video-mediated teacher collaborative inquiry: focus on english language learners

14
Video-mediated teacher collaborative inquiry: Focus on English language learners Laura Baecher Sarah Rorimer Leonore Smith The High School Journal, Volume 95, Number 3, Spring 2012, pp. 49-61 (Article) Published by The University of North Carolina Press DOI: 10.1353/hsj.2012.0007 For additional information about this article Access provided by University of Glasgow Library (28 Apr 2013 14:46 GMT) http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hsj/summary/v095/95.3.baecher.html

Upload: leonore

Post on 08-Dec-2016

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Video-mediated teacher collaborative inquiry: Focus on Englishlanguage learners

Laura BaecherSarah RorimerLeonore Smith

The High School Journal, Volume 95, Number 3, Spring 2012, pp. 49-61(Article)

Published by The University of North Carolina PressDOI: 10.1353/hsj.2012.0007

For additional information about this article

Access provided by University of Glasgow Library (28 Apr 2013 14:46 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hsj/summary/v095/95.3.baecher.html

Video-mediated teacher collaborative inquiry: Focus onEnglish language learners

Laura Baecher, Ph.D.Hunter College

[email protected]

Sarah RorimerNew York City Department of Education

[email protected]

Leonore SmithNew York City Department of Education

[email protected]

IntroductionHigh school teachers today work in challenging, high-accountability instructional environments(Giles & Hargreaves, 2006), striving to meet the needs of upwards of 100 learners per day. Rapidlygrowing numbers of English-language learners (ELLs) in U.S. classrooms have added to thesepressures. Rather than using collaborative structures to face these challenges, the structure ofdepartmentalization too often results in content-area high school teachers working in isolationfrom one another (Grossman, Wineburg & Woolworth, 2001; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). Thismeans that English as a Second Language (ESL) specialists, as well as other teachers of ELLs,have few if any formal structures for peer interaction across disciplines. Professional develop-ment for ELLs, when available, is still too frequently delivered in decontextualized, “one-off”sessions with little follow-up (Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005). This conflicts withthe literature on best practices in professional development, which has shown, instead, how itshould (1) parallel local initiatives, standards, and teachers’ own professional goals; (2) focus onthe content and methods teachers use in their classrooms; (3) be sustained over time; (4) occuron-site in schools and/or in teachers’ own classrooms; (5) involve collective participation ofpeers and colleagues; and (6) provide numerous opportunities for active learning (Ballantyne,Sanderman & Levy, 2008; DuFour, Eaker & DuFour, 2005; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman &Yoon, 2001; González & Darling-Hammond, 1997; Merriam & Caffarella, 1998; Wenger, 1999).

Aligned with these conditions of high quality, meaningful professional learning, a teachereducator, alongside content and ESL teachers at one urban high school, came together in acollaborative inquiry cycle to explore ways of improving their ELL instruction. The intent ofthis paper is to share outcomes of this teacher-led collaboration, which combined two powerfultools in professional learning–teacher-collaborative inquiry and video analysis of teaching–as ameans to focus teachers across content areas on ELL pedagogy.

Review of Literature

Teacher preparation for ELL instructionGrowing consensus in the study of effective instructional practices for ELLs suggests thatcontent teachers who are highly effective in teaching ELLs possess dispositions, skills and

© 2012 The University of North Carolina Press

49

knowledge that enable them to meet both the content-area learning needs as well as the lan-guage development needs of their ELL students. This expertise is more specialized than “justgood teaching” (deJong & Harper, 2005; Faltis, Arias & Ramírez-Marín, 2010; Fradd & Lee,1998). Teachers need to reference both content knowledge of their subject area (e.g. mathe-matics, science, literature) as well as their pedagogical knowledge (e.g., of classrooms andlearner behavior) to develop their pedagogical content knowledge (Ball & McDiarmid,1990; Cochran, 1993; Freeman & Johnson, 1998). Lucas and Villegas (2011) identified key knowl-edge, dispositions, and skills of this pedagogical content knowledge base for mainstream teacherpreparation for ELLs such as an understanding of the processes of second language acquisition,the recognition of the role of language in completing academic tasks, and scaffolding instruc-tion to provide access to content-area learning.

