23
This article was downloaded by: [Linnaeus University] On: 06 October 2014, At: 04:07 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The Teacher Educator Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20 TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO- BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE Dr. Matthew James Miller a a Elementary Education, Western Washington University Published online: 25 Jun 2009. To cite this article: Dr. Matthew James Miller (2009) TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, The Teacher Educator, 44:3, 143-163, DOI: 10.1080/08878730902954167 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730902954167 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 to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and 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 Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

This article was downloaded by: [Linnaeus University]On: 06 October 2014, At: 04:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

TALKING ABOUT OURTROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILDPRESERVICE TEACHERS'PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGEDr. Matthew James Miller aa Elementary Education, Western WashingtonUniversityPublished online: 25 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Dr. Matthew James Miller (2009) TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES:USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONALKNOWLEDGE, The Teacher Educator, 44:3, 143-163, DOI: 10.1080/08878730902954167

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730902954167

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

Page 2: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

The Teacher Educator, 44:143–163, 2009

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0887-8730 print/1938-8101 online

DOI: 10.1080/08878730902954167

RESEARCH ARTICLE

TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED

DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS’

PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

MATTHEW JAMES MILLER

Elementary Education, Western Washington University

This study investigates the preservice teacher learning in the context of con-

versations about their field-based challenges. First, a review of the literature

explores studies that highlight the role of evidence-based conversation as a mech-anism to approach the inevitable problems faced by teachers in the classroom.

The subsequent case study provides an analysis of how a group of preservice

teachers approached a colleague’s challenge through a structured conversationand used digital videotapes and artifacts to add specificity to their analysis.

The study’s implications suggest how constructive and critical conversations

between prospective teachers can play an important role in their professionaldevelopment.

Learning to teach, with a particular focus on improving student learn-ing, is a challenging endeavor that is likely to produce challenges andproblems for even the most accomplished prospective teacher. To beproficient in the area of instruction, beginning teachers must gainan understanding of how to interrelate and apply various modes ofinstruction across content areas (Ball & McDiarmid, 1989; Fountas &Pinnell, 1996), how to establish effective and individualized learningenvironments and management routines (Charney, 2002; Routman,2000), and the ins-and-outs of balanced and assessment-driven instruc-tion (Morrow, Gambrell, & Pressley, 2003; Pressley, 2001; Wiggins &McTighe, 2005). The need to understand these interlocking strands

Address correspondence to Dr. Matthew James Miller, Elementary Education,Western Washington University, MS 9090, 516 High Street, Bellingham, WA 98225. E-mail:

[email protected]

143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

144 M. J. Miller

that constitute effective teaching creates a complex arena for teachercandidates to learn how to teach and one in which problems andcognitive dissonances are likely to surface.

Given that such dissonances are likely, it is sensible to examinelearning contexts that encourage prospective teachers to approach,reframe, and make sense of their problems. Although teacher educationresearchers have documented the positive benefits of the use of already-prepared ‘‘best practice’’ and problem-based cases as a way to facili-tate novice teachers’ reflection, problem solving, and learning (Evans,1995; Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, & Shulman, 2001; Hewitt, Er-minia, Bencze, Vaillancourt, & Yoon, 2003; Moje & Wade, 1997; Risko,Vukelich, Roskos, & Carpenter, 2002; Rowley & Hart, 1996; Silverman,Welty, & Lyon, 1994), we know little about how prospective teachersuse their own experiences as the impetus for productive conversationsabout critiquing and transforming teaching practices. We know littleabout whether and how such conversations between prospective teach-ers about their self-identified problems can help them to develop morenuanced understandings about teaching and learning.

This single case study describes how a group of prospective teach-ers used conversation as a mechanism for building their professionalknowledge about how to best facilitate their students’ learning. After areview of research studies that explore the effectiveness of practicingteachers’ problem-based conversations, I will share a study that featuresfive student teachers as they engage in a conversation about a problemfaced by one of them when teaching a first-grade writing unit.

The study is framed around two research questions: (a) Whatthemes emerge between preservice teachers as they navigate a col-league’s classroom-based challenge through conversation? and (b) Howdoes the social nature of the conversation influence group members’take-up of ideas? Lippincott (1999) defined ‘‘take-up’’ as how partici-pants choose to talk about, ignore, extend, or elaborate on the chal-lenges brought by a group member to the conversation (p. 37). Isought to analyze the ideas taken-up by group members and how theirconversation changed over time.

Teachers’ Problem-Based Conversations

Several empirical studies highlight the role of conversation in teacherlearning. In the field of literacy education, Gomez, Stone, and Kroeger(2004) described how problem-driven conversations between two teach-ers, a literacy specialist and an experienced classroom teacher, allowedthe participants to transcend their more limited perspectives as they

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 5: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Video-Based Dialogue 145

attempted to support a struggling reader. The two teacher participantsmet frequently to examine student work and share their perspectives onthe reader’s learning challenges. In their analysis, the authors portrayhow it was helpful for the two study participants to draw-on the ‘‘sight’’of a capable colleague (p. 193) to test their theories and their moreinsular and disciplinary perspectives. One of the teachers brought astrong background in developmentally appropriate literacy instruction.The other had a stronger sense of the connections between literacylearning and its connection to the social worlds of the classroom, family,and culture. The teacher participants were only able to improve theirstruggling student’s literacy learning by blending of these perspectivesthrough ongoing and evidence-driven conversations. In a similar study,Picard (2005) described action research involving three teachers whoused a lesson study model (Fernandez & Chikshi, 2002) to enter intoa sustained conversation about their teaching over time. The study’sfindings also reveal links between evidence-based conversations andstudents’ reading progress.

