http://jte.sagepub.com

Journal of Teacher Education

DOI: 10.1177/0022487108328486 2009; 60; 52 Journal of Teacher Education

Peter J. Rich and Michael Hannafin Video Annotation Tools: Technologies to Scaffold, Structure, and Transform Teacher Reflection

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/60/1/52 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

can be found at:Journal of Teacher Education Additional services and information for

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/60/1/52 Citations

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

52

Video Annotation Tools

Technologies to Scaffold, Structure, and Transform Teacher Reflection

Peter J. RichBrigham Young University

Michael HannafinUniversity of Georgia

Abstract: While video has long been used to capture microteaching episodes, illustrate classroom cases and practices, andto review teaching practices, recent developments in video annotation tools may help to extend and augment teacher self-reflection. Such tools make possible the documentation and support self-analysis using verifiable evidence as well as toexamine changes in development over time. Video annotation tools offer the potential to support both the reflection andanalysis of one's own teaching with minimal video editing as well as the ability to associate captured video with relatedstudent and teaching evidence. In this paper, we compare and contrast emerging video annotation tools and describe theirapplications to support and potentially transform teacher reflection.

Keywords: video; self-analysis; teacher education; reflection

As Schön’s (1983) conception of teaching as reflec-tive practice has been widely embraced, the impor-

tance of critically reflecting on teaching practices hasbecome increasingly important. For example, theNational Council for Accreditation of TeacherEducation (2008) recommends, “Field experiencesallow candidates to apply and reflect on their content,professional, and pedagogical knowledge, skills, andprofessional dispositions in a variety of settings withstudents and adults” (“Target,” para. 1). Reflective prac-tice is emphasized throughout several of NationalCouncil for Accreditation of Teacher Education’s cur-rent standards (e.g., 2c, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4d, 5b, and 5f). TheInterstate New Teacher Assessment and SupportConsortium (1996) also focuses specifically on reflec-tion and professional development: “The teacher is areflective practitioner who continually evaluates theeffects of her/his choices and actions on others(students, parents, and other professionals in the learn-ing community) and who actively seeks out opportuni-ties to grow professionally” (Standard 9). Furthermore,the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (2008)recommends that claims to cultivate reflective practi-tioners are supported by assessment evidence related toteaching experiences.

Although considerable literature has been published,research on the outcomes of reflective practice has beenscarce. Reflection was not addressed in the 800+ pagereport published by a comprehensive review of researchin teacher education spanning the preceding 25 years(Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). Korthagen andWubbels (2001), proponents of reflective practices inteacher education, suggest that reflection relies “heavilyon comments made by student teachers during courseevaluations, as well as on self-reports, general observa-tions, and isolated anecdotes” (p. 89). However, in a criti-cism of reflection as practiced among teacher educators,Zeichner and Tabachnick (1991) noted,

In some extreme cases, the impression is given that aslong as teachers reflect about something, in some man-ner, whatever they decide to do is all right since theyhave reflected about it. (p. 2)

Journal of Teacher EducationVolume 60 Number 1

January/February 2009 52-67© 2009 Sage Publications

10.1177/0022487108328486http://jte.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: The authors thank the reviewers for the feedback wereceived in preparing this manuscript for publication, whose recom-mendations helped this become a more cohesive paper. The authorsalso thank the cooperation of the coordinators of each video annota-tion tool mentioned in this review; namely, Daniel Cogan-Drew,Larry Farmer, Michael Preston, Keven Prusak, Art Recesso, MiriamSherin, Reed Stevens, and Beth van Es.

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rich, Hannafin / Video Annotation Tools 53

In an era of increasing accountability, we need to exam-ine both the processes as well as the impact of reflectivepractices.

Video technologies may afford largely untappedpotential to support and document the processes andimpact of reflective practices. Although video has longbeen used for self-confrontation (Fuller & Manning,1973) and for examining one’s own teaching practices(Grossman, 2005), recent developments in video annota-tion tools make video reflection increasingly viable andaccessible. Such tools make possible the documentationand support of teacher self-analysis using verifiable evi-dence (Bryan & Recesso, 2006; Rich & Hannafin,2008b; Sherin & van Es, 2005). Video annotation toolsoffer the potential to support both reflection and analysisof one’s own teaching and to link captured video withrelated evidence. The purpose of this article is to com-pare and contrast available video annotation tools anddescribe their applications to support teacher reflection.

The Changing Role of Video inTeacher Education

Since the 1960s, teacher education programs haveroutinely used microteaching activities, wherein preser-vice teachers teach and record brief lessons to peers andreceive feedback from both peers and supervisors.According to Grossman (2005), “microteaching grewout of the process-product line of research, which identi-fied particular teaching skills that correlated with gainsin student achievement and then tried to teach these dis-crete skills to teachers” (p. 429). Typically, this researchdemonstrated changes in preservice teachers’ behaviorsand actions (Copeland, 1982; Perlberg, 1987).

With the emphasis on cognitive models in the late 1980sand 1990s, video-based research refocused to using videoto examine teacher thinking, decision making, and reflec-tion. Hypermedia databases, often in the form of videodisccases, provided examples of model teacher practice(Lambdin, Duffy, & Moore, 1997). Video cases have sincebecome prevalent in preservice teacher education (see, e.g.,Barnett, 2006; Berg, Jansen, & Blijleven, 2004; Harris,Pinnegar, & Teemant, 2005; Teale, Leu, Labbo, & Kinzer,2002; Trier, 2003). Web sites such as InTime, TeachScape,LessonLab, CaseNext, and TeachFirst provide online videocases depicting the practices of expert educators (Pea &Hoffert, 2007) for inservice and preservice teachers.

Although powerful and versatile, these applications pri-marily record or present rather than parse teaching events.In this regard, linear video provides important holisticsnapshots but is often difficult to systematically observe,analyze, or reflect deliberately on individual teaching

practices (Hewitt, Pendretti, Bencze, Vaillancourt, &Yoon, 2003). During recent years, video annotation meth-ods have emerged that afford even greater power and util-ity for examining and improving reflective practices.