Despite this evidence, and their large and growing population, most ELLs do not receiveinstruction from teachers who have been prepared to support their needs (Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Rumberger, 2008; Menken & Antunez, 2001). On-the-job professional developmenttargeted for ELLs also falls short. A study conducted by Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, and Driscoll(2005), with more than 5,000 California teachers, showed that 43% of teachers with 50% ormore ELLs had received no more than one in-service workshop on the instruction of ELLs.Another important finding from this research was that when they did occur, these profes-sional development workshops on ELLs were frequently of poor quality. Teachers surveyedcited the lack of presenter experience with ELLs and lack of follow-up as major concerns.

The departmentalization of secondary schools is another factor that may prohibit opportu-nities for professional learning about ELL instruction, as content teachers have limited inter-action with ESL teachers. Although schools are mandated to provide ESL instruction to theirELLs, content and ESL teachers usually do not coordinate instructional planning. Research onthe instructional planning and teaching that occurs between ESL and classroom teachers hasshown that collaborative planning and teaching are infrequent, due to the lack of allocated,common planning time and a status differential between the ESL specialist and the classroomteacher (Creese, 2002; Reeves, 2006). This means that content teachers often lack opportunitiesfor peer learning (teacher-to-teacher) that could enhance their practice and benefit ELLs.

Teacher Collaborative InquiryTeacher collaborative learning has shown great promise, beginning with Little’s (1982) casestudies, which provided early empirical support for the relationship between student successand frequency of teachers’ collaboration in planning, developing curricula, and sharinginstructional practices. From that point, school-based teacher education and developmentemerged as a field of inquiry. Vescio, Ross, and Adams (2006) identified several forms ofschool-based teacher collaborative learning, such as the Japanese lesson study (Lewis, Perry, &Murata, 2006), cognitively-guided instruction (Kazemi & Franke, 2004), and teacher-as-researcher(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).

Critical to these forms of collaborative teacher-led professional development was “inquiry thatdrew teachers’ attention to and helped them discover causal connections between theirteaching and student performance” (Gallimore, Ermeling, Saunders, & Goldenberg, 2009,p. 542). Because teachers may not be able to “see” these causal connections without theguidance of peers or a facilitator, several structures have emerged to support collaborativeteacher-led inquiry, and range from peer coaching to Critical Friends Groups (CFG) andTeacher Collaborative Inquiry (TCI). These structures all involve teacher-led rather thanadministrator-led discussions and emphasize the need for critical conversations about stu-dent learning as essential in school reform. TCI consists of a group of several teachers, whomeet regularly to pursue a common professional learning goal, may or may not be involvedin inter-class visitations, and within which multiple perspectives (more than in a dyadic rela-tionship) will be shared. TCI differs from CFGs in that the latter use student work samples

The High School Journal – Spring 2012

50

rather than observations of teaching as discussion foci. TCI may also be distinguished frompeer coaching in that coaching is generally implemented as a support for beginning teachersand involves a mentor-mentee relationship that includes classroom observations and plan-ning sessions in order to support instruction (Wong & Nicotera, 2003). However, in order tobe effective, both peer coaching and TCI require administrative support, clear expectationsfor participation, trusting relationships, and assessment methods for measuring the outcomeof the experience (Becker, 1996).

TCI rests on several key constructs. First, professional learning has the potential to yield richand long-lasting results if it involves teachers as active participants and teachers are pro-vided opportunities to deepen understanding of their own practices, explore content-specificpedagogy, and attempt new approaches to their teaching in their own classroom contexts(Borko, 2004). These opportunities must be site-based, sustained and on-going. Second,teacher learning best evolves when it is “inquiry conducted by teachers (as opposed to onor with teachers)” (Nelson & Slavit, 2008, p. 100). Third, in order to break from the ingrainedhabit of reflecting on practice in isolation (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Little, 2003), and to moveteachers into collaboratively exploring issues of teaching that they determine are relevant,the processes of collegial dialogue must be established. Researchers who have investigatedcollaboration between teachers have emphasized the need to provide training in the skills ofteacher-to-teacher communication as a foundation for ensuing inquiry, as most classroomteachers will not automatically have peer-collaboration skills (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour,2005). When engaged in collaboration with peers, however, Ingram, Louis, and Schroeder(2004) report that teachers are more likely to collect and use data systematically, rather thanrelying on anecdotes and intuition.