Other empirical studies also report the significance of teachers’conversations when they are centered on evidence of teaching andlearning. In a study of teacher study groups, Porter, Garet, Desimone,Yoon, and Birman (2000) revealed that practitioner-driven professionaldevelopment is most successful when teachers have opportunities tobecome engaged in the analysis of student work and have opportu-nities to obtain feedback on their teaching practice from colleagues.Gitlin (1990) chronicled the effects of collaborative analyses of teachingevidence such as videotapes and lesson plans. He noted how evidence-based conversations that focus particularly on the relationship betweentheir teaching intentions and practices are fruitful areas of exploration.

Studies of teachers involved in ‘‘video clubs’’ (Frederiksen, Sipusic,Sherin, & Wolfe, 1998; Rowley & Hart, 1996; Sherin & van Es, 2005)reveal viewing videotapes of peers’ classroom teaching allows groups ofteachers to share their unique observations of teaching moments, con-nect what they see to their own experience and research, and becausethey were not intimately involved in the actual teaching on the tape,provide clearer observational lenses than the individual likely wouldhave if reflecting alone. Such problem-based conversations betweenteachers are integral to their learning and sense-making, particularlywhen these opportunities to share problems are focused and structuredto account for complexity, include all voices, and are grounded inexperience.

What distinguishes the professional learning communities de-scribed in these studies from traditional forms of professional devel-opment is the way that adult learning is framed; prescription is replaced

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 6: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

146 M. J. Miller

by joint work, problem posing, and problem solving. Participants pose real-world problems with each other, support these conversations by sharingevidence of student learning, and work concertedly to resolve theirproblems. Conversations in these contexts are centered on continuousinquiry that creates interdependence among the participants over time(Little, 1992). These kind of authentic and problem-driven conversa-tions are an essential component of teacher learning and reflection, forthere is a ‘‘ceiling effect to how much we can learn (about a teachingproblem) if we keep it to ourselves’’ (Fullan, 1995, p. 17).

The world of professional development for already-practicingteachers offers many models of conversation-based professional devel-opment, including lesson study (Fernandez & Chikshi, 2002), ATLASwhole-faculty study groups (Clauset, Lick, Murphy, & L’Homme, 2008),novice teacher learning groups (Achinstein & Meyer, 1998; Meyer,1999), content-specific study groups (Grossman, Wineburg, & Wool-worth, 2001; Lieberman & Wood, 2002; Wineburg & Grossman, 1998),and Critical Friends Groups (Dunne, Nave, & Lewis, 2000; Nave, 2000).This research and the theories that support conversation-based modelsof professional development are useful when designing a study thatexamines prospective teachers’ problem-based conversations.

An opportunity to re-envision teaching problems through the eyesof knowledgeable colleagues may be particularly helpful for prospectiveteachers, who are in need of a ‘‘testing ground’’ (Rogers & Babinski,2002, p. 5) to safely experiment with new ideas, theories, and practicesthat they are beginning to learn from their methods courses and accom-panying field experiences in schools. Such social opportunities allowthose who are new to the profession of teaching to practice assertingtheir authority over their own emerging experience. For example, ex-amining a videotape or sample of student work may enable beginningteachers to become more conscious of their own words and the evolvingexplanations and rationales they use to justify their teaching choices andhow these choices impact student learning. Although the process ofsense-making can lead to multiple and even conflicting interpretationsamong a group of teachers, conversation with peers provides a meansfor teachers to get these understandings out into the open, in a socialspace with colleagues, where they can be supported, challenged, and/orcritiqued.

The studies and approaches described here provide a good foun-dation for understanding how practicing teachers improve their prac-tices through conversation. Yet, we have a limited understanding ofhow prospective teachers approach their problems through conversationand the kinds of knowledge about teaching and student learning thatemerge from these conversations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 7: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Video-Based Dialogue 147

Methods: Setting, Data, and Analysis

The case described in this article is drawn from a one-year longitudi-nal study of problem-based conversations between groups of teachersenrolled in a graduate-level elementary teacher preparation programat a large university in the Northwest United States. At the time of thisstudy, the interns were enrolled in a literacy methods course with anaccompanying practicum experience in elementary classrooms. As anassignment in the elementary writing methods course, the participantscreated a sequenced series of inquiry-based lessons to teach duringtheir field experience. The assignment marked the first time that theparticipants were required to teach whole-class lessons in their schoolplacements, having worked only with individual or smaller groups ofstudents until this time in the program. Table 1 summarizes the stepsleading to and through the problem-based sessions. Each participantvideotaped at least one of their lessons and viewed the videotape ontheir own. Next, each participant met in a 2- to 3-hour seminar withfive to six peers. Then, the presenting teacher shared a 10–15-minutesegment of their teaching video, briefly set its context, and providedthe group with a description of the problem(s) that surfaced for thepresenting teacher after teaching the lesson and viewing the videotape.In some cases, the self-identified problem was connected directly to thevideo sample. In other cases, the presenting teacher’s problem was notdirectly tied to the video sample, but viewing the video gave the viewersan idea of the presenting teacher’s students, classroom context, andpedagogy.

During their conversations, the participants employed a consult-ancy protocol that is part of the Critical Friends Group (CFG) profes-sional development system as a way to engage in problem-based conver-sations with each other (Dunne & Honts, 1998; National School Reform

TABLE 1 Sequence of the Problem-Based Sessions

1. Presenting teacher videotapes lesson during field-placement in school2. Presenting teacher views tape alone at home, develops problem-based

question to bring to peer group3. Presenting teachers meet in 2–3-hour seminar with five-to-six peers4. Presenting teacher shares a 10–15-minute segment of their teaching video,

briefly sets its context, and provides the group with a description of theproblem

5. Group engages in a 40-minute consultancy protocol surrounding the pre-senting teacher’s problem

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 8: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

148 M. J. Miller

Faculty, n.d.). The steps in the consultancy protocol (Appendix 1)require participants to ask clarifying and probing questions of eachother, to consider the presented evidence and talk with peers abouttheir colleague’s problem, allow the presenting teacher to take notesabout aspects of his or her group’s conversation and, finally, call for thepresenting teacher to voice the new understandings gained through theprocess.