The Emergence of VideoAnnotation Tools

Video annotation tools allow an individual to both cap-ture and analyze video of personal teaching practice,enabling teachers to review, analyze, and synthesizecaptured examples of their own teaching in authentic class-room contexts. These tools provide potentially importantmethods for scrutinizing instructional decisions within aspecific teaching context (Stevens, 2007). Video analysisprograms such as Transana™ (www .transana.org),DIVER™ (diver.stanford.edu), and Constellations™(orion.njit.edu) provide significant data-mining capabili-ties, management, and fine-grained analysis and reporting.Despite extensive use by researchers, few tools have beenapplied to scaffold and support teacher reflection. In theremainder of this article, we examine how researchers cur-rently use video annotation tools and how these tools haveand might further contribute to the study and utility ofreflective practice in teacher education.

Procedures

We identified studies wherein teachers used a videoannotation tool to record, annotate, and reflect on theirown teaching. Initially, we conducted a review of pub-lished research by searching the ERIC, SSCI, PsycInfo,Academic Search Premier, and digital dissertation data-bases using the following search terms: video, self-reflec-tion, evaluation, teachers, and video analysis tools. Usingkey articles (e.g., Fuller & Manning, 1973), we per-formed a Highly-Cited search using the ISI citation indexto identify additional studies. Our efforts yielded 72 man-uscripts, including teacher reflection, self-analysis scaf-folding techniques, personal video editing, collaborativevideo analysis, and Internet conferencing. Of these, sevenarticles or conference presentations involved the use of avideo annotation tool: the Video Analysis Support Tool(VAST), the Video Analysis Tool (VAT), and Video Paper.We then contacted researchers who had previously pub-lished or presented video annotation studies at nationalconferences to obtain additional nonindexed, preprintresearch studies, or those not captured by our searchterms. This resulted in 10 additional manuscripts describ-ing three additional tools: Video Interactions for Teachingand Learning (VITAL), VideoTraces, and MediaNotes.

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

54 Journal of Teacher Education

Finally, we identified literature related to several can-didate tools that might meet our criteria for inclusion: (a)was used for analyzing one’s own teaching in an authen-tic situation (i.e., not microteaching), (b) supportedvideo annotation, and (c) was currently available. Wethen excluded video tools built specifically for analyzingcase studies of expert teachers’ instruction, such as theCase Technologies for Literacy Learning, Harris VideoCases, and the Reading Classroom Explorer, that did notmeet criterion a and often failed to meet criterion b.Other tools (Constellations, DIVER, StudioCode, Transana,VideoAnt, and Viddler) met criteria b and c, but were notyet applied to support teacher self-reflection. (Note thatthese and other annotation tools may subsequently beapplied to support teacher reflection.) Due to newresearch on recent uses of StudioCode in teacher educa-tion, we decided to include it in this review.

As summarized in Table 1, seven video annotationtools met the criteria for inclusion: the VAST, VITAL,the VAT, VideoTraces, Video Paper, MediaNotes, andStudiocode.

VAST (http://www.professional-vision.org/)

VAST (Figure 1), developed at Northwestern University,has been used in mathematics and science teacher educationprograms (van Es & Sherin, 2002) as well as with inserviceteachers (Sherin & van Es, 2005). Using VAST, teacherscaptured specific video segments that researchers uploadedand transcribed for subsequent analysis (see label A). VASTscaffolds analysis through “guided noticing” writing panesand tabs sequenced to encourage analytic thinking aboutpedagogy from different perspectives (see label B).Teachers were initially asked, “What do you notice?” toprovide evidence of and to interpret the evidence. They thenwere encouraged to pose questions about what they noticedor how they would respond during instruction, which couldbe explored further using the framework of Student Thinking,Teacher’s Roles, and Discourse (see label C). VAST allowsother related nonvideo resources (e.g., student work, lessonplans, etc.) to be displayed while analyzing a video (seelabel D), which researchers also uploaded prior to teacher orgroup reflection.

Table 1Video Annotation Tools

Video Annotation Links to Tool Delivery Mode Annotation Style Collaboration Related Data

VAST (next version Stand-alone Users select portions of video No collaboration tools are built Lesson Resources to be called application and associate text with them. into system identifies related data“Video Callout”) Scaffolded writing areas are

providedVITAL (recently Web based Users create video clips and No collaboration tools are built No ability to connect to

underwent reference them as hyperlinks into system other data sourcesredevelopment) into a typed paper

VAT 2.0 currently under Web based Users select portions of video Others can annotate a video, share No ability to link to development and associate comments with annotations, and view up to two other data sources

them. Users can also associate annotated videos simultaneouslyclips with a portion of a rubric

Video traces Stand-alone Users select portions of video Different users can create No ability to link to application and narrate with spoken annotations on same video; users other data sources

comments. Using a pointer, can respond to annotations,the user can visually highlight creating a “threaded discussion.”portions of video

VideoPaper Stand-alone User selects portion of video No collaboration tools are built Ability to hyperlink to application; andassociates with text. into system other text-based export to Web A hyperlink is created to play sources. Video

the designated portion of portions may be video; captioning allows the synchronized with creation of a timed transcript images

MediaNotes (Prior Stand-alone User selects beginning and Multiple users may edit a single No ability to connect to version named “The application endpoints on video, titles, video. Advanced searching other data sourcesPerformance Analyst”) comments, and associates clips capabilities may be used to find

with a predetermined themes within and across videosframework

StudioCode Stand-alone Users create and apply a set of Several users can annotate the same No ability to link to application codes to selected portions of file and share their annotation other data sources

the video files for comparative review

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rich, Hannafin / Video Annotation Tools 55

van Es and Sherin (2002) studied how a group ofteachers enrolled in an alternative certification programused VAST to analyze practices during their teachinginternship. Six of the 12 participants were randomly cho-sen to write their internship analyses before, during, andafter their teaching session using VAST; the remainingteachers reflected without VAST. Researchers reported thatparticipants who used VAST were more likely to improveanalyses of their practices than non-VAST candidates.Furthermore, VAST users provided more specific evidencefor their arguments than non-VAST users did. The abilityto both meaningfully analyze practice and to provide clearevidence for reasoning may improve these teachers’ abilityto make informed instructional decisions in the future.

More recently, Sherin and van Es (2006) used VASTin a series of studies involving inservice teachers’ videoclubs. In video clubs, teachers use recorded and tran-scribed videos once or twice each month throughout thecourse of the school year to study their teaching andstudent thinking. Teachers initially focused on teacher-centric actions but gradually move toward examiningand initiating inquiry about student thinking. Thus, inthis case, the tool enabled teachers to reflect on how theirpractices influenced student learning.

