literacy clinical teacher preparation that is transformative

LITERACY

CLINICAL TEACHER PREPARATION THAT IS TRANSFORMATIVE

Literacy Research Association Dallas, TX

December 4, 2013

1

2

FOUR DISTINCT RESEARCH STUDIES

Transfer & Transformation of Teachers in Clinic: Longitudinal review of the 30 Cases across 6 years. Collective Case Study Approach

Video for Assessment: Use of video clips to analyze students’ reading performance by experts, graduate students and novices.

Formative Design Study of Assessment Protocols & Rubrics

Video for Teacher Reflection: Analysis of video tasks across sites

Design-based in Year #1; This year: Cross-Case Analysis

iPad Use in ClinicsMixed methods (qualitative & quantitative) across five sites.

3

SUMMARIZING ACROSS SITES Teachers take what they learn in Reading Clinic into their

classrooms/schools. Analyzing videos of children’s reading, with guidance

from rubrics, is helpful in assessing teachers’ knowledge of literacy processes.

Using video with specific directions, debriefing, and collaborative inquiry deepens teachers’ reflections.

Technology use by teachers is becoming more pedagogically powerful in Reading Clinics.

LITERACY CLINIC CASES


December 4, 2013

Evan Ortlieb, Monash University (Australia)Julie Gray, University of Virginia (Virginia) Tammy Milby, University of Richmond (Virginia)Barbara Laster, Towson University (Maryland)Stephen Sargeant, Northeastern State University (Oklahoma)

4

5

HISTORY OF THE CASES PROJECT 2006-2007

Interview study of 28 graduates Identified 5 areas of clinic transfer (instruction, assessment,

coaching, leadership, technology) 2009-2010

In-depth interviews of nine clinic graduates 2010-2011

Add nine additional graduates, including two new sites New projects based on transfer/transformation findings

2011-2012 Add five additional graduates, continuation of work on “Transfer” and “Transformation” Research Team Examines:

Habits of Mind Clinical Experiences that Matter & Recommendations Disjunctures

2012-2013 Three additional cases added, review of all 30 cases in entirety

6

PURPOSE/RATIONALE Literacy Clinic: Research to practice-

Explore ways in which clinic/lab graduates transfer clinic/lab practices to schools

Explore ways in which graduates take on literacy leadership roles in schools

Understand how the clinic/literacy lab experience supports literacy leadership

Investigate current instructional & assessment practices transferred including national trends

Understand clinic/lab role in multiple paths to leadership

7

CONTEXT & THEORY Roles of literacy professionals changing (Bean, et al., 2002) Coaching and leadership in the forefront (Walpole &

McKenna, 2004) Little research on preparation of literacy professionals

(Anders, et al., 2000) Growing condemnation of teacher preparation (Darling-

Hammond, 2000, 2006; Duncan, 2009) Leadership is a key component of educational reform

(Middlebrooks, 2004) Teachers need support to navigate mandates, enhance

skills as literacy leaders/coaches, & reflect on best practices (Ortlieb & Cheeks, 2013)

Research needed on literacy professional preparation that leads to both effective teaching and effective leadership

Training vs. Teaching (Hoffman & Pearson, 2000) Guided practice opportunities are essential

8

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1.) What transfers from the literacy lab to

educational contexts? 2.) How have trends, leadership, and

disjunctures changed across time?

9

METHODOLOGY Identical methodology across new & existing sites

Maryland (1 site)Virginia (2 sites)

Each researcher followed a 3 phase process: Phase 1

Initial screening interview Collection of artifact to represent practice (graduate chosen) Screening observation

Phase 2 In-depth interview Targeted observation

Phase 3 Follow-up/Retrospective interview

10

DATA ANALYSIS 3 Phases using Constant Comparative Method

(Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) Phase 1: Identified instances where graduates

focused on Aspects of clinic/lab that supported their development

(Clinic Experience) Current practices in classrooms that drew from participation

in clinic (Transfer, Transformation) Phase 2: Grouped instances from Phase 1 into like

categories within clinic experience and transfer; created codes for categories

Phase 3: Confirm/reconfirm categories (Miles & Huberman, 1994); collapsed into broader themes

Member checking

11

2012-2013 FINDINGS :Text Selection/Text Types

Program Fidelity versus Student Needs

Beginning of Common Core Implementation

Assessments

Instructional Insights

Confidence

Flexibility & Masterful Reflection

12

PARTICIPANT QUOTES:Amy, Reading Specialist, Maryland

They took Bud, Not Buddy—which is a 6th grade text—and bumped it down to 4th grade. It seems as though they are just taking what was a higher grade curriculum and putting it down to a lower grade—and then they call that “rigor.”