Data Collection

A qualitative case study utilizing the ethnographic methods observation,interview, and document collection was used to understand the natureof preservice teachers’ conversations (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2003). Datasources included interviews and elicited responses from the participants,observations, videotapes, and transcripts of the conversational sessionsand an analysis of documents such as lesson plans, reflective papers,and student work. Collecting this range of data was appropriate giventhe desire to gain a ‘‘holistic overview the context under study’’ (Miles& Huberman, 1994, p. 6).

Videotapes of the two participant-groups’ conversations duringboth phases of the study are the primary source of data. As a formof data, videotapes tie together the participants’ actions in ways thatare not achievable through field notes alone because they lack thepersonality and tone that video is able to capture (Orrill, 1999) andallowed me to check my interpretations with those of the informants(Mehan, 1978). A variety of examples of participant-to-participant dis-course were videotaped and allowed an analysis of the participants’individual contributions as well as their interactions with one anotheras they examined problems related to their teaching assignments.

Focus group interviews also informed the analysis of the data. Theinterviews offered a way for participants to reflect on moments fromtheir conversations and describe their interpretation of how they expe-rienced those moments. Interviews were necessary for making sense ofand being accountable to each participant’s experience.

A variety of documents were also collected and analyzed to furtheran understanding of how the problem-based conversations contributedto the participants’ learning. The most important set of documentswere the artifacts that the participants brought to examine during theirdiscussions. These documents included lesson plans, samples of stu-dent work, graphic organizers, and other artifacts that the participantsbrought to the seminars. The participants also generated two-page re-flective narratives as part of their course assignment and these were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 9: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Video-Based Dialogue 149

collected for analysis. The analysis of these accompanying documentsand artifacts were compared to the session transcripts, and from thiscross-data comparison, tentative hypotheses were generated about thesense-making opportunities afforded by the inclusion of such teachingand learning artifacts in the problem-based conversations.

Analysis

A case study approach facilitated an analysis of a relatively small numberof participants over periods of time. The focus on a smaller sampleprovided details that included descriptions and analyses of the partici-pants and salient events that occurred during their conversations (Mer-riam, 1998; Yin, 2003). Such case studies focus on the particularity andcomplexity of a small number of single cases and allow researchers tounderstand particular activities across cases and within specific contexts(Stake, 1995, p. xi).

In a first level of analysis, the ATLAS.ti software package was usedfor preliminary coding. The analysis of session transcripts and artifactsset the stage for engaging in an in-depth analysis of the participants’conversations. Codes were created to summarize segments of the con-versational and interview data in terms of the content and conversa-tional processes at play in the participants’ discourse. Such codes are‘‘tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or in-ferential information compiled during a study’’ and to correlate eventsin the study to an overall theoretical framework (Miles & Huberman,1994, p. 56). The codes that emerged from the conversational datawere compared across sessions and compared to the session observationnotes. Gradually, initial codes were grouped into ‘‘code families’’ (Miles& Huberman, 1994, p. 57) as an iterative analysis began to take shape.

To better understand the patterns of discourse between preserviceteachers and the links between their problem-based conversations andtheir learning, a second level of analysis included generating patterns.An analysis of the documents, conversational data, interviews, obser-vation notes, and an iterative analysis of the initial codes was used todiscover patterns and themes in the participants’ talk (Yin, 2003). Whatwas sought were instances where there were, and were not, ‘‘converginglines of inquiry’’ (Yin, 2003); where multiple sources of evidence eithercorroborated or disproved particular findings or conclusions.

The ways the participants’ drew on their content and pedagogicalknowledge in their groups as they tried to relate recent teaching expe-riences to each other was a particularly fruitful area of inquiry. Thisperspective, in concert with the broader ethnographic perspectives,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 10: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

150 M. J. Miller

allowed for a richer understanding of how the seminars shaped andwere shaped by the participants’ uses of content, pedagogical, andpersonal knowledge.

Case Study: Conversation About the

‘‘Gradual Release of Responsibility’’

The case features Jenny, Abby, Susan, Erica, and Kelly as they talkedabout a problem that stemmed from a first-grade writing unit taught byJenny. During her field experience, Jenny developed a short multi-daywriting unit for first-grade students to fulfill a literacy course assign-ment. Her learning objectives were that students would understand howdescriptive words can support their writing, would be able to create atree map as a graphic organizer for pre-writing, and would be able touse this graphic organizer for creating published books that containeddescriptive words and sentences. The unit concluded with studentscreating a published ‘‘What am I?’’ riddle book to share with theirfamilies. Jenny also made sure that these learning objectives were tiedto the district and state grade-level expectation that students in firstgrade will transfer data from a graphic organizer to published format,that students should be able to show that and explain how graphicorganizers, such as tree maps, are used to assist writing sentences.

Jenny began her session by providing a brief context for the de-scriptive writing unit. She described how she began the unit with atactile experience where her students reached into boxes that containedpumpkin parts; the ‘‘insides’’ and the ‘‘outsides.’’ Jenny describes howher students enjoyed the tactile engagement with gourds and cameup with descriptive words to explain the feeling of the pumpkin partson their skin. Jenny noted that she collected all of these descriptivewords on a ‘‘word wall’’ (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996) for future reference.According to Jenny, this first day went very well, particularly due tothe tactile and sensory-based experiences that helped her first-gradestudents understand the concept of descriptive words.