Finally, effective TCI involves teachers in closely analyzing student data in order to reflecton practice and attempt change. According to Fullan (2000), evidence-based TCI can affecta reculturing over the course of time, which upends norms of behavior and spurs teachergrowth. This reculturing depends upon high levels of trust between colleagues, the abilityto participate meaningfully in collaborative dialogue with a specific outcome in mind, anddeep examination of classroom practice—none of which are routinely developed in teachers’daily activities and therefore rarely take place (Grossman & MacDonald, 2008). In TCI, closeinvestigation of classroom practice can occur through inter-visitation, collaborative learningvisits, or review of video-records of teaching.

Video-mediated teacher reflectionThe power of digital video as a means of facilitating critical reflection and furthering self-evaluation has been widely documented (Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Rich & Hannafin,2009; Rosaen et al., 2008). Video allows for the complexities of the classroom to be broughtinto sharp focus, bridging the perennial theory–practice divide. It captures the immediacy ofthe classroom, offering detailed and rich data on the teaching and learning process, permittingthe viewer access to authentic learning experiences (Newhouse, Lane, & Brown, 2007). Videorecords of classroom instruction can serve as a means to investigate particular aspects of teach-ing, provide evidence of change or growth, or supply information about student learning.

While many studies of video as a tool in teacher development have analyzed its use amongpre-service teachers, a number of researchers have explored how video-mediated inquiry takesplace among experienced groups of teachers as part of school-based professional develop-ment. Here, video analysis usually takes place in small groups of peer teachers, at regularintervals and over an extended period of time, such as in video “clubs” (van Es & Sherin,2010). In these peer groups, teachers are generally guided by a facilitator who focuses on aparticular approach to teaching or to the subject matter, explores solutions to typical pro-blems, or reviews how members are implementing a professional development initiative.Video serves as a platform for mutual understanding, enabling teachers to view the same

Video-mediated Teacher Collaborative Inquiry

51

lesson together. In these video-based discussions, teachers develop “a discourse for analyzingvideo…focused on making sense of what occurs in classrooms and using evidence fromclassroom events to support their analyses” (van Es & Sherin, 2010, p. 172).

A particular affordance of video analysis is its effectiveness as a tool in the professional devel-opment of highly experienced teachers looking to refresh or learn new skills. Korthagen andKessels (1999) point out that practicing teachers are situated in contexts that demand imme-diate responses. Video, therefore, can serve as an ideal means for seasoned practitioners tobe presented with familiar experiences as an opportunity to actively construct new under-standings, allowing viewers to attend to what is meaningful to them (Cullen, 1991). “Learningis self-directed because they can choose what to focus on, and when. Finally, learningthrough videos emphasizes process, because the process of observation/reflection actuallyoccurs in the [session]” (Ebsworth, Feknous, Loyet, & Zimmerman, 2004, p. 145).

Even among experienced teachers, however, the need for viewing to be “scaffolded” by a facili-tator through the use of guided questions, observation protocols, or targeted viewing tasks isconsistently emphasized in the research literature on the role of video analysis in teacher devel-opment. Without this directed viewing, teachers may not make meaningful insights into prac-tice, and even with targeted viewing guides, teachers need interaction with peers in order tocounteract “reluctance to admit the reality on the record” (Laycock & Bunnag, 1991, p. 51). Yet,if video analysis remains dependent upon outside consultants for implementation, it maylikely only occur sporadically and in relation to externally-imposed agendas. Thus, for videoanalysis to be maximized within effective teacher-led professional development practices, theresponsibility of implementing collaborative video mediated inquiry must shift from the handsof outside consultants to site-specific, teacher-centered, sustainable practice.

The present study responds to areas of need raised in the three preceding lines of research.First, it attempts to address the problem faced by in-service teachers of ELLs, who hungerfor high-quality, sustained professional development in order to meet the demands of teachingan at-risk population. Second, it employs elements from the structures of peer coachingin order to design teacher-led collaborative inquiry. Last, it facilitates the review of data onpedagogy and practice through the use of video analysis, thus enabling teachers from diversedepartments to share in a grounded analysis and discussion of ELL pedagogy.

Method

PurposeThe purpose of this research was to explore how the practice of collaborative, inter-departmentalreview of classroom instruction for ELLs through shared video analysis, a potentially rich teacherdevelopment protocol, may be turned over to the hands of teachers themselves.