My idea is to have our Guided Reading as the heart of our reading program here. Then, we will have accessible texts for all students on their instructional level. Because these CCSS texts are very frustrating for these students, so how are they progressing if they are frustrated?

13

PARTICIPANT QUOTES:Paula, Classroom Teacher, Grade 2, Virginia

As a beginning teacher last year, I felt totally overwhelmed. School let out at 2:00pm, but I never left before 6:00pm. Our school was on the “warned list” due to our performance and someone from outside [the district representative] was always coming in. I survived because of collaboration. There was this revolving door of new initiatives all the time. After the tutoring class, I knew I needed support from others who ‘understood’ and I reached out to the Title 1 Teacher & Reading Specialist.

For our curriculum, we implemented a balanced approach to literacy. We do whole group, small groups (guided reading & words study), word study and writing. I felt comfy with this format due to the approach we learned in clinic.

14

PARTICIPANT QUOTES:Miranda, Reading Specialist, Virginia

I decided to leave the classroom and move into a leadership role because of the mentoring and confidence I gained [from clinic]. We learned every type of assessment and intervention… Tutoring students helped me look at reading with diverse learners [Lengthy discussion naming different assessments learned]. It helps me to know how to do more rich assessments with students now.

I was always very interested in ESL students… our class allowed me to work one-on-one tutoring a student whose home language is Burmese and I also worked with a student with a disability. Both clinic experiences prepared me for how to work with small groups and prepared me for the variety of needs and challenges I face now as a Reading Specialist in this urban setting. After the clinic, I decided to go ahead and complete my ESL endorsement.

15

LONGITUDINAL REVIEW OF THE 30 CASES ACROSS 6 YEARS,

COLLECTIVE CASE STUDY APPROACH Approach:

1. Seek IRB approval2. Define design (Merriam (1988); Miles & Huberman (1994) & Barone (2004):

Particularistic: Cases are all focused on ‘Literacy Clinic’ transfer categories determined through

previously research* (instruction, assessment, coaching, leadership, technology). Descriptive: triangulation provides rich description of common trends Heuristic: continued study of existing data will enrich understanding of what transfers

from clinic across time Inductive: Data drives the understandings which are emerging

3. Examine existing “cases” data & findings to complete an in-depth analysis of trends (categories, coding). Seek cases containing information-rich informants.

4. Check for accuracy & misconceptions by consulting with key informants and/or researchers.

*Derived from interviews of 28 additional clinic graduates

16

SUMMARIZING ACROSS SITESDoes clinic make a difference compared to other coursework approaches? Collective review of clinic graduates report that the literacy clinic helped them in similar ways:

Student-centered, differentiated instruction More of a focus on strengths & needs Variety of “assessment practices” incorporated in the

classroom Collaboration & Sharing with others Coaching/leadership opportunities Working through disjuncture/policy changes/mandates

successfully or deciding to change paths Advocacy & implementation for research-based practices Developing deep and thoughtful beliefs about literacy More “masterful” teaching approach, habit of mind

(reflective practice, asking why?, seeking excellence

17

IN CONCLUSION:“[Clinic] really puts it all together when you focus on one student—use data and plan intervention that matches—a real eye opener. Now when I analyze data I can see the big picture…Writing the practicum report actually…showed how to triangulate the data, helped me write a more cohesive report, helped me look at individuals as well as the classroom. It helped me recognize trends, organize—prioritize instruction and made me more confident so when I write a report or meet with a teacher, I really know what I am talking about and can now explain it in “real words” and get down to what learning needs to take place.”

VIDEO PROTOCOLS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF TEACHER

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL IN LITERACY ASSESSMENT AND INSTRUCTION


December 4, 2013

TEAM MEMBERSResearcher InstitutionStephanie McAndrews

Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Shadrack Msengi Southern Illinois University EdwardsvilleTammy Ryan Jacksonville UniversityNancy Stevens University of Wisconsin-WhitewaterLee Ann Tysseling Boise State University JoAnne Vazzano Northeastern Illinois University

PURPOSE/RATIONALE1. Develop an authentic assessment

to measure reading teacher/specialist candidates’ abilities in assessment and planning instruction

2. Provide a tool aligned to instructional pedagogy

3. Enhance multiple-choice format state certification exams

VIDEO FOR ASSESSING TEACHER KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS: RESEARCH QUESTIONS1. How can literacy faculty develop a protocol

that can be used across the nation, when multiple forms and analyses of assessment are used?