Jenny’s dilemma occurred on the second day of her lesson cycleand centers her efforts to implement the ‘‘teacher modeling’’ stage ofthe ‘‘Gradual Release of Responsibility’’ (GRR) lesson model (Pearson& Gallagher, 1983). The GRR model has been applied in the field ofliteracy as a key component of a comprehensive literacy education pro-gram. This four-step instructional model begins with highly structuredteacher modeling and then moves to guided practice where studentspractice a new skill or concept with the teacher’s assistance. Next,students practice the new skill without the teacher’s assistance while the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 11: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Video-Based Dialogue 151

teacher focuses on formative assessment. Finally, the students transferthe new skill to a new context to show mastery. If students need moresupport at any stage of the process, the teacher provides it based on hisor her ongoing assessment.

The GRR model was a main construct in Jenny’s literacy methodscourse. Her instructor modeled its use, and the students read about themodel in several course texts. The students in the methods course werealso required to use the model in team-built microteaching experiencesduring the course. Finally, the candidates were required to employthe model to teach a new writing concept or skill to elementary stu-dents during a three-week school-based field experience. The instructorhoped that this ‘‘triangulated approach’’ to the model would reinforcethe candidates’ use and understanding of how to gradually release theresponsibility for learning to students.

Jenny introduced her problem in the following way to the membersof her group:

Jenny: My dilemma is on the second day, I did a mini-lesson on [how tocreate a] tree map. I think I was sticking too much to my lesson plan andthinking, ‘‘Oh, I have to do the ‘‘teacher modeling’’ stage here and thenhave to go and do here and do here : : : ’’ I’m feeling really uneasy aboutit : : : I think I lose the kids’ attention: : : : During the teacher modelingpart, I was like, ‘‘I have to do the teacher modeling, I have to do this, andI have to do that because it’s our assignment.’’ I’m wondering how I caninvolve the kids more in this stage instead of just saying, ‘‘I’m going tobe modeling this for you while you just listen’’ when, really, I wanted toinvolve the students more. So, I think that’s it. Does this make sense toyou; what my question about this lesson is?

Kelly: It’s whether you can involve kids in the teacher-modeling process,and if so, how?

Jenny: Yeah. How could I have more effectively done this little piece hereto keep the kids excited and engaged? I kind of felt like I shut themdown : : :

Before her group began asking questions, Jenny shared several artifactsfrom the lesson cycle including her lesson plan, a tree-map model sheused during a guided mini-lesson, and samples of her students’ finalproject, a ‘‘What am I?’’ riddle book where the students write riddlesto be solved by their readers. Jenny also shared a 10-minute teachingvideotape that features how she modeled how to create a tree-mapgraphic organizer during the GRR ‘‘teacher modeling’’ stage. This briefintroduction to her lesson and the accompanying videotape provided acontext through which her peer group could engage in her problem.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 12: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

152 M. J. Miller

The group members next reviewed the teacher and student ar-tifacts and watched the video of Jenny’s teaching. They had an op-portunity to ask a series of clarifying questions to better understandJenny’s dilemma and the classroom context in which her problem tookplace. The following exchange featured Kelly asking Jenny about hercooperating teacher’s instruction:

Kelly: ‘‘When your cooperating teacher does mini-lessons like this, howdoes she usually do them?’’

Jenny: Um, [pauses] I’ve never really seen a lot of mini-lessons [in herclassroom]. In this class, it’s a lot of ‘‘involve the kids in everything thatyou do.’’ : : : A lot of the stuff we did in this classroom is very inquiry-based; she asks them questions all of the time. So anything like this[teacher modeling] where it’s like, ‘‘Now you have to listen to me talkand do this,’’ it’s like, ‘‘Oh, what, what’s going on here?’’ so I never, Idon’t see too much of her doing that, here’s the direct [modeling] thinggoing on.

She’ll have a lot of conversations with the kids instead of doing itmore of a step-by-step process type of thing like in the [GRR] model.Earlier in the year, she taught them how to create a circle map, and Iwish I would have been there to see it : : : I think that would’ve reallyhelped me introduce this tree map because I could have built on whatshe did before.

Here, as she clarified her problem, Jenny noted that the instructionalchoices her cooperating teacher made do not support the kind of moreteacher-directed and explicit modeling promoted through the GRRmodel. She suggested that her cooperating teacher generally (at leastwhen Jenny has had the opportunity to observe her) does not employsuch explicit teacher modeling as an instructional strategy. This dis-tance between the instructional methods employed by her cooperatingteacher and her course requirement to use the GRR model is an ex-ample of the ‘‘two-worlds’’ conundrum faced by many student teachers(Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985) since such teacher modeling isnot a familiar component of her cooperating teacher’s ‘‘arsenal’’ ofpedagogical strategies and may have contributed to their inattentivenessand inability to engage. Jenny mentioned that although her teacher didteach students how to use a circle map graphic organizer, the timingof her field placement did not coincide with this lesson. Thus, anopportunity to see and build on her cooperating teacher’s modelingwas missed.

The round of clarifying questions provided the group members anopportunity to gain a shared understanding about the context of Jenny’sproblem. The group next turned to approaching Jenny’s dilemma more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 13: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Video-Based Dialogue 153

directly via a round of probing questions. These questions were in-tended to help Jenny see beyond her current thinking about her chal-lenges with the Gradual Release instructional model. Erica first askeda question about the choice to use the GRR model:

Erica: Why did you decide to make this learning opportunity a ‘‘graduallyreleased’’ mini-lesson versus a more hands-on or interactive demonstra-tion?