VITAL (http://vital.ccnmtl.columbia.edu)

Columbia University’s Center for New MediaTeaching and Learning initially developed VITAL

(Figure 2) to train students (student teachers, psychologystudents, etc.) how to observe children closely and inter-pret their behavior; it has since been used across a rangeof courses and disciplines. Like VAST, VITAL allowsusers to create, annotate, and store video clips in a per-sonal library; unlike VAST, VITAL is designed toencourage thinking through essays that are based onevents depicted in their video library. Viewers createanchors or place holders and annotate specific video sec-tions that serve as video hyperlink reference points totheir VITAL essay (see label A). Teachers then embedhyperlinks within their essays to the anchored video clipsas they associate their descriptive analysis with specificcaptured events. VITAL scaffolds teachers’ analysesusing a guided thinking process to Observe, Think,Interpret, Ask, Transfer, and Reflect (Preston, Campbell,Ginsberg, Sommer, & Moretti, 2005).

Mathematics educators have used VITAL to guidepreservice teachers’ analyses of personal teaching prac-tices (Preston et al., 2005). Once per week for 9 weeks,teacher education candidates analyzed and annotatedproject video of elementary students solving math prob-lems, then synthesized their analyses into a VITAL essaywith associated video hyperlinks. Similar to Sherin andvan Es’s (2006) approach, VITAL researchers encour-aged participants to analyze student thinking throughscaffolded video analysis. At the end of 9 weeks, preser-vice teachers extended and personalized their multime-dia essays by analyzing videos of their own teaching.

Figure 1Video Analysis Support Tool

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

56 Journal of Teacher Education

They designed and implemented a learning activitybased on children’s mathematical abilities, documentedthe experience by capturing original video, and reflectedon the way their practices affected student learning intheir VITAL essays. Participants reported that VITALhelped them to better connect theory with their ownpractice—a particularly challenging task for preserviceteachers (Maloch et al., 2003).

VAT (http://vat.uga.edu)

VAT (Figure 3), a Web-based system that enablesteachers to upload, archive, segment, annotate, and sharevideos was developed at the University of Georgia and hasbeen used in social studies, science, and elementary educa-tion courses. The system uses the notion of “lenses,”frameworks that amplify or suppress specific aspects ofteacher practice or student learning, to focus and guideanalysis (marker A). VAT provides the option to use severalframeworks to interpret a single video, ranging fromstandards-based teaching practices from national organiza-tions to perspectives on classroom management, to examinethe same captured events from different perspectives (seelabel B). VAT enables comparisons between assessors ofidentical video(s); with permission, a peer, teacher educa-tor or supervisor can also access and annotate the capturedevents, and users may share video clips and comments with

the approval of the video owner. A teacher can then viewmultiple annotated videos individually or side by side, aswell as collaboratively using identical or complementaryvideo of the same events (e.g., teacher’s perspective com-pared with mentor teacher’s perspective).

In a sequence of studies, VAT helped preserviceteachers to identify and confront contradictions betweenand among their beliefs and practices. Bryan andRecesso (2006) studied how student teachers analyzedtheir beliefs about science. Seven secondary science edu-cation student teachers wrote personal belief statementsabout how students learn science, the role of the teacherin this process, and the role of the learner. Twice duringthe semester, participants recorded themselves teachingand used a science inquiry framework to identify reso-nance or dissonance between their belief statements andtheir actual teaching practices. The authors found thatthe VAT helped student teachers identify aspects of theirpractice that were aligned with their beliefs as well asconfront possible contradictions in their teaching.

More recently, Rich, Recesso, Allexsaht-Snider, andHannafin (2007) studied the approaches of 27 preserviceelementary education teachers as they confirmed or chal-lenged the alignment between their teaching beliefs andpractices during a month-long field experience. Eachparticipant examined a series of published articles on anaspect of teaching practice of specific interest and then

Figure 2VITAL Multimedia Essay and Viewer

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rich, Hannafin / Video Annotation Tools 57

created a corresponding lens to later analyze their ownteaching. Similar to Bryan and Recesso’s (2006) find-ings, preservice teachers identified discrepanciesbetween their perceived experiences and their video-captured teaching practices (Rich & Hannafin, in press).Based on contradictions, participants documented posi-tive change in their intentions and resultant instructionaldecisions. Thus, in both cases, VAT scaffold reflectionhelped prospective teachers to confirm or challenge thealignment between teaching beliefs and practices.

Video Traces (http://depts.washington.edu/pettt/projects/videotraces.html)

Reed Stevens (University of Washington) originallycreated Video Traces to help museum visitors reflect andcollectively comment on otherwise ephemeral experiencesat exhibits. The Video Traces (Figure 4) software enablesusers to annotate voice, point to, and draw “commonobjects” such as still images and audio-video files (Saxena& Stevens, 2007), thus annotating video with “traces.” Atrace thread documents the sequence of initial and subse-quent response traces. The program enables teachers toview and annotate based on individual goals and needs. Tosupport reflection, for example, Video Traces enables mul-tiple teachers to view and comment using talking (see

label A), pointing (see label B), and drawing tools on thesame student worksheet or video clip of a teachingepisode. Using the “Respond to trace” feature, teacherscan review and respond to each other’s traces, thus gener-ating a threaded discussion around the common object.The Video Traces medium stores individual commentatorannotations, which can be shared among and accessed byothers in the group.

Video Traces has been studied as a tool for providingor receiving feedback from a student teacher’s cooperat-ing teacher, clinical supervisor, and university faculty(Miller & Carney, 2007), creating an asynchronous con-versation among parties around a single teaching event(Stevens, 2007). During a semester-long student teach-ing experience, three elementary education studentteachers video-recorded themselves while teaching twodifferent lessons. Using a statewide teacher assessmenttool used designed to measure the effectiveness of teach-ing, two clinical supervisors, two education facultymembers, and three cooperating teachers then providedverbal and gestural feedback on different aspects of thelesson. In addition, the three students used Video Tracesto analyze their own teaching. Researchers reported thatalthough Video Traces helped to facilitate studentteachers’ reflection, raters’ analyses using a state-adopted teacher candidate assessment instrument varied

Figure 3Video Analysis Tool Editing View

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

58 Journal of Teacher Education

significantly. Thus, Video Traces aided preserviceteachers in reflecting on their instructional decisions butraised reliability concerns when used for external assess-ment by different stakeholders.