2. How can we authentically assess teachers/specialist candidates’ ability to analyze student reading?

3. How can we develop a reliable and valid rubric as a tool to evaluate teacher knowledge and skill in assessing videos of a student’s reading?

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:FORMATIVE RESEARCH• Intended to improve instructional theories,

models, practices, and processes (Bradley & Reinking, 2011; Brown, A. 1992).

• Focuses on the characteristics of Reinking and Bradley’s (2007) formative design:

• Established educational goals based in theory • Implement an intervention to achieve goals

(protocol) • Collect data to identify factors enhancing or

inhibiting achieving goal • Modify intervention based on unanticipated

factors • Note how intervention changed • Determine positive and negative unanticipated

effects of the intervention (to be determined)

METHODOLOGY: VIDEO DEVELOPMENT

Video protocol Instructions1.Authentic text2.Introduce the passage 3.Student reads the passage4.Request oral retelling 5.Probe hesitant reteller6.No published assessment

text

HUNGRY ANIMALS TEXT

Reading Recovery Level 11Middle First Grade

GRADUATE STUDENT VIDEO RESPONSE

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: AMAZING DAYS OF ABBY HAYES

4.3 GELexile 510 Guided Reading Level Q.

METHODOLOGY VIDEO RESPONSE PROTOCOL

METHODOLOGYMixed Methods Qualitative Methods

● Rubric: Researcher Developed • Researcher “answer keys” completed with comparison of responses of all six independent responses

● Benchmarking: All six researchers used rubric on one set of teacher papers • Rubric adjusted to reflect experience in application to the teacher papers

• Rubric “tested” by partners on one set of papers

• Rubric again revised● Revision: Teams of two researchers used

rubric to score each teacher’s paper independently

● Discrepancies resolved

METHODOLOGY-CONTINUEDMixed Methods• Quantitative Methods

●Descriptive data presented by class sets and combined data set

●Correlations of subscores and totals in combined data set

• Data consolidation

PARTICIPANTS (CONTEXTS OF SITES)• Southeastern United States (1Case)

● Administered at beginning of the semester● Undergraduate students in senior year ● In ⅘ sequence of reading endorsed courses

• Central United States (2 Cases)● Administered at the beginning of the semester● Graduate students at the beginning of the program- some

with no knowledge of IRI’s and Running Records● Graduate students during first clinical course

• Western United States (4 Cases)● Administered at the beginning and end of the term (pre-

and post-assessments)● Undergraduate students in a Literacy Lab course● Had completed two other literacy courses including IRIs and

running records

CURRENT PROTOCOL RUBRICProficient-5 Near Proficient-4 Acceptable 3 Limited-2 Inadequate-1

Reading Level

Instructional level with valid, strongly supported appropriate reasons based on word accuracy and comprehension

Instructional level with appropriate reason for word accuracy and comprehension.

Instructional level with valid but minimum or vague reason for word accuracy or comprehension

Instructional with no reason

Level Independent or Frustration Level or Incorrect unsupportable reasons

Strengths Oral Reading-Including two or more of the following: word accuracy, self-correction, multiple cueing systems, self-monitoring with supportive explanationAND Comprehension- including two or more of the following: Literal meaning, background knowledge, some details, story sequence with supportive explanation

Oral Reading-Including one of the following: word accuracy, self-correction, multiple cueing systems, self-monitoring with supportive explanationAND Comprehension- including one of the following: Literal meaning, background knowledge, some details, retelling, story sequence, main idea with supportive explanation

Oral Reading andComprehension mentioned-or-Oral Reading or Comprehension with an appropriate example OR elaborated explanation

Oral Reading ORComprehension mentioned

No mention or incorrect statements of oral reading or comprehension

CURRENT PROTOCOL RUBRIC CONTINUED

Proficient-5 Near Proficient-4 Acceptable 3 Limited-2 Inadequate-1

Needs Oral Reading- Including two or more of the following: Slower pace, attention to phrasing, expression, more strategies for word identification and self-correction, multi-syllabic words with supportive explanationComprehension- Including Two of the following: Literal, Non-literal, inferential, or deeper meaning with supportive explanation