Jenny: That’s a good question. I don’t know: : : : When I was talking to myteacher beforehand and telling her about the [methods course] writingproject and what we needed to do [for our assignment], she said, ‘‘Oh,you know, the kids need to learn how to use tree maps.’’ I told her aboutthe need to teach a mini-lesson and she said, ‘‘Well, you could do themini-lesson on the tree map.’’ And so I immediately thought, ‘‘Okay : : :

she knows best : : : ’’ and I just decided to do it right then and there.But as I’m here [talking to you], I’m thinking, ‘‘Do I need to do all

of this directed modeling while the students just watch? : : : In this case, itmight be better to introduce in a different way, like by giving them eacha model they could touch and look at or something like that.

Erica: That’s what I was thinking, because as I look at the work theygenerated on that day, it’s not nearly as ‘‘rich’’ or detailed as the workthey generated on the previous day when you had more hands-on en-gagements.

By asking, ‘‘Do I need to do all of this directed modeling while thestudents just watch?’’ Jenny pondered whether a more interactive adap-tation to the modeling stage of the GRR model would benefit her stu-dents’ ability to understand the learning goals. Erica supported Jenny’shypothesis by using the specificity of student work to note how thework generated during more hands-on student engagements was moredetailed. Jenny rightly noted that there is tension between her courserequirement to use the GRR model as an assignment and the realityof her practicing classroom. The pressure she felt to meet this courserequirement may have worked against her students’ best opportunitiesto learn. At the same time, Jenny’s interpretation of the modeling stageof the GRR model as ‘‘hands off’’ for students may indicate an incorrectinterpretation that the GRR model does not allow more interactive useduring the modeling stage with younger students.

Abby next asked Jenny a probing question, ‘‘What was most frus-trating for your students during this lesson?’’ Jenny responded,

Jenny: Well, I think it was during the modeling stage, when I was reallytrying to focus on this [GRR] format and thinking this is the way I have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 14: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

154 M. J. Miller

to teach it, even though it might not be the best way to help them learn.I just felt that I was really shutting the kids off, that’s what was frustratingme, that they’re all like, ‘‘Ooh, ooh!’’ [hands raised and jumping] and Iignored their enthusiasm and didn’t tap into it.

Earlier, when I put the pumpkin parts in their hands, they closedtheir eyes and I asked them sensory questions. It was much more effectiveand they were more involved…

Abby: So you felt pretty constrained by the teacher-modeling step?

Jenny: Yeah.

Here, Jenny remarked that her first-grade students were (understand-ably) much more engaged when she employed tactile and sensory-basedexperiences during the earlier stages of the lesson. The most frustratingpart for the students, in Jenny’s view, was when she modeled how tocreate a tree map organizer and did not allow the students to participatein any way other than listening to her explanation.

As the session progressed, the group members continued to askJenny probing questions. Gradually, an important shift occurred inthe nature of their interrogation. Questions such as, ‘‘What was thepart of the lesson that was going to be the newest or the hardest forthem in this whole process?’’ and ‘‘What part of the process leadingup to the problem day did you feel helped your students the most inbeing able to preparing them to create the published riddle book?’’signaled a shift from focusing on Jenny’s instruction to the students’learning. Teacher education researchers note that it is difficult forprospective teachers to shift from ‘‘What am I doing?’’ types of ques-tions to ‘‘What are my students learning?’’ questions (Bullough, Clark,Wentworth, & Hansen, 2001; Cochran-Smith, 1991; Hill, 2000; McDi-armid, 1990; McDiarmid & Holt-Reynolds, 1994). Yet, the specificityof Jenny’s problem about her students’ engagement and the oppor-tunities to examine artifacts and ask clarifying questions enabled therespondents to focus on Jenny’s students’ learning rather than just onher actions.

After these probing question exchanges, the group began a back-and-forth conversation without Jenny’s participation ( Jenny listens, takesnotes, and removes herself from the table so her colleagues can talk witheach other). The group members focused on Jenny’s challenge with theteacher modeling stage of the GRR model. First, Susan suggested thatalthough Jenny is teaching more directly during the modeling step, shecan still involve these young students by engaging them physically andincorporate parts of her previous day’s lesson. She referred to Jenny’stree map as she spoke:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 15: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Video-Based Dialogue 155

Susan: I wonder if there’s a way to incorporate the kids into this, that,even though she is doing more explicit modeling. Can you still have astudent come up and [referring to model] explain the two sides or themap and then have a student physically come up and stick the pieces onthere with Velcro, a sticky note, tape, or magnets? Even if it’s just creatingan opportunity for them to be a little more engaged : : : just getting first-graders a little more physically involved even though they aren’t takingall of the responsibility for their learning during this part, I mean, they’dbe told or helped where to put the parts of the model, but maybe thatwould help keep ‘em engaged : : :

I also wondered about the sequencing of the lesson, like if theremight be a way to tie into the activity they did the day before morespecifically. The day before, they felt the pumpkins and that’s all theywere doing at first, was feeling. Maybe making the tree map on that dayand putting all their ‘‘feeling words’’ on it, so, you know, so it’s right therethat day. All the things that we feel, we put here. All the things we see, weput here. This would make it much more connected and interactive.

Here, Susan advocated for involving the students more physically in thelesson and for connecting to aspects of the previous days’ more tactilelesson on gourds. Just because Jenny was in the modeling step of hertree map lesson, does not preclude student engagement.