VideoPaper (http://vpb.concord.org/)

Developed in 2000, VideoPaper was funded byNational Science Foundation as part of the BridgingResearch & Practice project at Technical EducationResearch Centers. VideoPaper (Figure 5) has been usedin a number of national and international settings, withfocus ranging from mathematics to teacher education.VideoPaper allows users to associate comments as wellas images (see label A) to a specific portion of video.Recent versions support captioning (see label B)—providing a synchronized written transcript or other writ-ten elaboration—while video is displayed. The user cantoggle between video and text comments in real time byselecting the corresponding links. VideoPaper alsoallows the linking of images to specific locations in avideo segment, such as a video depicting a preserviceteacher helping a student with classwork accompanied

by images of the student working on the problem.Similar to VITAL, users create and subsequently embedhyperlinks (see label C); when clicked, these links skipto and play a specific portion of video.

VideoPaper has been used at Tufts University to pro-mote self-reflection. In one study (Beardsely, Cogan-Drew, & Olivero, 2007), teacher educators used the “wildtriangle” method (McDonald, 1992), an approach thatemphasizes the interplay among the teacher, subject, andstudents, to help preservice teachers focus on a specificaspect of their teaching. Prior to annotating, candidateswatched their own video in its entirety and then identifiedunexpected or puzzling aspects of the wild triangle in theirvideos. To engender depth of analysis over breadth of rep-resentation, researchers encouraged participants to select afew “surprise” instances for detailed analysis, focusingspecifically on teacher, subject matter, and student.Faculty reported that by emphasizing the level of contem-plation or analysis provided by using VideoPaper over evi-dence that preservice teachers themselves identified, theywere better able to reflect about their classrooms practices.This, in turn, increased the specificity of communicationbetween teacher educators and preservice teachers.

Figure 4Video Traces Editing View

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rich, Hannafin / Video Annotation Tools 59

MediaNotes (http://www.bluemangolearning.com/products/medianotes)

MediaNotes (Figure 6) was originally developed as“The Performance Analyst” at Brigham Young Universityfor use by law school and dance students, but has sincebeen used by faculty and students in business, engineer-ing (Wright, 2008), statistics, and teacher education(Tripp, 2008). Teachers can create annotations by naming(see label A), segmenting (see label B), commenting (seelabel C), and tagging (see label D) a given video segment.Tags are predefined codes associated with specific videoclips. Much like the VAT, codes serve as a lens or frame-work to guide analysis. Using meta-data tags,MediaNotes allows the same or different authors to codethe identical video multiple times. Whereas the previoustools provide annotation options, MediaNotes supportscomplex data mining of these annotations. Teachers canidentify patterns within a single video or across an entirevideo library by sorting and filtering, enabling analysisacross time, space, tag set (i.e., framework), or person.

According to Wright (2008), MediaNotes was recentlyused in a partnership between local schools and Brigham

Young University. Six induction teachers (a) met with theirmentors to discuss the purpose of teacher observation andevaluation, (b) chose a goal that was based on availableteaching standards, (c) video-recorded themselves whileteaching, (d) analyzed video of their teaching using a spe-cific framework (i.e., “tag set”), (e) collaborated with theirmentors, and (f) set goals for future teaching. Inductionteachers then again met with and presented their cases to thementor teacher, who acted as a professional guide and,through dialog, jointly negotiated goal(s) for future teach-ing. The entire process was then repeated. Inductionteachers reported that they gained self-understanding,which helped them to better understand what they should bedoing to be effective teachers (Wright, 2008). Importantly,initially reluctant administrators reported that MediaNotesincreased the meaning of teacher evaluation by clarifyingthe focus of assessment as a formative process.

StudioCode(http://www.studiocodegroup.com/)

Studiocode (Figure 7), originally developed as a tool tocode video of sporting events, has since been used in

Figure 5Finished VideoPaper Example

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

60 Journal of Teacher Education

teacher education, medicine, science, speech pathology,and mathematics. To annotate video, a user creates codesand code sets. Separate codes then appear as buttons (orshortcut keys) that can be applied to specific video seg-ments (see label A). Studiocode also supports the ability tosynchronize a closed caption transcript of the video (likeVideoPaper), write directly on the video (like VideoTraces), and allow multiple users to code or comment asingle video (like Video Traces and MediaNotes).Studiocode is uniquely powerful for mining coded videosegments using Boolean searches. For example, if inter-ested in identifying all instances in which female studentswere called on during class, one could search transcriptsfor the codes “calling on students” and “girls.” These asso-ciated video clips could then be arranged in a chapter andexported as a single movie file for simplified use. In addi-tion, Studiocode provides simple quantitative analysis(i.e., count matrices; see marker B) for codes and tran-scripts, which can be exported for detailed data analysis.

Researchers at The Pennsylvania State University andBrigham Young University have applied StudioCode inscience education and physical education programs,respectively. In a recent study, elementary teacher educa-tion candidates used StudioCode to learn how to observespecific teaching behaviors (Dye, 2007). Candidates firstobserved a video of an inservice teacher during a lesson

and coded specific instances of five different teachingbehaviors. Two expert teachers coded the same video andcompared the number and length of their own codes tothose of the candidates. After achieving > 80% agreementwith the expert coders, candidates were then recordedduring their own teaching. Each then used StudioCode tosegment and code the video and submitted their best evi-dence of a specific teaching behavior for comparison andreview. Results indicate that, within roughly 2 hours oftraining and practice, novice teachers attained moderateto high reliability with expert coders’ ratings—importantwhere accountability for documenting standards-basedteaching practices has become paramount.

Affordances and Challenges

Given the emergent nature of video annotation technol-ogy, new features and capabilities continue to be developedand refined. In the following section, we compare and con-trast the affordances of the video annotation tools reviewedto identify how they have helped—and might potentially—teachers reflect on their practices drawing on research todemonstrate how these tools may further influence teachereducation practices. We also identify limitations in annota-tion technologies and areas of needed research.

