This symposium explores and clarifies solutions that researchers of teaching have constructed to link their ‘object’ of study to their ‘method’ of finding evidence. Reciprocity or alignment between what a researcher intends to find and how a research design is constructed will frame the findings that are reported from a study. A key concern would be how collected evidence represents the process under study. We explore the contention: the more closely a selected method of study (i.e., research design) represents the object of study, the more accurate it can depict (figure) what we maintain about teaching (ground).

We follow a searchlight strategy in our exploration of research designs that could inform a researchers’ debate on data collection and data analysis on teaching. This is done by scrutinizing the methods chosen in studies of teaching, as to offer a platform on how to comprehend strong (and weak) research designs As a result of this discussion we aim at establishing criteria for research designs in the study of teaching.

 

The paper draws on a study of teacher learning through critiquing video representations of literacy instruction to consider new potentials for teacher learning. Thirteen experienced elementary school teachers responded to videos of literacy teaching using a computer-mediated interface for critiquing digital video and a more traditional way of viewing video using CDRom. The study used extracts of literacy training videos and a non-training video filmed to share professional development in practice.

Video-as-method was used as a research tool for investigating teachers’ constructive learning represented in discourse. Teachers responded to the selected video representations as pairs or individuals and in constrained tasks through oral protocols and written textual responses. The paper considers the methodological assumptions underpinning the use of video-as-method, and important methodological issues associated with it. In particular the paper argues the importance of the method in activating prior knowledge through the association of ideas in a constructive learning context. The paper argues that in this way video-as method provides a less constrained method than interviews or focussed tasks.

 

From a sociocognitive perspective the paper suggests that while critiquing occurs infrequently in teachers’ discourse in critiquing video representations, learning is associated with relatively high frequencies of explaining, explicating and arguing and of ‘critiquing action’ evidenced in teachers’ discourse. Critiquing action, derived from literary theory, included representing reality, exploring ideology, uncovering meaning, and defending an interpretation of teaching represented on video.

 

In reference to video-as-method, the paper draws conclusions on how teachers learn through critiquing video by identifying learning episodes, language markers of learning and learning profiles in teachers’ discourse.

The paper draws on a study that investigates teacher learning through critiquing video, and presents critiquing video as a strategy for developing potentials for teacher learning.

The paper is structured in two parts. Firstly, a brief description of the study is presented, which identifies the theoretical background, main research questions, methods of analysis, main findings and conclusions. The second part of the paper explores the methodological issues around the use of ‘video-as-method’ adopted in the study, and considers associated theoretical and educational significances.

The study aims to identify how critiquing video functions as a learning strategy, and how the potential of video for extending professional learning might be developed through critiquing. In particular, the study aims to explore the relationship between critiquing and learning as evidenced in teachers’ discourse around digital extracts of writing instruction. The main research question underpinning the study is ‘How and what do teachers learn through critiquing video representations?’ The main research question was sub-divided into the following subsidiary questions:

1 How do teachers critique video representations?

2 Do teachers learn from critiquing video representations?

3 If teachers learn through critiquing video representations, what are the features of teacher learning?

4 What is the relationship between teacher learning and critiquing video representations? How do teachers learn?

5 What do teachers learn from critiquing video representations?

The study was theoretically informed and adopted a sociocognitive perspective on teacher learning (Derry et al 2000: 47). From this perspective, a video representation is regarded as an external event that brings prior knowledge into working memory. The prior knowledge serves to interpret and understand the representation and the initial conditions for learning are established. Conceptual conflicts between prior knowledge and beliefs and the incoming information create the context for learning to occur (Derry et al 2000: 47).

The study also drew on the work of Ohlsson (1995) who identified a set of cognitive epistemic activities thought to support knowledge building and higher-order learning through discourse. These activities included evaIuating, describing, explaining, explicating, arguing, predicting and defining. In addition, literary theory provided descriptors of critiquing as analytical tools (Lye, 1995). The descriptors of critiquing included representing reality, exploring ideology in the video, uncovering meaning in the video through intention to accept, modify, or reject and re-present examples of teaching, and defending an interpretation of teaching featured on video. The theoretical framework was underpinned by assumptions about learning with representations and the strategies learners use (Ainsworth, 2006; Ploetzner, 2004).