Group member Kelly next entered the conversation with a dif-ferent lens. After considering Susan’s comments about increasing thestudents’ participation in the modeling, she notes some more generalchallenges with balancing student participation with first-graders’ fre-quent exuberance for sharing:

Kelly: I like your idea of taking all of the words they came up with duringthe more physical and tactile lesson from yesterday, and [the idea that]when they said a word, Jenny could say, ‘‘Could you come up and putthat up here for us?’’ or something like that. Keeping it really focusedand teacher-directed, but providing some opportunity for engagement.

But : : : I think involving students more than that is a hard one : : :

I think sometimes I don’t want to shut down kids, but I know as soonas I start to teach anything you know [Kelly shoots up her hand like afirst-grader] [laughter] : : :

I think sometimes you have to almost say, ‘‘No, I have to get throughthis,’’ because you never know when that random, tangent question is’gonna come and throw everything off, and sometimes you just gotta spitit out there so that the whole class can move forward, you know? I thinkthat’s hard to do cause it’s much more engaging, I think, at any level, tohave students participate, but sometimes you just gotta spit it out there : : :

This passage shows how Kelly generalized from Jenny’s problem andexpresses a perennial tension in teaching young students and a cri-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 16: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

156 M. J. Miller

tique of a question-driven pedagogy. She believes that it is sometimesappropriate to ‘‘spit it out there’’ for younger students because theyhave a tendency to wander off-task with their comments and questions.The following exchange further elaborates this tension:

Kelly: I think it’s very hard, especially with young kids to know if whenthey’re squirming if they are paying attention, ’cause some of ’em are[laughter] : : :

Erica: But others aren’t! Yeah. I think that, that what you said, Kelly, wasreally good. That’s what I was thinking about too. Like it’s okay for kidsto hear from you that ‘‘There’s gonna be a time for you to respond : : : ’’and, maybe something, I don’t know if first graders listen to that kind ofthing : : : I know I talk way too much in the front, I give way too manydirections so I don’t know if it’s too much to say, ‘‘I’m gonna talk firstand then, I can’t wait to hear about what you have to say!’’ so the studentsknow that there’s going to be a time to contribute, but it’s just not rightnow while I’m teaching you something new. I think that that’s okay.

The preceding passages highlight how other members of the groupextended an initial idea. First, Susan advocated for more active andphysical approaches with Jenny’s young students. Next, Kelly took upthis idea, but reasoned that sometimes it might be acceptable, whena specific new skill is being modeled, to use a more teacher-directedapproach to keep the students’ tangents at bay. Erica then extendedKelly’s idea by noting how, if the teacher perceives that it is importantto use a more direct approach, a desirable transparent ‘‘move’’ is to beexplicit with the students about why the teacher is modeling in this wayand that more active student involvement will be invited shortly. Thisway, Erica reasoned, the students have a better awareness of when andwhy the teacher speaks and when and why they will speak as they moveforward together.

In essence, the group members justified the ‘‘teacher modeling’’step of the GRR model, but generated a more nuanced rationale for itsuse through their conversation. They took into account the age of thestudent, the necessity of being transparent with students about what toexpect when the teacher does more directive modeling, and the needto involve the students physically even as the teacher is using a moredirective, versus inquiry-based, approach. Grounding their conversationin light of Jenny’s specific problem and accompanying artifacts seemsto have enabled the group members to reach these more nuancedunderstandings of the model.

As the group moved toward the end of their conversation, Susancommented on the tension she felt between her school-based teach-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 17: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Video-Based Dialogue 157

ing experiences and assignments such as the one requiring them toimplement the GRR model:

Susan: Really, I think I struggled with our requirement to use the GradualRelease model too during last few weeks in school. For these lesson assign-ments, we are somewhat constrained by requirements of our particular(teacher education) course. If Jenny does this again next year with herclass, she can look at the whole project and ask, ‘‘What’s going to behard for them, given what I know about them, and what do I need todo to support their learning? When will it be their time to be involved inan out-loud way and when is it going to be my time to have a strongervoice?’’ All of this is based on what she thinks they really need and herongoing assessments : : :

This way, you don’t have any sort of false constraints of feelingobliged to have to abide by a particular format and you’re more free topick-and-choose which parts of any particular lesson model really meetthe needs of your lesson and your kids on any given day or week. Sohope the challenges we face with the lesson format will be alleviated whenwe’re more grounded in a particular classroom focused on the learningof particular students : : :

In this passage, Susan recognized her position as a student teacher andnoted a need to adapt and contextualize prescribed lesson models inorder to best serve students. The problem-based conversation seemsto have helped these teacher candidates reach a more sophisticatedunderstanding of the need, and ways, to adapt such models in theirinstruction.

In summary, the presenting teacher, Jenny, initially expressed herdifficulty employing the teacher-modeling step of the prescribed GRRlesson model. She believed her modeling, because it did not involvethe students, caused them to lose focus and limited their opportunityto learn. Through this problem-based conversation, the group mem-bers took-up Jenny’s problem, situated the GRR model in a specificclassroom with specific students, offered Jenny specific ways to improveher instructional approach, and moved from this specific problem tomore general issues of instruction, student learning, and their uniqueand problematic position as student teachers.

Implications

The analysis presented in this case illustrates the kinds of exchanges thatoccur when prospective teachers try to make sense of their problemsin the midst of the inevitable tensions between their school-based andmethods course experiences. The participants demonstrated that they

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 18: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

158 M. J. Miller

can identify and re-frame a problem in ways that make it possible todraw on their collective experiences and gain a more complex under-standing of how particular course assignments and lesson models can(and should) be adapted to suit the needs of their students. The par-ticipants also demonstrated an ability to generalize beyond a particularproblem and draw broader lessons for their future teaching. Finally,the social nature of the conversations provided many opportunities toelaborate on, clarify, examine, and challenge their assumptions, teach-ing practices, course experiences, and their perceptions of students’learning.