Guiding the study were three key questions:

1. In what ways did examining videos from participating teachers impact their understand-ing of classroom practice for ELLs?

2. To what extent were participating teachers able to move from dependence on the outsidefacilitator to facilitating their own inquiry?

3. What did participation in the group mean to the teachers?

Research DesignThe research design for this project was conceived and executed, and the resulting data ana-lyzed within a framework of co-inquiry as defined by Hennessy and Deaney (2009), in whichuniversity and school based educators collaboratively construct theory. In this approachto research, university-based teacher educators seek to build theory alongside practicingteachers, as equal partners in the research activities, thus arriving at “intermediate” theory

The High School Journal – Spring 2012

52

which bridges theory that has been conceived of outside of schools (by university researchers)with theory that has been developed within schools (by teachers), thus making “a significantdeparture from much conventional action research that is carried out by practitioners, andfrom the traditional ‘data-gathering’ and ‘knowledge delivery’ approach that characterizesmost academic research” (p. 1754).

Triggs and John (2004) noted that, “educational research reflected asymmetrical power rela-tions where academics exploited practitioners, using them as the objects of research” (p. 427).At the same time, researchers consider practitioners to be the end-users of the productsof their research, yet these products remain inaccessible to teachers due to the “imprecise,inconclusive, complex and esoteric” (p. 427) nature of much researcher-generated knowledgeas well as being blocked by the barriers posed by the language of academic discourse used inthe dissemination of findings (Bartels, 2003).

A contrasting approach respects the teacher’s voice in building on and extending the inter-active co-learning agreements between researchers and practitioners that work towardimproving practice (Wagner, 1997). Both parties in these agreements act as agents of (reflexive)inquiry, actively participating in rigorous and systematic joint analysis and contributinginterpretive insights. In this study, we wished to go a step further by having the practitionersco-author the paper along with the university researcher, in order to honestly reflect the genuinenature of the research relationship and as a natural fit to the purpose of this research project.

Participants and rolesOver the period of one academic semester, seven teachers voluntarily agreed to meet afterschool for two hours to participate in a total of eight sessions. Meetings occurred approxi-mately every other week, and teachers were compensated for their time through availableschool funds as professional development hours. Among the participants were two of theauthors of this article who initially conceived the focus, design, and methodology of theproject along with the first author, a teacher educator. Session planning continued throughoutthe stages of data collection, thematic analysis and validation, and writing up outcomes. Thus,the school-based facilitators (teachers) and the university-based facilitator (teacher educator)made a significant and sustained commitment to act as co-investigators in this participatoryresearch. The university-facilitator, Laura, was a teacher educator who had previously taught inthis high school. She had maintained connections with the school through placing studentteachers and regularly visited for their classroom observations. The teacher-facilitators wereSarah and Leonore. Sarah served as the school’s ESL coordinator, and took responsibilityfor negotiating the professional development compensation and organizing the group meetings.Leonore served as the school’s Master ESL teacher, and participated in the planning and debrief-ing of each session, took field notes, and observed teacher participants in their classrooms.

The teacher participants ranged in subject expertise and experience levels, as seen inTable 1 below.

Data AnalysisIn keeping with the overall goal of this research to support teachers’ ownership of their profes-sional inquiry, the data analysis took place within a framework of collaborative research betweenthe university and the school-based facilitators (the co-authors). After each meeting of the TCIgroup, the co-authors debriefed, sharing notes and observations from the session. In this way,the data that were emerging served as formative feedback to shape the subsequent session.

Over a four-month period, data were collected from each of the eight, two-hour peer inquirysessions. Included were: (1) pre- and post-video observation tasks; (2) audio-recordings fromeach session; (3) field notes taken by the university and teacher facilitator; (3) lesson plans and(4) student work samples. Each of the audio-recorded peer inquiry sessions was transcribed.While teacher’s video records of lessons were used as material in the peer inquiry sessions,their teaching itself was not part of the data itself, whereas their discussions of the videos were.