Oral Reading- Including one of the following: Slower pace, attention to phrasing, expression, more strategies for word identification and self-correction, multi-syllabic words with supportive explanationComprehension- Including one of the following: literal, Non-literal, inferential, or deeper meaning with supportive explanation

Oral Reading andComprehension mentioned-or-Oral Reading or Comprehension with an appropriate example OR elaborated explanation

Oral Reading ORComprehension mentioned

No mention or incorrect statements of oral reading or comprehension

InstructionalRecommend

.

Elaborated on two specific appropriate Oral Reading AND two specific appropriate comprehension strategies explicitly related to actual needs

A specific appropriate Oral Reading strategy AND a specific appropriate Comprehension strategy explicitly related to actual needs are described

An Oral Reading AND a Comprehension strategy related to actual needs is identified-OR-Oral Reading OR Comprehension strategy explicitly related to actual needs is described

An Oral Reading OR a Comprehension strategy related to actual needs is identified

No strategy mentioned or incorrect statements of oral reading fluency or comprehension strategy or not connected to actual needs.

DATA CONSOLIDATIONHISTOGRAM

N=106

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

0 5 10 15 20 25

Series1

DATA ANALYSIS-CASE 1SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATESCandidate Reading

LevelStrengths Needs

RecommendTotal Score

9 1 1 1 2 515 3 1 1 1 61 1 3 2 1 72 1 3 2 1 78 1 3 2 1 7

10 1 3 2 1 73 5 3 8

14 1 3 1 3 85 3 3 2 1 9

11 1 2 3 3 912 3 2 2 2 96 3 3 3 1 10

13 2 4 3 1 1016 1 3 4 2 107 4 3 3 2 124 3 5 3 4 15

56789

101215

0 5

Histogram

Number of Teachers

Total Score

DATA ANALYSIS-CASE 2CENTRAL HA EARLY PROGRAM

7

8

9

10

11

0 3

Histogram

Number

Score

Cand-idate

ReadLevel

Strength Needs Recommend

Total Score

1 4 0 3 8

2 3 4 0 2 9

3 1 4 3 2 10

4 1 4 4 2 11

5 3 3 3 2 11

6 1 2 3 1 7

7 2 4 3 2 11

8 1 3 3 1 8

9 1 4 3 0 8

DATA ANALYSIS-CASE 3CENTRAL HA BEGINNING CLINICAL

8

9

10

11

12

0 4

Histogram

Number

Score

Cand-idate

Read Level


Total Score

4 1 2 3 2 8

6 1 3 2 2 8

7 1 3 3 2 9

1 1 4 3 2 10

2 3 3 2 2 10

3 2 3 3 2 10

5 3 3 2 2 10

8 3 3 4 2 12

9 3 3 4 3 13

DATA ANALYSIS-CASE 4 WESTERN AH PRE

4

6

9

12

14

0 6

Histogram

Number

Score

Cand-idate

ReadLevel


Total Score

21 1 1 1 1 423 1 1 1 1 416 1 2 1 1 51 1 2 2 1 69 3 1 1 1 68 1 1 3 3 8

22 1 4 2 1 83 1 3 3 2 9

13 1 3 3 2 915 1 3 3 2 94 1 3 3 3 10

10 3 3 3 1 1011 1 3 3 3 1017 4 3 2 1 1019 1 3 3 3 1020 1 3 3 3 102 5 1 3 3 12

18 3 3 3 3 125 4 4 4 1 137 3 4 3 3 13

14 4 3 3 3 1312 4 4 3 3 146 5 4 4 3 16

DATA ANALYSIS-CASE 5 WESTERN AH POSTCand-idate

ReadLevel

Strength Needs Recommnd

Total Score

6 1 1 3 2 7

8 1 2 3 2 8

9 3 1 3 1 8

16 1 2 3 2 8

3 4 2 2 1 9

10 1 3 3 2 9

19 1 4 2 2 9

18 4 1 3 2 10

2 1 1 4 5 11

14 3 3 2 3 11

1 3 3 3 3 12

20 5 4 3 2 14

5 4 4 4 4 1679

1114

0 3

Histogram

Number

Score

DATA ANALYSIS-CASE 6WESTERN HA PRE

45689

1012131416

0 6

Histogram

Number

Scores

DATA ANALYSIS-CASE 7 WESTERN AH POST

568

1011121314

0 3

Histogram

Number

Score

Candidate

Read Level

Strengths Needs Recommend

Total Score

1 1 1 2 1 5

2 2 3 3 3 11

3 1 1 3 1 6

6 4 1 3 4 12

8 2 4 3 1 10

9 3 3 1 1 8

14 1 3 3 1 8

16 4 3 2 4 13

18 4 3 2 3 12

19 4 2 3 3 12

20 4 1 5 4 14

23 3 2 3 3 11

CONCLUSIONS• Creating a reliable and useful rubric requires a

commitment of significant time● Inter-rater reliability● Trial applications to candidate responses● Multiple revisions

• Individual rubrics must be created for each video sample

• Current data resulted in “normal distributions” of scores

• Given this sort of development it may be possible to take this approach to assessment “to scale”● Latent semantic analysis could be used for initial

machine scoring● Readings of individual protocols may be necessary