These conversations enabled the participants to think like prac-ticing and professional teachers—to ask questions of each other abouthow their teaching and students’ learning are shaped by individualand contextual factors. The data also revealed that the participants’problems are due to several factors, including their limited practical ex-perience, the difficulty in expectations between the college of educationand their school placements, and the challenges of enacting a teachingpersona when placed in a more experienced teacher’s classroom. Theparticipants frequently acknowledged these constraints and their ownlimitations, providing a metacognitive lens through which to view theirdeveloping practice.

Conclusion

The data from this case and the larger longitudinal study suggest thevalue of creating socially interactive contexts in which prospective teach-ers can examine teaching and learning artifacts in the service of theirproblems. Such conversations, if employed systematically throughouttheir teacher education program, may contribute to a sense of profes-sionalism and accountability.

Professional learning communities are contexts where teachersendeavor ‘‘to generate new knowledge of practice and their mutualsupport of each other’s professional growth’’ (McLaughlin & Talbert,2001, p. 75). The use of local knowledge in these learning communi-ties (teaching examples, student work, problems, best practices, etc.)sharply contrasts with the norms of privacy and individualism that aregenerally characteristic of teaching and professional development inmany traditional contexts (Lortie, 1975). In professional learning com-munities, conversation provides a means for teachers to modify theirpractice over time by reflecting on the exchanges they have with theircolleagues. This reflective and social work produces local knowledgestudent learning and teaching practice, and offers teachers mutualsupport of each other’s professional growth (McLaughlin, 1994).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 19: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Video-Based Dialogue 159

The findings from this study suggest prospective teachers’ prob-lems can play a useful role in their preparation when approachedconstructively through conversation with peers. Such a problem-basedorientation creates opportunities for prospective teachers to engagein professional learning and enables them to approach the complexteaching challenges that face them at this stage of their development.

The real work for those who structure and teach in teacher edu-cation programs is to help teacher candidates make the transition frombeing ‘‘student thinkers’’ to ‘‘pedagogical and professional’’ thinkersby providing venues that allow them to think about how teachers’actions influence students’ learning. Here, the responsibility for teachereducation becomes more distributed to include the prospective teachersthemselves and their capacity to explore their choices and the reper-cussions of their choices through conversations with their peers. Akey decision for teacher educators is to continue to ponder how tosupport and sustain such conversational spaces so teacher candidatescan maximize their opportunities to improve their teaching and theirstudents’ learning.

References

Achinstein, B., & Meyer, T. (1998, April). Collaborative inquiry among novice

teachers as professional development: Sustaining habits of heart and mind. Paperpresented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego,CA.

Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1989). The subject matter preparation of teachers(Issue Paper No. 89-4). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research onTeacher Education.

Bullough, R., Clark, D. C., Wentworth, N., & Hansen, J. (2001). Student cohorts,school rhythms, and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(2),97–110.

Charney, R. (2002). Teaching children to care. Greenfield, MA: Northeast Foun-dation for Children.

Clauset, K., Lick, D., Murphy, C., & L’Homme, B. (2008). Putting action intoaction research: Improving teacher practice. In K. Clauset, D. Lick, & C.Murhpy, Schoolwide action research for professional learning communities: Improving

student learning through the whole-faculty study groups approach (pp. 107–108).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Reinventing student teaching. Journal of Teacher

Education, 42(2), 104–118.Dunne, F., & Honts, F. (1998). ‘‘That group really makes me think!’’ critical friends

groups and the development of reflective practitioners. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, SanDiego.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 20: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

160 M. J. Miller

Dunne, F., Nave, B., & Lewis, A. (2000). Critical friends groups: Teachershelping teachers to improve student learning. Phi Delta Kappa International,28, 9–12.

Evans, K. (1995). Teacher reflection as a cure for tunnel vision. Language Arts,

72(4), 266–271.Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher

preparation. In J. Raths & L. Katz (Eds.), Advances in teacher education (Vol. 2,pp. 61–73). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Fernandez, C., & Chikshi, S. (2002). A practical guide to translating lesson studyfor a U.S. setting. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2), 128–134.

Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for allchildren. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Frederiksen, J. R., Sipusic, M., Sherin, M., & Wolfe, E. (1998). Video portfolioassessment: Creating a framework for viewing the functions of teaching.Educational Assessment, 5(4), 225–297.

Fullan, M. (1995). The limits and the potential of professional development.In T. Guskey & A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education:New paradigms and practices (pp. 253–268). New York: Teachers College Press.

Gitlin, A. (1990). Educative research, voice, and school change. Harvard Educa-

tional Review, 60(4), 443–465.Gomez, M. L., Stone, J. C., & Kroeger, J. (2004). Conversations on teaching

reading: From the point of view of point of view. English Education, 36(3),192–213.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teachercommunity. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942–1012.

Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Shulman, L. (2001). Towards expertthinking: How case-writing contributes to the development of theory-basedprofessional knowledge in student-teachers. Teaching Education, 13(2), 219–225.

Hewitt, J., Erminia, P., Bencze, L., Vaillancourt, B., & Yoon, S. (2003). Newapplications for multimedia cases: Promoting reflective practice in preserviceteacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(4), 483–500.

Hill, L. (2000). What does it take to change minds? Intellectual developmentof preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 50–62.

Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. (2002). The National Writing Project. EducationalLeadership, 59(6), 40–43.

Lippincott, A. (1999). Reflective thinking among and between beginning professionals.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California Santa Barbara,Santa Barbara.