Video-mediated Teacher Collaborative Inquiry

53

Data were coded and categorized according to the principles and procedures of groundedtheory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Data were divided between the co-researchers with entriesinitially coded by one author, and then assigned coding was checked by the other authors.Categories emerged and teachers’ comments were placed into concept categories in an itera-tive process. Analysis of the pre- and post-test responses took place independently by thethree authors, and were then matched and compared. Google Docs was used as a tool toco-construct the text, so that our interpretations and understandings would be developedthrough our collaborative writing.

Background

Context of SchoolThe setting for the present study was a comprehensive public high school in the New YorkCity Department of Education with a population of approximately 3,600 students in grades 9,10, 11 and 12. The poverty rate is 72.1%. During the 2010–2011 school year, the studentpopulation consisted of 61.1% Hispanic or Latino, 14.6% Asian or Native Hawaiian/OtherPacific Islander, 11.9% Black, 12.1% White students and 0.2% American Indian or AlaskaNative (New York City Department of Education, 2011). Over half of the population had ahome language of Spanish, and 14.4% of the student body were labeled as English languagelearners (ELLs) enrolled in a Freestanding ESL or Spanish Transitional Bilingual Education(TBE) program.

As part of a state mandated school reform for schools identified as “Persistently LowestAchieving,” the school had been identified as one of eleven schools chosen to pilot the “Trans-formation Model” beginning in the 2010–2011 school year (Dunn, Burman & Briggs, 2010).Under this model, the school was given three years to demonstrate improved academic results.Features of the transformation included replacing the principal with a new, Interim ActingPrincipal, and introducing a system of merit pay with Master Teachers and Turn-AroundTeachers. One of the main reasons that the school was identified as a “School In Need ofImprovement” was that ELLs had consistently not met Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) inEnglish. In addition, ELL performance in sciences and social sciences, particularly passingrates for Living Environment and Global History Regents exams, were seen to contribute tothe designation. This is why Master Teachers in ESL were assigned to work collaboratively

Table 1: Teacher participants in video-mediated teacher collaborative inquiry group

TeacherSubjectArea

Years ofTeachingExperience

Years ofExperienceTeaching ELLs

Priortrainingto workwith ELLs

Priortrainingto workwith videoin teacherinquiry

Priortrainingto workas a peercoach

Sarah ESL 6 6 Yes Yes Yes

Leonore ESL 8 8 Yes Yes Yes

Stefanie* ELA 24 1 (co-teaching) Yes No Yes

Wayne* ESL 5 5 Yes Yes Yes

Alice* ELA 9 2 No No No

Nell* Science 101/2 yearco-teaching No No No

José* Science 11 11 No No Yes

*pseudonym

The High School Journal – Spring 2012

54

with the Science and Social Studies departments. All of these factors pointed to the need forhigh-quality, sustained professional development for teachers of ELLs.

ProcessThe sessions were conducted in an empty classroom after school, and the university-facilitatororganized the materials and activities for the sessions in consultation with the teacher-facilitators.Earlier sessions (1 and 2) involved the teachers examining videos of teaching supplied by theuniversity facilitator and practicing peer coaching conversation, following the text CoachingConversations: Transforming your school one conversation at a time (Cheliotes & Reilly,2010). This consisted of role-plays in which teachers were actively listening to one another,working together to select key questions as prompts, speaking intentionally, and distinguishingevaluative from non-evaluative feedback and coaching from advice-giving.

Later sessions (3–7) involved teachers bringing in short 3–5 minute video-clips of their ownteaching to share with the group using committed listening practices and targeted questioning.At the conclusion of each session, teachers determined the focus for the next session. Then,over the course of the next two weeks, teachers captured video footage from their classroomsbased on the focus (e.g., differentiating instruction for their ELL students and questioningtechniques). At each session, teachers took turns showing their video clips and using thequestioning techniques and committed listening protocols to collaboratively address peda-gogical challenges posed by the teacher-owner of the video footage. Over time, sessionsshifted from the university facilitator mediating the group interactions to teachers posingdiscussion questions and talking to each other about their teaching dilemma presented inthe video. The final session (e.g., session 8) ended with feedback relating to the three initialresearch questions about participation from the group members.

