences (pp. 547–563). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Struyk, L.R., & McCoy, L.H. (1993). Preservice teachers’ use of videotape for self-evalua-tion. Clearing House, 67(1), 31–34.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzingevidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225.
Wolsey, T.D. (2010). Complexity in student writing: The relationship between the task andthe vocabulary uptake. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(2), 194–208.
Zeichner, K.M., & Noffke, S.E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Hand-book of research on teaching (pp. 298–332). Washington, DC: American EducationalResearch Association.
Reflective Practice 37
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 0
0:36
31
Aug
ust 2
013
