Media options: a comparison of preservice teachers’ use of video, audio, and print journaling for reflective reading response

Download Media options: a comparison of preservice teachers’ use of video, audio, and print journaling for reflective reading response

Post on 11-Dec-2016

212 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>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</p><p>Reflective Practice: International andMultidisciplinary PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20</p><p>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.</p><p>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</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2011.616883</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor &amp; 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 &amp; 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.</p><p>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 &amp;</p></li><li><p>Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [U</p><p>nivers</p><p>ity of</p><p> Stell</p><p>enbo</p><p>sch]</p><p> at 00</p><p>:36 31</p><p> Aug</p><p>ust 2</p><p>013 </p></li><li><p>Media options: a comparison of preservice teachers use of video,audio, and print journaling for reective reading response</p><p>Francine C. Falk-Ross*</p><p>School of Education, Pace University, Pleasantville, USA</p><p>(Received 17 January 2011; nal version received 19 August 2011)</p><p>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 eld 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.</p><p>Keywords: reection; reective practice; personal connections; technology; tea-cher education; foundational concepts</p><p>The importance of teacher reection on the theory and practice of education hasbeen substantiated as an effective, meaningful, and necessary process (Cochran-Smith &amp; Lytle, 1999; Zeichner &amp; Noffke, 2001). Teachers, in general, learn fromtheir critical considerations of literacy resources and classroom connections. Pre-service teachers, specically, use the process of reection to work through resolu-tion of confusions and creativity as they pass through eld experiences andprepare for their own classroom interventions (Friedman &amp; Schoen, 2009; Liston&amp; Zeichner, 1990; Seban, 2009). The practice of journal writing has been shownto be especially effective in documenting these changes (e.g., Bain, Ballantyne,Packer, &amp; Mills, 1999). In light of the new formats for reection that are a partof preservice teachers new literacy worlds, the topic of matching literacy formatsis informative.</p><p>Two equally important areas of rich research in the eld 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, &amp; Leu, 2009). If teachers are asking their students touse reection 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 reection. Recent initia-tives to study preservice English teachers reective practice using choice in</p><p>*Email: ffalkross@pace.edu</p><p>Reective PracticeVol. 13, No. 1, February 2012, 2737</p><p>ISSN 1462-3943 print/ISSN 1470-1103 online 2012 Taylor &amp; Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2011.616883http://www.tandfonline.com</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [U</p><p>nivers</p><p>ity of</p><p> Stell</p><p>enbo</p><p>sch]</p><p> at 00</p><p>:36 31</p><p> Aug</p><p>ust 2</p><p>013 </p></li><li><p>expressive tools for open format responses have shown promise (Shoffner,2009a).</p><p>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. Specically, 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 reec-tions the efcacy of audio and video journaling and its usefulness in readingprograms. This study will answer the following research questions:</p><p>(1) What are the benets of choosing format to respond to class content, practi-cum connections, personal conicts/confusions, and reective considerations,as perceived by preservice teachers and analyzed by the professor?</p><p>(2) What are the challenges of choosing format to respond to class content, prac-ticum connections, personal conicts/confusions, and reective consider-ations, as perceived by university students and by the professor?</p><p>(3) How do preservice teachers compare their experiences with different medi-ums of journaling?</p><p>(4) How does the professor compare the products of preservice teachers usingdifferent mediums?</p><p>Theoretical framework</p><p>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 reection on their own practice andknowledge; multimedia for all learners deeper communication for knowledgeenhancement; and knowledge of multimedia for instruction and assessment in class-rooms.</p><p>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 &amp; Freebody, 1997; New London Group,2000). Using media for reective purposes allows prospective (or preservice) teach-ers to nd 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Vannata Reinhart, 2011; Guojonsdottir et al., 2008;Warschauer &amp; Matuchniak, 2010).</p><p>28 F.C. Falk-Ross</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [U</p><p>nivers</p><p>ity of</p><p> Stell</p><p>enbo</p><p>sch]</p><p> at 00</p><p>:36 31</p><p> Aug</p><p>ust 2</p><p>013 </p></li><li><p>Studying this form of journaling, however, is difcult and only recently accessi-ble due to improved annotation tools such as MediaNotes and StudioCode (Rich &amp;Hannan, 2009). More recently, Stevens (2007) noted the advantage of capturingthe reection 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 &amp; Knobel, 2006;Semali &amp; 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.</p><p>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 denitions of what itmeans to be literate in a multimedia society (p. 271). Specically, 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 benet 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).</p><p>Methodology</p><p>Participants</p><p>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 certied teacher educationprogram and were of ages 2240 years. They were a mix of genders and ethnicities;no specic 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 reective/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 reection or other teaching/learning experiences. Five studentschose to use the Flip Videos and iPods provided by the educational technologydepartment to record their responses.</p><p>Procedures</p><p>As part of an undergraduate teacher education class, Understanding Learning andTeaching in Todays Classroom, the requirements for the reective journal were</p><p>Reective Practice 29</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [U</p><p>nivers</p><p>ity of</p><p> Stell</p><p>enbo</p><p>sch]</p><p> at 00</p><p>:36 31</p><p> Aug</p><p>ust 2</p><p>013 </p></li><li><p>initially explained to the preservice teachers. Specically, 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 specic way to reect 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/eld experiences), confusions or conicts (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 specics of what to write, sincethe purpose of the journals was for personal reection without consequence (unlessthey chose not to write). There were no specications 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 reections wasprovided following submission, and eld notes were kept to monitor preserviceteachers understandings for future class discussions.</p><p>Next, the use of these reections 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 reections. 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.</p><p>During the study, the researcher kept observation eld 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 benets and challenges ofusing video, audio, or print formats for reective writing. This additional set of com-ments was in an open-ended form, and all responses were considered acceptable.</p><p>Data collection and analysis</p><p>The discovery of characteristics of the preservice teachers reections wasapproached using a qualitative research format with a constructivist stance towardbuilding knowledge. The trustworthiness, or transparency, of the research study wasdeveloped through careful observat...</p></li></ul>