FindingsOne of the intentions of the video analysis that took place in the TCI group was to moveteachers away from the tendency to evaluate or assess the teacher based on review of a shortvideo sample of teaching and toward a more open, non-judgmental analysis of the teachingand pedagogical practices viewed in the video—but first the anxiety about video-recordingand sharing this video in a peer group had to be addressed. In the earlier sessions and priorto sharing their own video, some of the teachers expressed a high level of anxiety about thevideo-recording. Teachers’ comments ranged from a sense of personal dread: “It’s scary tosee myself on video”; to the fear of being judged negatively by the group: “Gettingtaped…Aaaah! My class is boring!” Even Wayne, who had previously worked in television,in the context of believing his teaching would be negatively judged by others, stated “I amanxious about the presence of a video camera in my class.” There was also a belief that thevideos were to provide models of what to do and not do, as in Nell’s early wish for the video-analysis, “I want to see examples of teachers doing good differentiation.”

Several activities whose goal was to challenge the value of good/bad value judgments tookplace in the early TCI sessions. These appeared to have begun to support teachers’ shiftingfrom a judgmental to an exploratory stance. This statement is typical of the group, as statedby Nell in an early session:

Much of my experience with administrators and supervisors has always been so critical.When you’re being told ‘this is bad’ and ‘you’re not doing this right,’ instead of beingshown how to improve, you start internalizing that judgmental, critical way of evaluatingand then it becomes very difficult to not talk about your own work in the classroom as‘bad’ or ‘good’ and you get really scared of asking anyone for help because you’re soworried about being judged.

As the sessions progressed, teachers began to see the value of the video analysis as a means toinvestigate their own local practice, rather than looking for “good” examples. Nell, who had

Video-mediated Teacher Collaborative Inquiry

55

earlier been looking to the videos to provide her with good examples of differentiated instruc-tion, stated a prime benefit of the video analysis was “looking at teachers in [a] natural settingwhere they teach normally.” Stefanie stated, “The ability to look several times at the same clipand go deeper with processing it…I find looking at a particular topic in depth with the videoextremely helpful”, highlighting the value of reviewing a small incident several times: “the videoformat makes me more aware of my pedagogy and helps me revisit and reflect on my practice.”

Instead of worrying about being evaluated by the TCI group, teachers came to see that theyhad already passed judgment on their own practice, often harshly. As the group shifted theirmanner of response from evaluative or judgmental to more exploratory and positive com-ments, teachers began to trust in the process and feel relief from the anxiety that accompaniesevaluation. Sarah stated in an early session, as she was about to share her video with the group:“My lesson was not rigorous. I can’t believe that as a fourth year teacher, I am still struggling withthe students’ use of the bathroompass inmy classroom!,” thus expressing her self-evaluation anda sense of shame about her practice. Afterwards, she stated: “I felt a great sense of relief whenmy colleagues asked me to explain using a positive frame. They asked me to tell about themoment in my lesson captured on video and I felt comfortable sharing openly and honestly…Looking at my own classroom and sharing openly about the challenges was incredibly eye-opening, therapeutic and powerful.”

The sense of real fear that had developed from years being observed by administrators in ahighly evaluative and at times harshly critical manner was difficult for participants to over-come. Moving from this fear to a sense of trust was another related finding, attributed by par-ticipants to the use of coaching conversations and to the format of the sessions. Sarah shared:

I was thinking about how creating norms established a sense of trust, and that was whatallowed us to discuss our teaching openly. During the very first session, we discussed theidea of confidentiality and we closed the classroom door so that our meeting would beprivate. The fact that we knew our sessions were private built trust and the sense of ateam. This set the stage for committed listening and the development of positive rela-tionships between colleagues. Prior to this PD, I had never experienced such a positivecollaborative environment among colleagues at my school.

Teachers reported that prior to this TCI group, very little collaborative inquiry into teachingpractice was taking place. The two teachers from the science department shared this sen-timent. Nell reported, “In my department, teachers don’t share lessons and resources thatmuch. We don’t really meet to talk about our teaching.” Leonore, Sarah and Stefanie, whosejobs depend upon colleagues accepting them and being open to discussing their classroompractice, shared the difficulties of doing so in an environment in which teachers are unaccus-tomed to it. Leonore stated:

I am charged with helping teachers further their practices and yet much of the time I ammet with resistance because I am presented as a sort of quasi-administrator and not as apeer. I would love to have a chance to work together with teachers in a more collaborativeenvironment where we can each grow and learn from one another, but we don’t often getthe opportunity in our day to do this.

Sarah shared that as a result of her participation in the TCI group, she began to make someconnections with teachers she worked with.