From this theoretically informed position, the research questions were addressed using

‘video-as-method’. The method aims to explore the process of learning in the construction of new understandings through cognitive associations and relations (Landauer, 2002; Kintsch, 1998; Spiro et al, 1980). ‘Video-as-method’ involves think aloud protocols and discourse as individual participants and pairs respond to video extracts of writing instruction considered exemplary. Participants are asked to respond to the extracts in terms of their own pedagogy, knowledge and beliefs, and to consider reasons why they considered they would or would not learn from the representations of teaching.The method includes verbal reports and written responses as participants respond to video as individuals or pairs.Different response conditions were provided by a traditional CD Rom presentation, and online and offline conditions using Interactive Classroom Explorer (ICE), a computer –based interface designed for critiquing digital video (Harrison et al, 2003).

Qualitative analysis of teachers’ discourse identified learning episodes, language markers of learning, learning profiles, and learning themes. In addition, retrospective accounts of critiquing and learning were obtained using a semi-structured interview schedule towards the end of the data collection stage.

Results suggest that identified episodes of teacher learning are characterised by relatively high frequencies of explaining, explicating, and arguing. Similarly, learning episodes are associated with teachers’ discourse that is characterised by relatively high frequencies of exploring ideology, defending an interpretation, and expressing meaning as intention. In particular, inferring assumptions about effective teaching, power relations in teaching and learning, and pedagogical aims underpinning teaching were found to be important ideological explorations associated with teacher learning through critiquing video. A relatively high level of reflective activity was identified when teachers used Interactive Classroom Explorer (ICE).

 

Methodological issues and associated theoretical and educational significances.

The paper explores my assumptions in using ‘video-as-method’ as a research tool and the effectiveness of the method in addressing the research questions and capturing cognitive epistemic activity, critiquing action, and related learning episodes as teachers responded to video extracts of literacy teaching.

The paper examines the choice of video extracts used in the study, which were selected for their potential to promote learning about teaching the meta-cognitive processes of writing, and to support pupils as developing writers in the transitions they need to make from thought to speech to writing. The extracts were taken from training videos produced by the National Literacy Strategy on grammar for writing (DFES, 1989), and a video produced by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority on dialogic teaching in a literacy lesson (DFES, 2002). In addition, the study included a non-training video featuring part of a literacy lesson.

"In the paper I consider the importance of cognitive epistemic activity and critiquing action as conceptual and analytical tools for understanding teacher learning. I argue that the definition of critiquing for learning that combines cognitive epistemic activity and critiquing action may provide a useful analytical framework for gaining further insights into teachers’ constructive learning from critiquing video representations of others teaching".

The paper argues that video-as-method provides a powerful context and methodological tool for investigating critiquing for learning as teachers match prior knowledge and associated ideas against  information they select from video. The paper argues that in this way video-as- method places less constraints on teachers' selection, organisation and integration of information than structured interviews or structured learning tasks.

---

 

 

 

 

 

The paper draws on studying teacher effectiveness by statistically determining the factors which predict this construct and the relationship that exists between them. In this sense our main purpose is to elaborate an empirical model on the components that explain how teacher efficacy can be explained.

 

From a theoretical perspective it is suggested how effective teaching is not only related to internal factors that directly influence the professional activity (i.e. critical thinking, leadership, class planning) but also external causes (i.e. school atmosphere) that play a more indirect but decisive role in teachers’ performance. Similar results derive from our study.

 

Sixty-five teachers from different levels (from Kindergarten to Secondary level) gave a written answer to 79 Likert- type items. A causal model was constructed through cluster analysis and factorization of resulting components. We identified three types of both internal and external factors distributed as follows: (1) five predictive factors or causes (attention to students’ specific needs, working with parents, students’ personal and social development, support provided by parents and counselling teams and the diagnosis function of assessment); 2) three predicted factors or effects (guidance towards students’ optimal performance, promotion of the connection to the educational centre on behalf of students and the efficient use of ICTs in the educational centre), and 3) five intermediate factors (collaboration between teachers, classroom and school management, promotion of empathy, efficient assessment and a suitable school atmosphere).

 

Focusing on the methodological part, aim of the symposium, the main conclusion derived from the study suggests that the use of a standardized and validated study method (statistical model) is a strength when generalizing the results. Therefore, the method itself guides the study design. However, it could be discussed whether only questioning can determine a complex model on efficient teaching performance.

Effective teaching essentially means providing maximum opportunities for allstudents to learn and grow (Westwood, 1998). Nonetheless, there is no researcher agreement in defining this process because of the broadness of its object (Tuckman, 1995). Effective teachers spend more time on active ways, less time on actual instruction, and significant time on the observation of students and other contextual indicators (Behets, 1997). According to Giovanelli (2003) “although the research in this area lacks a clear consensus regarding the qualities of effective teaching” there are teaching behaviours that were studied repeatedly in literature: “…classroom management, instructional behaviour, classroom organization and teacher explanation” (Giovanelli, 2003, p.295). In this sense, it seems that there is not a fixed set of characteristics that tell us about what promotes effective teaching.