NEXT STEPS• Performance task of this nature is very

promising• Capturing good quality videos requires

careful planning and recording• Collect 4 new videos with revised protocol

(primary, intermediate, middle and high school)

• Develop specific rubrics for each• Administer it as a pre-test and post test for

undergraduate and graduate students

REFERENCESBradley, B., & Reinking, D. (2011). Revisiting the connection between

research and practice using formative and design experiments. In N. Duke & M. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies handbook (2nd ed.). (pp. 188-212). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141--178.

Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greene, J., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-methods evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Onwuegbuzie, A. & Mallette, M. (2011). Mixed research in literacy research. In N. Duke & M. Mallette, (Eds.). Literacy research methodologies handbook, (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2008). On formative and design experiments: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.

VIDEOTAPED ANALYSIS FOR TEACHER REFLECTION


December 4, 2013

PARTICIPANTS Terry Deeney, University of Rhode Island Cheryl Dozier, University at Albany Zubeyir Coban, University at Albany Barb Laster, Towson University Jeanne Cobb, Coastal Carolina University Marcie Ellerbe, Coastal Carolina University Debbie Gurvitz, National Louis University Anne McGill-Franzen, University of Tennessee Natalia Ward, University of Tennessee Jennifer Lubke, University of Tennessee Mary McVee, University at Buffalo Ashlee Ebert Campbell, University at Buffalo Liz Tynen, University at Buffalo Erica Bowers, University of California at Fullerton

THEORETICAL FRAMING Dewey (1933) reflection is “active, persistent,

and careful consideration of belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it ends” (p. 9)

Schon (1983) analyzing and acting purposefully on a situation with the goal of changing it; developmental process Reflection on action Reflection in action Reciprocal reflection in action

• Renewed interest in using video as a reflective tool (Grossman, 2005)

VIDEO REFLECTION AS A TOOL FOR IMPROVING TEACHING Research suggests video reflection can

be an effective strategy to help teachers improve their teaching (Penny & Coe, 2004; Tripp & Rich, 2012)

In our transfer/transformation study (Deeney et al, 2011) clinic participants named video reflection as a powerful tool for improving their practice

Studies vary on ways in which reflection was structured [Tripp & Rich, 2012(a); 2012 (b)]

Dimensions of Video Analysis (Tripp & Rich, 2012, p. 681)

PURPOSE/RATIONALE Systematic look at how videotaped reflection

tasks are structured in clinics/labs across the country

Analysis of collegial and instructor feedback across the country

A beginning analysis of how clinic participants respond to video reflection tasks

RESEARCH QUESTIONS In what ways do clinics across the country

have teachers use video to reflect on their own teaching?

What practices do clinics/labs across the country use to facilitate reflection on videos of one’s own teaching?

How has video-facilitated reflection affected teachers’ understanding of their own teaching?

METHODOLOGYSeven sites in six states New York (2 sites) South Carolina (1 site, 2 instructors) Tennessee Rhode Island Maryland Illinois

DATA COLLECTION Sites posted data to a common Google site

Video reflection assignment/task directions Video reflection rubrics or scoring guidesSome sites also posted student responses to video reflection assignment

DATA ANALYSIS Initial qualitative analysis of assignment tasks

across sites to identify commonalities and differences What did clinic/lab reflection tasks ask students to do? What format did reflection take? What kind of feedback/collaboration was involved?