Figure 6MediaNotes Example

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rich, Hannafin / Video Annotation Tools 61

Connecting Evidence

Although video provides observable evidence of ateacher’s instructional decisions, it is necessary to con-nect “captured practice” to teacher intents and related evi-dence. Typically, these systems connect textualannotations of teacher thoughts to specific sections ofvideo. Video annotation enables preservice teachers toconnect hitherto tacit assumptions to independent evi-dence of their practices without inherently prioritizingone over the other. According to Preston et al. (2005),73% of preservice teachers reported that simply knowingthat video clips would be used as evidence of thinking intheir VITAL essays influenced how they watched videos.Video Traces extends the range of evidence to includeaural and gestural events that permit users to considersynchronized feedback at precise points in their practice.Video Paper synchronizes the appearance of images (e.g.,student work) within the video timeline. Researchers whoencourage written reflections of video self-analysis(Collins, Cook-Cottone, Robinson, & Sullivan, 2004;Halter, 2006; Jensen, Shepston, Connor, & Killmer, 1994;Sherin & van Es, 2005; Stadler, 2006) report that teacherswho record reflections after viewing video of their teach-ing demonstrate more accurate perceptions of their abilitiesthan those who do not. Thus, the ability to annotate avideo easily becomes critical as educators seek accuraterepresentations of teaching practice.

Borko, Cone, Russo, and Shavelson’s (1979) study ofinstructional decision making demonstrated that teachers’

decisions were often affected by several, seemingly con-tradictory sources of information. That is, multiple inputswere needed to adequately reflect the underlying complex-ity of instructional decision making. VAST offers a portfo-lio-like connection to external resources, such as lessonplans, student work samples, and other documents thatcan be digitized. Video Paper provides a time-synchedconnection between documents, and MediaNotes andStudioCode allow advanced data mining across differentvideos. The capability to demonstrate connectionsamong multiple sources of evidence may help preserviceteachers to understand and explain how “authorities,time, students, and resources occur simultaneously”(Lampert, 2001, p. 1) to affect instructional decisions.

Analytical Frameworks

Zeichner and Tabachnick (1991) underscored theimportance of analytical frameworks to scaffold andstructure reflection:

. . . we do not think that it makes much sense to encour-age or to assess reflective practice in general withoutestablishing clear priorities for the reflections [empha-sis added] that emerge out of a reasoned educational andsocial philosophy. (p. 2)

According to Sherin and van Es (2005), video annota-tion tools can direct analysis, implicitly or explicitly, usingan appropriate lens or framework to guide interpretation—

Figure 7StudioCode Viewing and Editing

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

62 Journal of Teacher Education

a position shared by the majority of video reflectionresearchers (see, e.g., Byra, 1996; Collins et al., 2004;Grainger, 2004; Griswold, 2004; Halter, 2006; Jensenet al.,1994; Miyata, 2002; Pailliotet, 1995; Powell, 2005;Preston et al., 2005; Sharpe et al., 2003, Struyk & McCoy,1993; Thomson, 1992; van Es & Sherin, 2002; Warden,2004). Initial efforts showed mixed success in havingteachers or teacher educators consistently apply suchframeworks to analyze practice, but Dye’s (2007) workwith preservice elementary education teachers demon-strated that teachers learn to reliably code StudioCodevideo in a relatively short amount of time.

Although differences are apparent, tools share similarfunctions for creating and using analytic frameworks.VAST, VAT, and MediaNotes scaffold teachers’ attentionto specific aspects of practice; each tool involves the useof a specific framework to analyze practices. VITALresearchers recognized the importance of a specificmethod for analyzing and synthesizing video evidence,which has been refined through successive implementa-tions of the software. VITAL researchers now encourageteacher candidates to observe, think, interpret, ask, trans-fer, and reflect (Preston et al., 2005).

VAT uses the metaphor of a “lens” through which spe-cific practices are highlighted for detailed inspection asteachers identify a focus for an inquiry, collect evidencearound that focus, interpret the collected evidence, andpropose and enact a course of action—a process similarto how MediaNotes is used at Brigham YoungUniversity. Video Traces has been used to guide mentorand student teacher “noticing” to the structures associ-ated with a statewide teacher assessment tool. Teachereducators using VideoPaper have employed the “wild tri-angle” approach, focusing on the teacher, students, andcurriculum, and encourage preservice teachers to iden-tify a particular aspect of teaching they wish to investi-gate prior to video-recording. MediaNotes andStudioCode allow teachers to select and apply ad hocframeworks and to search for patterns among selectedcodes. In each case, the analytical task is guided, in somecase structured, to permit reflection on specific practicesdeemed important.

Collaboration

Collaboration is critical to reflecting on one’s ownpractice (Halter, 2006). This may be because “individu-als tend to regard themselves as proficient, andhonest/objective evaluation is difficult” (Barber, p. 226).In studies where participants reflected both in writingand in collaborative discussion, participants reported the

greatest benefit from discussing their teaching withothers (Byra, 1996; Griswold, 2004). In Sharpe et al.(2003) and Sherin and van Es (2005), teachers reflectedwith their peers. Others report these experiences to bemost positive because they reflected with their supervi-sors (Thomson, 1992). Grainger (2004) concluded thatallowing teachers to view and discuss their teaching wasthe best way to access knowledge about what influencedthe teachers’ actions.

Although each tool reviewed enables teachers to shareannotated video evidence, four have features specificallydesigned to facilitate collaborative analysis. VAT pro-vides multiwindow viewing panes, which allow teachersto share videos with peers, mentors, supervisors, andteacher educators (Figure 8). This feature has allowedteacher educators and mentor teachers to independentlyanalyze a preservice teacher’s video, then exchange per-spectives and interpretations related to instructional deci-sions (Rich & Hannafin, 2008a). MediaNotes also allowsindependent video annotation but permits users to searchacross collaborators, making independent analysis possi-ble and facilitating collaborative review and pattern find-ing. Video Traces uses a dialogic collaboration in whichseveral users can edit and comment on a single video,with responses threaded around a specific set of actions.Through collaborative reflection, teachers receive theobjective evaluation Barber (1990) advocates and theability to align evaluative purposes and goals (Wright,2008). Finally, StudioCode provides a text file of codeswith which to generate a coding matrix (Figure 7, labelB) wherein teachers can compare the number and lengthof their independent assessments.