The level of openness, motivation, and collegiality has been very refreshing. The contentwe’ve learned (listening, non-judgmental feedback, observation data and non-evaluativequestioning techniques) have improved the way I communicate with my colleagues, height-ened my awareness in my own teaching, and given me a new perspective on the value ofquality feedback. It also helped me establish a mentoring relationship with a new teacher.

The High School Journal – Spring 2012

56

Another area of investigation in this research was to explore to what extent participation in theTCI group contributed to teachers’ understanding of their role in terms of the level of engage-ment of ELLs in their class. While improvements in teaching practice were not the focus ofthis investigation, teachers did seem to develop their awareness of how their actions, ratherthan student characteristics, contributed to engagement in the lesson. In initial sessions, someof the teachers appeared to believe that the issue lay with a lack of student motivation, asin this statement, “I have problems with students’ engagement…Motivation is very difficultbecause they don’t want to participate. The students always want the same students to answer/ask questions”. As the sessions progressed, teachers were encouraged to frame their concernsas questions rather than as judgments of their learners. Typical questions included: “How can Iget more students responding actively, hooking the students in the motivation?”; “Only some(more talkative) students are responding–How do I get more focus in my class?”; “How to I getstudents to work more independently?”; “How can I use vocabulary and academic languagemore effectively?” In the last sessions, teachers began to see their activities and interactionas promoting or hindering ELL student participation. Sarah stated:

I learned that often the classroom management problem I am trying to handle is not actu-ally the problem. Instead, it is a symptom of a larger issue relating to student engagement.Often ELLs act out because they are bored or because they are not being challenged bythe classroom activity. By making a few, small adjustments, the teacher can dramaticallyincrease student engagement, thus eliminating classroom management issues.

Teacher participants in the TCI group with the role of mentor (Sarah, Leonore & Stefanie)were more likely to tie specific strategies to ELL student engagement, while the other teacherparticipants (Alice, Wayne, Nell & José) were more likely to present questions and expressed adesire to further explore these strategies more extensively in their classroom.

A final aspect of the research was to see whether the teachers in the group could take overthe facilitation of the video-mediated TCI without the outside facilitator. This seemed to bestarting to occur. At the end of the sessions, as at the beginning, there seemed to be a depen-dency on the outside facilitator to set the agenda, run the activities, and structure the con-versations. However, later sessions involved more floor control and conversational turns bythe participants than the outside facilitator, and group members had started to monitor oneanother’s responses to some extent. For example, in an early session, Stefanie had stated, “Iam open to whatever way you want to go with the sessions,” and, in later sessions, she andothers began to set the topics that they wished to discuss. Alice stated, “I want to talk aboutmanagement and what to do when someone says the wrong answer…I think this relates towait time and having the differentiated material to refer to as a resource.”

A review of the findings shows that teachers began to learn and grow in the following areas:(1) shifting from evaluative to non-evaluative discussions of their teaching practice; (2) becom-ing more aware of the value of video in their professional learning; (3) developing deeper trustand collegial relationships within the group; and (4) understanding more about their teachingpractices as they relate to ELL student performance in class. Less developed was the proposedshift from depending upon an outside facilitator to an internal one.

DiscussionIn examining the data, we found that the strongest theme was that of a renewed trust in thecollaborative process, brought about both by the public sharing of what is normally private(one’s teaching) through the video viewing, as well as through using the protocols (e.g., Don’tinterrupt, Avoid biographical responses, Frame questions positively and non-judgmentally)established in the coaching process. The fear of being judged–and coming up short–wasovercome as teachers experienced the review of their video records to be a productiveexercise for the entire group’s emerging understandings of differentiated instruction for ELLs.

Video-mediated Teacher Collaborative Inquiry

57

Taking into account the context and climate of the school, this transformative work appearedto have had a positive effect on the participants in the group. Using the language of thecoaching protocol, although in some ways awkward and unnatural, provided an assurancethat the discussion would not stray into the group passing judgment on the teacher. Requir-ing the participants to pose questions to the presenting teacher as a response to the videowas especially challenging–for the facilitators as well–yet this seemed to be a key componentin maintaining a peer inquiry rather than a peer evaluation stance.