Compared to dimensions of reflection identified in Tripp & Rich (2012) Posted analysis to Google site Site participants reviewed and revised as needed

Identified additional information needed for subsequent analysis Participants provided information on Google site

DIMENSIONS OF CLINIC/LAB VIDEO REFLECTION PROCESS

Dimension Questions AnalyzedReflection Tasks How do clinics/labs structure video

reflection tasks?Guiding Reflection What types of frameworks do

clinics/labs use to guide teacher reflection?

Individual/Collaborative Reflection

How do clinic/labs facilitate reflection?

Video Length What portion of the teaching session is videotaped/analyzed by teachers?

Number of Reflections How many video reflections do teachers complete?

Instructor Feedback How do clinic/labs engage others in individual teacher reflections?

DIMENSIONS OF REFLECTION TASKS

Written reflection format for all

Low level of pre-preparation High level

Teacher choice of what to record

Instructor choice

No transcription Focused Transcription

No formal assessment Scoring Guides Rubric

How do clinics/labs structure video reflection tasks?

DIMENSIONS OF GUIDING REFLECTIONWhat types of analysis do clinics/labs use to

guide teacher reflection?

Less structured More structured

Analysis includedLanguageEngagementScaffoldingMaterials used/chosenResponsivenessTime

GUIDING QUESTIONS/PROMPTS USED ACROSS SITES Analyzing language: What types of questions do I ask (open ended,

closed)? Does my language/Do my prompts encourage student independence? What is going well? How do I know (evidence)? What would I change/do

differently? Why? What do I need to think about in the future? How much time is spend reading? writing? on word study? What types of prompts do I use primarily? Am I over-scaffolding? Who is doing the talking? How do I honor partially correct responses? Am I encouraging critical thinking? Is the text appropriate/at the appropriate level? Talk about the level of student engagement/teacher engagement What did I learn about wait time? Why was this instruction needed? What explicit feedback am I providing? What I learn from my language choices? Talk about the productiveness of your responses and your decision

making

VIDEO LENGTHWhat portion of the teaching session is videotaped

and analyzed by teachers?

Short segment Whole Session Portions of Multiple Sessions

Single

refle

ction

of sin

gle se

gmen

t

multipl

e refl

ectio

ns of

single

segm

ent

multipl

e refl

ection

s of m

ultipl

e seg

ments

NUMBER OF REFLECTIONS How many video reflections do teachers

complete?

1 6

INDIVIDUAL/COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION

In what ways do clinics/labs facilitate reflection?Occasional Always

One colleague several colleagues whole class

In class/person Online (e.g. Google community)

Oral conversations Written conversations Oral/written/online

No viewing guide Student-constructed viewing guide

Instructor not part of collaborative reflection Instructor facilitates

FACILITATING COLLEAGUE FEEDBACK Occasional Always

Guiding questions/prompts across sites Three things you noticed about your colleague’s

teaching/interactions/positive feedback Three things your colleague could have done

differently/suggestions on ways to improve practice/constructive criticism

How your colleague’s instruction connects to your own student

How your colleague’s instruction connects to research/course readings

Prompts/Language your colleague used Where should this lesson go from here?

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK/RESPONSES

Do instructors provide feedback?

Never Sometimes Always

What types of feedback/responses are given by instructors?

Oral Written Both

Feedback on teaching or reflection Feedback on teaching and reflection

CONCLUSIONSThrough video reflection, teachers were asked to

slow down the process of their teaching and provide written and/or oral feedback of

their own teaching practices colleagues’ teaching student engagement

TEACHER RESPONSES TO VIDEOTAPED TASKS

Through videotaped reflections and viewings, teachers

Described multiple ways to approach teaching and learning (What went well? What would you do differently? Why?)

Named instructional practices and language choices of colleagues

Analyzed the intersections of teacher and student engagement

Identified practices for transfer to classroom or tutoring sessions

NEXT STEPS

Does/In what ways does transcription improve the quality of teacher reflection? How much is too much?

What are the essential elements in reflective practice? (tensions)

Considering contexts online/on campus short summer sessions, full semester placement across the program/clinic transfer

Reflecting on instructional practices collegial reflection (PLCs)