Technical Effort

Prior studies demonstrate that the amount of effortrequired to reflect on captured video influences both theprocesses and outcomes of reflection. This effort maycontribute or detract from reflection goals and processes.Video editing has been described as a time-intensive andtraining-intensive activity (Collins et al., 2004; Cunningham& Bendetto, 2002; Dias, Calandra, & Fox, 2007; Nicol &Crespo, 2004; Spurgeon & Bowen, 2002; Preston et al.,2005; Warden, 2004). Importantly, the time needed totrain teachers how to edit video often detracts from timeneeded to critically reflect. Paradoxically, others haveunderscored the importance of editing, focusing, andstructuring reflection precisely around those teacher prac-tices (e.g., Calandra, Gurvitch, & Lund, 2008; Rosaen,Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008).

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rich, Hannafin / Video Annotation Tools 63

In response, video annotation tools attempt to redirecteffort to specific teaching activities or events, therebyincreasing opportunities to reflect and focus on practicemore readily than conventional video technology. Sometools still may require that teachers learn to upload cap-tured video prior to having the opportunity to annotate andreflect on captured practices. VAST and VITAL, forexample, require that teachers wait until researchers upload(and transcribe for VAST) individual videos before theybecome available for review. With VideoPaper and VideoTraces, teachers must first edit their videos using an exter-nal editor before becoming available, which can delayanalysis of their practices. Although video editing is notrequired due to the postannotation export features,MediaNotes, StudioCode, and VAT require that teachersfirst convert their videos to a compatible format (e.g., .mov,.wmv) before they can be accessed and analyzed. Thiseffort, although it enables detailed scrutiny and is neces-sary to use the tools, does not directly facilitate criticalreflection.

Two systems allow simultaneous, real-time annotationand recording. Using StudioCode, teachers may connecta camera to their computer via a USB cable and a peer orcollaborator can annotate video while recording.StudioCode also allows teachers to create shortcut keysfor specific codes, enabling observers to annotate videoin real time. VAT also provides the option for a collabo-rator to annotate video in real time by streaming capturedvideo. VAT’s distributed, Web-based nature enables

educators to annotate during or immediately followingrecording, regardless of geographic location. Limitingtime lags between video capture and analysis maybecome especially important to support teachers’ reflec-tions: the longer the time (and more effort) required toinitiate analysis, the longer (and potentially less likely) ateacher will use the system to analyze and reflect onpractice.

With the exception of VAT and VITAL, the toolsreviewed are computer based; some researchers havecited access as potentially limiting the tool’s utility(Cherry, Fournier, & Stevens, 2003). In such cases, col-laboration may become difficult as colleagues and men-tors must share access to a single computer. VAT andVITAL differ in that they are Web-based tools that canaccess and share video files and assessments whereverInternet access is available. Teachers can access videofiles independently or collaboratively, and annotationscan be simultaneously accessed by numerous users—afeature mathematics education students reported asbeing particularly valuable (Preston, 2004).

Implications

To date, evidence suggests that video annotation tools canaugment and extend teacher reflection experiences by facil-itating and structuring the analysis process. Teachers canshare common frameworks to analyze each others’ teaching,

Figure 8Video Analysis Tool Collaborative Review

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

64 Journal of Teacher Education

providing a richer range of perspectives on individual prac-tices. Erstwhile, tacit teacher reasoning and processes can bemade explicit to the individual and visible to others(Beardsley et al., 2007). Finally, teachers have become sen-sitized to the influence of their practices on student thinking(Preston et al., 2005; Sherin & van Es, 2007).

However, although teachers have used video to aug-ment reflection for at least 20 years, the advent of videoannotation tools in teacher education is relatively recent;both new tools and supporting evidence are only begin-ning to emerge. There exist several unanswered ques-tions regarding their practicality and implementation andseveral long-standing concerns related to video andreflection remains. Although we cannot address all con-cerns, several are key to defining the future of videoannotation tools in teacher education.

Where is the Rigor?

Researchers have just begun to examine the effects ofvideo annotation tools on teacher practice or studentlearning. Much like reflection literature, the few studiesof tool-assisted reflection on teacher practice haveproven equivocal—often appearing only in conferencepresentations, software materials, and Web sites. Fewresearchers have documented research findings in peer-reviewed journals. In introductory commentary to anedited volume on the use of video in teacher education,Brophy (2004) noted similar concerns over the lack ofcore scholarship dedicated to using video in teacher edu-cation: “much of the research on video in teacher educa-tion has been limited to studies of relatively globalperceptions of its value” (pp. x-xi). Both video andreflection literature tend to be strong on ideas but lackevidence of impact.

Which Evidence—Video and Nonvideo—Supports Teacher Reflection?

Although some annotation tools allow and even solicitnonvideo evidence, little nonvideo evidence was pre-sented documenting how such evidence is weighed orwhich evidence has the greatest force for promotingreflection. Cochran-Smith (2006) suggested that “evi-dence” has become the new buzz-word in teacher educa-tion; Davies (1999) noted, “there is no such thing ascontext-free evidence” (p. 110). To some extent, videoannotation tools may help to situate teaching activity bycapturing practice in context and relating these withassociated evidence of student learning; but which evi-dence will best support reflection?

What Costs Are Associated Withthe Use of Video Annotation Tools?

Users vary widely in their reports of video annotationtools’ utility, usability, and value. Shepherd and Hannafin(2008), for example, reported significant resistance fromteacher education faculty, preservice teachers, and cooper-ating teachers to using VAT to analyze practices forstudent–teacher portfolios. Much of the concern was relatedto the time required and the need to adapt to a new system(given ongoing commitments), others recognized value butcontinued to resist, and still others simply viewed the analy-sis of teaching practice as unimportant. The transition totechnologically based systems will involve considerablechanges in routine and approach among educators alreadyfamiliar and comfortable with traditional approaches.

What Risks Are Associated WithVideo Annotation Tools?

Perhaps the most significant hurdle lies in the myriadlegal and ethical issues associated with capturing and ana-lyzing teacher practice. For example, can video captured tosupport self-analysis be co-opted for different purposessuch as supervisor evaluation? Who owns annotated videoand can access and use the information? For what pur-poses? Because students as well as other educators maywell be captured, how is their identity safeguarded? InWeb-based systems, streaming video and data ensure readydissemination, but how will the information be protected?These questions have been addressed by several of the tooldevelopers featured, but standards for use and protectionwill need to be established to promote widescale use.