It has been assumed in recent research that being a competent teacher is due to a sum of several both internal and external factors (Scheerens, 2003; Creemers, 1999; Darling Hammond, 2000). The first group falls under the broad heading of “teacher attributes” (Smith, 2005). For example, McBer (2000) summarizes it into 12 characteristics: professionalism, analytical thinking, expectations, leadership, etc. The second group makes mention on favourable contexts for learning: supportive institutional assessment (Ecclestone 2001; Sadler, 2005) or use of ICTs (i.e. Computer learning: Logan, Crump & Rennie (2004). Therefore, effectiveness in teaching is not only related to the possession of knowledge and instructional skills (teacher competence; Medley’s 1982), and the use of that knowledge and skills in class (teacher performance) but it is also connected to the ability of linking teacher competence and performance with the external factors that surround and influence teaching (i.e. school atmosphere, peer behaviour and support, material resources, etc.). Being a qualified teacher “…is not a strategy, it’s a total way of thinking about learners, teaching and learning” (Tomlinson, 2000). atmosphere(Westwood, 1998; Brophy & Good, 1986)learning environment (Tomilson, 2000), peer support (Lockyer, Patterson, Rowland & Hearne, 2002)

 

Taking into the account the previous argument, the broad and sometimes imprecise background on this concept, our main aim is to delineate an empirical model on the factors that determine teaching efficacy based on a statistically validated methodology: path analysis. Anyhow, the lists of factors are not intended to be exhaustive but they attempt to show the interrelations and explanatory connections among them in order to detect the intricate complexity of effectiveness in teaching.

 

The aim of the present study is to create a causal model of an efficient teaching system. A questionnaire consisting of 79 items was created based on methodological principles for effective teaching. Following a preliminary pilot study, it was reduced to 55 items placed on a Likert scale from 0 to 5 (from total disagreement to total agreement).

The sample was formed by the 65 teachers of one school, including all the teachers in Infant, Primary and Secondary Education.

Data analysis was carried out in 4 stages: 1) calculation of the Cronbach alpha for the whole questionnaire, obtaining a value of α = .941); 2) factorization of the questionnaire into 3 macro-components, based on a cluster analysis (α₁ = .938; α₂ = .752; α₃ = .837); 3) factorization of each of the 3 components, thus extracting 13 factors overall (7 of them belonging to the first macro-component; K-M-O = .806; another 3 belonging to the second macro-component; K-M-O = .799; and another 3 to the third macro-component; K-M-O = .780); and 4) construction of the causal model, in accordance with the methodology in the analysis of structural equations (LISREL), using the Amos v.6 programme, by SPSS.

The causal model found three types of factors: 1) five pure predictive factors or causes (attention to students’ specific needs, working with parents, students’ personal and social development, support provided by parents and counselling teams and the diagnosis function of assessment); 2) three pure predicted factors or effects (guidance towards students’ optimal performance, promotion of the connection to the educational centre on behalf of students and the efficient use of ICTs in the educational centre), and 3) five intermediate factors; that is to say, those caused by some and also the effect of others (collaboration between teachers, classroom and school management, promotion of empathy, efficient assessment and a suitable school atmosphere).

Image 1 Shows the model obtained.

 

(PLEASE INSERT IMAGE 1 ABOUT HERE)

 

The model was perfectly adjusted, as shown by the following indicators: CMIN (chi-square) = 48.299, D.F. = 49, p = .501, CMIN/DF = .986; RMR = .078; GFI = .904; NFI = .878; RFI = .806; IFI = 1.002; TLI = 1.004; CFI = 1.000; RMSEA = .000 (p-close = .766); HOELTER (.05) = 88.

It is assumed worldwide that teachers who successfully focus their efforts towards managing the multiple components interacting in their profession can directly improve students’ learning outcomes. However, the authentic relevance of studying teacher effectiveness highlights the fact that any evidence produced may be exploited for major decisions about regulations and policy. These resolutions will have an unquestionable impact on the quality of the teachers’ professional life. There are national standards in several countries (i.e. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, & NCME Joint Committee on Standards, 1999) that actually study how teaching performance should be measured. They can guide the development of the measurement tools, the analysis of results and their interpretation for decision-making.

Therefore, our study collects empirical evidence about the factors that influence Effective Teaching, which would allow us to elaborate a valuable artefact to guide theory in shaping and framing what we need to focus our attention on. It also provides feedback, which contributes to teachers’ self-image and professional satisfaction. In addition to this, it establishes a way of communication between the institution’s commitment and its professional improvement.

 

References.