Little, J. W. (1992). The black box of professional community. In A. Lieberman(Ed.), The changing contexts of teaching: Ninety-first yearbook of the national societyfor the study of education (Vol. 1, pp. 157–178). Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). Challenging prospective teachers’ beliefs during earlyfield experience: A quixotic undertaking? Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3),12–20.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 21: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Video-Based Dialogue 161

McDiarmid, G. W., & Holt-Reynolds, D. (1994). How do prospective teachers think

about literature and the teaching of literature? East Lansing, MI: National Centerfor Research on Teacher Learning. Retrieved February, 2008, from http://ncrtl.msu.edu/research.htm

McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Strategic sites for teachers’ professional develop-ment. In P. Grimmit & J. Neufeld (Eds.), Teacher development and the struggle for

authenticity: Professional growth and restructuring in the context of change (pp. 31–51). New York: Teachers College Press.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of

high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Mehan, H. (1978). Structuring school structure. Harvard Educational Review,

48(1), 32–64.Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education

(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Meyer, T. (1999). Conversational learning: The role of talk in a novice teacher learning

community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University School ofEducation, Palo Alto, CA.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Moje, E., & Wade, S. (1997). What case discussions reveal about teacher think-

ing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(7), 691–712.Morrow, L. M., Gambrell, L. B., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2003). Best practices in

literacy instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Nave, B. (2000). Critical Friends Groups: Their impact on students, teachers, and

schools. Bloomington, IN: Annenberg Institute for School Reform.National School Reform Faculty. (n.d.). Resources. Retrieved February 2008,

from www.nsrfharmony.org/resources.htmlOrrill, C. H. (1999). Building technology-based learner-centered environments: Pro-

fessional development in real time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, IndianaUniversity, Indianapolis.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, G. (1983). The gradual release of responsibilitymodel of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 112–123.

Picard, S. (2005). Collaborative conversations about second-grade readers. The

Reading Teacher, 58(5), 458–464.Porter, A., Garet, M. S., Desimone, L., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2000). Does

professional development change teaching practice? Results from a three-year study. In E. Hassel (Ed.), Professional development, learning from the best:

A toolkit for schools & districts based on the National Awards Program for model

professional development. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional EducationalLaboratory.

Pressley, M. (2001). Effective beginning reading instruction: A paper commissioned by

the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference.Risko, V., Vukelich, C., Roskos, K., & Carpenter, M. (2002). Preparing teachers

for reflective practice: Intentions, contradictions, and possibilities. Language

Arts, 80(2), 134–144.Rogers, D., & Babinski, L. (2002). From isolation to conversation: Supporting new

teachers’ development. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 22: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

162 M. J. Miller

Routman, R. (2000). Conversations: Strategies for teaching, learning, and evaluating.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Rowley, J., & Hart, P. (1996). How video case studies can promote reflectivedialogue. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 28–29.

Sherin, M., & van Es, E. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability tonotice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,

13(3), 475–491.Silverman, R., Welty, W. M., & Lyon, S. (1994). Educational psychology cases for

teacher problem solving. New York: McGraw-Hill.Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case research. London: Sage.Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.).

Alexandria, VA: Association for School and Curriculum Development.Wineburg, S., & Grossman, P. (1998). Creating a community of learners among

high school teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 350–353.Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Appendix 1: Consultancy Protocol

Developed by Gene Thompson-Grove, Paula Evans, and Faith Dunne,National School Reform Faculty (NSRF): www.nsrf.org

Purpose: A Consultancy is a structured process for helping an indi-vidual or a group think more expansively about a particular,concrete dilemma.

Time: Approximately 50 minutesRoles: Presenter (whose work is being discussed by the group)

Facilitator (who sometimes participates, depending on thesize of the group)

Steps:

1. The presenter gives an overview of the dilemma with which s/heis struggling, and frames a question for the Consultancy group toconsider. The framing of this question, as well as the quality ofthe presenter’s reflection on the dilemma being discussed, are keyfeatures of this protocol. If the presenter has brought student work,educator work, or other ‘‘artifacts,’’ there is a pause here to silentlyexamine the work/documents. The focus of the group’s conversationis on the dilemma. (5–10 minutes)

2. The Consultancy group asks clarifying questions of the presenter—that is, questions that have brief, factual answers. (5 minutes)

3. The group asks probing questions of the presenter. These questionsshould be worded so that they help the presenter clarify and expand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 23: TALKING ABOUT OUR TROUBLES: USING VIDEO-BASED DIALOGUE TO BUILD PRESERVICE TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Video-Based Dialogue 163

his/her thinking about the dilemma presented to the Consultancygroup. The goal here is for the presenter to learn more aboutthe question s/he framed or to do some analysis of the dilemmapresented. The presenter may respond to the group’s questions, butthere is no discussion by the Consultancy group of the presenter’sresponses. At the end of the ten minutes, the facilitator asks thepresenter to re-state his/her question for the group. (10 minutes)

4. The group talks with each other about the dilemma presented.(15 minutes)Possible questions to frame the discussion:What did we hear?What didn’t we hear that they think might be relevant?What assumptions seem to be operating?What questions does the dilemma raise for us?What do we think about the dilemma?What might we do or try if faced with a similar dilemma? What havewe done in similar situations?Members of the group sometimes suggest actions the presentermight consider taking. Most often, however, they work to definethe issues more thoroughly and objectively. The presenter doesn’tspeak during this discussion, but instead listens and takes notes.

5. The presenter reflects on what s/he heard and on what s/he is nowthinking, sharing with the group anything that particularly resonatedfor him or her during any part of the Consultancy. (5 minutes)

6. The facilitator leads a brief conversation about the group’s observa-tion of the Consultancy process. (5 minutes)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lin

naeu

s U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

07 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014