Conclusion

Although we have emphasized support for reflection,video annotation tools have been used to address a widerange of teacher preparation and development concerns,including board certification, e-portfolios, detection ofactive student engagement, and teacher and administratorassessment and evaluation. Clearly, the potential for broadapplication is significant, and in an era of accountability,both the general public and education communities willlikely expect or demand that we become increasinglysophisticated in how we implement and assess our prac-tices. To address these expectations, nascent technologicaldevelopments such as video annotation tools provide corecapabilities that will undoubtedly continue to grow in scopeand refine in sophistication and ease of use. The toolsreviewed remain under development and are not panaceas;

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rich, Hannafin / Video Annotation Tools 65

they do, however, portend important changes in both thenature and sophistication of the education enterprise.

Since the work of John Dewey, teacher educators havesought to balance formal and informal experiences withthe ideals and the realities of teaching in schools, physicaldistance, and the need to safely and effectively immersepreservice teachers in the culture of schools and the teach-ing profession. As technologies extend our ability toaccess authentic teaching opportunities, preservice teacherscan engage in, participate in, and provide a transitiontoward everyday classroom teaching. Video annotationtools offer teachers the ability to see, as well as to analyzeand refine, practice prior to, during, and following forma-tive field experience.

References

Barber, L. (1990). Self-assessment. In J. Milman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation:Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 216-28).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Barnett, M. (2006). Using a Web-based professional developmentsystem to support preservice teachers in examining authenticclassroom practice. Journal of Technology and TeacherEducation, 14(4), 701-729.

Beardsley, L., Cogan-Drew, D., & Olivero, F. (2007). Videopaper:Bridging research and practice for pre-service and experiencedteachers. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.),Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 479-493). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berg, E. V. D., Jansen, L., & Blijleven, P. (2004). Learning with mul-timedia cases: An evaluation study. Journal of Technology andTeacher Education, 12(4), 491-509.

Borko, H., Cone, R., Russo, N. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1979). Teacher’sdecision-making. In P. L. Peterson & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Researchon teaching (pp. 136-160). Berkley, CA: McCutchen.

Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2004). Using video in teacher education. SanFrancisco, CA: Elsevier.

Bryan, L. A., & Recesso, A. (2006). Promoting reflection with a Web-based video analysis tool. Journal of Computing in TeacherEducation, 23(1), 31-39.

Byra, M. (1996). Post-lesson conferencing strategies and preserviceteachers’ reflective practices. Journal of Teaching in PhysicalEducation, 16, 48-65.

Calandra, B., Gurvitch, R., & Lund, J. (2008). An exploratory studyof digital video editing as a tool for teacher preparation. Journalof Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 137-153.

Cherry, G., Fournier, J., & Stevens, R. (2003). Using a digital videoannotation tool to teach dance composition. The InteractiveMultimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-enhanced Learning,5(1). Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2003/1/01/index.asp

Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.) (2005). Studyingteacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research andteacher education. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Taking stock in 2006: Evidence, evi-dence, everywhere. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 6-12.

Collins, J. L., Cook-Cottone, C. P., Robinson, J. S., & Sullivan, R. R.(2004). Technology and new directions in professional development:Applications of digital video, peer review, and self-reflection.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33(2), 131-146.

Copeland, W. D. (1982). Laboratory experiences in teacher educa-tion. New York: Free Press.

Cunningham, A. (2002). Using Digital Video Tools to Promote ReflectivePractice. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society forInformation Technology and Teacher Education InternationalConference 2002 (pp. 551-553). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Davies, P. (1999). What is evidence-based education? British Journalof Educational Studies, 47(2), 108-121.

Dias, L., Calandra, B. D., & Fox, D. L. (2007, April). Teacher candi-dates’ experience with digital video editing for reflection: Howmuch scaffolding do they need? Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Dye, B. R. (2007). Reliability of pre-service teachers’coding of teach-ing videos using a video-analysis tool. Unpublished master’s the-sis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Retrieved October 20,2008, from http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/ etd2020.pdf

Fuller, F. F., & Manning, B. A. (1973). Self-Confrontation reviewed:A conceptualization for video playback in teacher education.Review of Educational Research, 43(4), 469-528.

Grainger, S. (2004, March). Practitioners as professionals: Revealingthe artistry of expert educators. Paper presented at the seventhAustralian VET Research Association Conference, Canberra.

Griswold, S. L. (2004). Videotaped performances: Guiding teacherprofessional development within a competency-based framework.Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(10), p. 3760 (UMI No.3150452).

Grossman, P. L. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches inteacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.),Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel onResearch and Teacher Education teacher education (pp. 425-476).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Halter, C. P. (2006). The reflective lens: The effects of video analysison preservice teacher development. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 67(03). (UMI No. 3211280).

Harris, R. C., Pinnegar, S., & Teemant, A. (2005). The case for hyper-media video ethnographies: Designing a new class of case studiesthat challenge teaching practice. Journal of Technology andTeacher Education, 13(1), 141-161.

Hewitt, J., Pedretti, E., Bencze, L., Vaillancourt, B. D., & Yoon, S.(2003). New applications for multimedia cases: Promoting reflec-tive practice in preservice teacher education. Journal ofTechnology and Teacher Education, 11(4), 483-500.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1996).INTASC standards. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from http://www.emu.edu/maed/INTASC.html

Jensen, R. A., Shepston, T. J., Connor, K., & Killmer, N. (1994,February). Fear of the known: Using audio-visual technology as atool for reflection in teacher education. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Atlanta, GA.

Korthagen, F. A. J., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Evaluative research on therealistic approach and on the promotion of reflection. In F. A. J.Korthagen (Ed.), Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy ofrealistic teacher education (pp. 88-107). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Lambdin, D., Duffy, T., & Moore, J. (1997). Using an interactiveinformation system to expand preservice teachers’ visions of

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

66 Journal of Teacher Education

effective mathematics teaching. Journal of Technology andTeacher Education, 5, 171-202.

Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teach-ing. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Maloch, B., Flint, A. S., Eldridge, D., Harmon, J., Loven, R., Fine, J.,et al. (2003). Understanding beliefs, and reported decision-making of first-year teachers from different reading teacher prepa-ration programs. The Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 431-457.

McDonald, J. P. (1992). Teaching: Making sense of an uncertaincraft. New York: Teachers College Press.

Miller, M., & Carney, J. (2007, February). Using video traces softwareto support the statewide assessment and licensure of beginningteachers. Paper presented at the annual meting of the AmericanAssociation of Colleges of Teacher Education, New York.

A Study of Developing Reflective Practices for Preservice Teachersthrough a Web-based Electronic Teaching Portfolio and Video-on-demand Assessment Program. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and TeacherEducation International Conference 2002 (pp. 1385-1389).Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008).NCATE unit standards. Retrieved May 30 2008, fromhttp://www.ncate.org/public/unitStandardsRubrics.asp?ch=4

Nicol, C., & Crespo, S. (2004). Learning to see in mathematics class-rooms. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the InternationalGroup for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 417-424.

Pailliotet, A. W. (1995). I never saw that before: A deeper viewof video analysis in teacher education. Teacher Educator, 31(2),138-156.

Pea, R., & Hoffert, E. (2007). Video workflow in the learningsciences: Prospects of emerging technologies for augmentingwork practices. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry(Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 427-460).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Perlberg, A. (1987). Microteaching: Conceptual and theoreticalbases. In M. Dunkin (Ed.), The international encyclopedia ofteaching and teacher education (pp. 715-720). Oxford, UK:Pergamon.

Powell, E. (2005). Conceptualising and facilitating active learning:Teachers’ video-stimulated reflective dialogues. ReflectivePractice, 6(3), 401-418.

Preston, M. (2004). Evaluation: VITAL (Video Interactions forTeaching and Learning). New York: Columbia University Centerfor New Media Teaching and Learning.

Preston, M., Campbell, G., Ginsburg, H., Sommer, P. & Moretti, F.(2005). Developing New Tools for Video Analysis andCommunication to Promote Critical Thinking. In P. Kommers &G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference onEducational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications2005 (pp. 4357-4364). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Rich, P. J., Recesso, A., Allexsaht-Snider, M., & Hannafin, M. J.(2007, April). The use of video-based evidence to analyze, act on,and adapt preservice teacher practice. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Chicago.

Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008a). Capturing and assessing evi-dence of student teacher inquiry: A case study. Teaching andTeacher Education, 24(6), 1426-1440.

Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008b). Decisions and reasons:Examining pre-service teacher decision-making through video self-analysis. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(1), 62-94.

Rich, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (in press). Scaffolded video self-analysis:Discrepancies between preservice teachers’ perceived and actualinstructional decisions. Journal of Computing in HigherEducation.

Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra,M. (2008). Noticing noticing: How does investigation of videorecords change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journalof Teacher Education, 59(4), 347-360.

Saxena, A., & Stevens, R. (2007, July). Video traces: Creating com-mon spaces between university and public schools for preparingnew teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of computersupported collaborative learning. New Brunswick, NJ.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionalsthink in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sharpe, L., Hu, C., Crawford, L., Gopinathan, S., Khine, M. S., Mo,S. N., et al. (2003). Enhancing multipoint desktop video confer-encing (MDVC) with lesson video clips: Recent developments inpre-service teaching practice in Singapore. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 19(5), 529-543.

Shepherd, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Examining preserviceteacher inquiry through video-based, formative assessment port-folios. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(1), 63-69.

Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to supportteachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal ofTechnology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475-491.

Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2006, April). What (we think) weknow about video clubs. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2007, April). Using video to documentchanges in teachers’ professional vision. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Chicago.

Spurgeon, S., & Bowen, J. L. (2002, June). Digital video/multimediaportfolios as a tool to develop reflective teacher candidates. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the National EducationComputing Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Stadler, H. (2003). Videos as a tool to foster the professional devel-opment of science teachers. In Proceedings from the annual meet-ing of the European science education research association.Netherlands. Retrieved 25 November 2008 from http://www1.phys.uu.nl/esera2003/programme/pdf%5C156S.pdf

Stevens, R. (2007). Capturing ideas in digital things: A new twist onthe old problem of inert knowledge. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B.Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learningsciences (pp. 547-563). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Struyk, L. R., & McCoy, L. H. (1993). Preservice teachers’ useof videotape for self-evaluation. Clearing House, 67(1),31-34.

Teacher Education Accreditation Council. (2008). Accreditation goaland principles. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from http://www.teac.org/accreditation/goals/principle2.asp

Teale, W. H., Leu, D. J., Labbo, L. D., & Kinzer, C. (2002). TheCTELL project: New ways technology can help educate tomor-row’s reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 654-659.

Thomson, W. S. (1992). Using videotape as a supplement to tradi-tional student teacher supervision. Retrieved September 1, 2006,from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/26/2a/e4.pdf

Trier, J. (2003). School film ‘videocompilations’ as pedagogical textsin preservice education. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 19(1),125-147.

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rich, Hannafin / Video Annotation Tools 67

Tripp, T. R. (2008). Understanding the use of video analysis tools tofacilitate reflection among pre-service teachers. Unpublishedmaster’s thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffoldingnew teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal ofTechnology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571-596.

Warden, B. J. (2004). Self-Evaluation of reflective thinking amongpre-service and in-service teachers. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 65(10), p. 3766. (UMI No. 3152172).

Wright, G. A. (2008). How does video analysis impact teacher reflection-for-action. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham YoungUniversity, Provo, UT. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from http://con-tentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/ETD&CISOPTR=1366&CISOBOX=1&REC=5

Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1991). Reflections on reflectivethinking. In B. R. Tabachnick & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues andpractices in inquiry-oriented teacher education (pp. 1-21).Bristol, PA: Falmer.

Peter J. Rich is an Assistant Professor in InstructionalPsychology and Technology at Brigham Young University inProvo, Utah. He received his PhD in Instructional Technologyfrom the University of Georgia. Peter's research interestsinclude video annotation tools and teacher education, focusingon the intersection of theory and practice. Author's presentaddress: 150K MCKB, Brigham Young University, Provo,Utah, 84602. E-mail: peter_rich@byu.edu

Michael Hannafin is the Georgia Research Alliance EminentScholar in Technology-Enhanced Learning and Professor ofEducational Psychology and Instructional Technology at the University of Georgiawhere he directs the Learning andPerformance Support Laboratory. His research focuses onapplying technology to assess teacher performance and devel-oping and testing frameworks for student-centered learningenvironments.

at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on January 27, 2009 http://jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from