Teachers’ participation in the group was highly meaningful to them, both individually as ameans for introspection, and collaboratively as a means for connection. Leonore found thatprevious video analysis she had participated in was unstructured in the sense that a focusfor investigation was not suggested, and also that the study of video was not a collaborativeprocess with guided parameters for feedback (e.g., committed listening, framing questions,descriptive evaluation). It also lacked training and protocols for how to use nonjudgmentalquestioning with colleagues. Based upon the sense of trust established by the video mediatedinquiry group protocols and upon the positive experience of reflecting on pedagogy throughreviewing video clips, Leonore used video as a means of facilitating observation and post-observation dialogue with her administrator the following school year.

Another example comes from Stefanie, whose job is a staff developer in the school. She wasnew to the building and was struggling to create connections to the teachers in the buildingso that they would invite her in to their classrooms for her to offer professional support. Atthe 6th session of the group, Nell, who was a teacher new to the building as well and in needof such support, actually initiated an invitation for Stefanie to come work with her. It seemedthat this was a clear sign that a sense of trust had been nurtured, since the suggestion camefrom Nell herself. Additionally, in regards to working with Nell and with José in the sciencedepartment, these two, especially Nell, became vocal champions of this type of peer-mediatedpedagogy and lesson study. Nell told her colleagues in the science department that she feltshe had never really been as reflective about her teaching practices and that she looked for-ward to the group meetings because “it was so supportive and applicable and driven byteachers working through questions together”. In light of the positive experiences reported byNell and Leonore to science department colleagues, the science department AP spearheadedinclusion of video-mediated lesson study in the school’s site-based professional developmentcalendar the following year.

All of the participants expressed a strong desire to continue the work of the group duringthe following school year, with debate about whether to continue with cross-disciplinarymembers or move to a within-discipline format. Participants agreed that the most importantaspect was the relational dynamic, and that the way to move into the next iteration of thegroup was for each member to invite in one or two new members, people who would begenuinely invested in collaborative, reflective conversations, making sure to not have anyonethere who was forced to participate. Participants agreed that it would be worthwhile to inviteteacher leaders such as “master teachers” and coaches, who had a vested interest in sharingthe insights gained through the process of video-mediated collaborative inquiry. The ideathat the group was an authentic, genuine professional learning experience–contrasting withadministration-imposed “PD”–was a strong theme as well. Teachers felt a great desire to learnand grow, but attending single workshops with no follow up or opportunities for continueddialog had made them weary and distrustful. Many suggestions were made for administratorsto participate in a similar experience, especially to develop their ability to coach as a part ofsupervisory conferences. Members of the group also expressed interest in establishing regularclassroom inter-visitations to supplement the use of video. It may be of worth to include, byway of follow-up, that due to the positive experiences of the video mediated inquiry group, thementors and teacher leaders at the site of the study, Stephanie and Leonore, both pressed for

The High School Journal – Spring 2012

58

a continuation of this sort of site-based professional development and now have scheduledseveral days of video-mediated inquiry into the professional development calendar for the2011–2012 academic year.

Although this study is clearly limited by the lack of opportunity to follow participatingteachers into their classrooms to examine possible application of the TCI group to instruc-tional practice, this would be worthy of investigation. To what extent does professional learn-ing that is led by teachers and grounded in video-records of teaching propel teachers to makeinstructional changes back in the classroom? An additional limitation must necessarily relateto the involvement of the particular facilitators’ relationships. The university member had beena teacher at the high school, and had worked as Sarah’s supervisor for several years; Leonoreand Sarah had a close and collegial working relationship. These factors were invaluable indeveloping and sustaining this TCI group. Those wishing to replicate or explore a similarmodel would likely need to begin from existing, trusting relationships with key personnel,and develop a protocol that makes sense for the procedural aspects of guiding the group (e.g.turn-taking, non-evaluative feedback, active listening, asking questions) as well as the con-tent under study (e.g., ELL instruction, working with struggling readers, differentiating foraccelerated students, and questioning techniques) for the particular teachers involved.

ConclusionDistinct from Critical Friends Groups, which follow a protocol that solicits “warm” and “cool”evaluative feedback (Curry, 2008) or Japanese Lesson Study, which operates to bring con-vergence regarding “best” practices in delivering a common lesson, the coaching conversationprotocol used in this project attempted to support individual, divergent and creative solu-tions to classroom dilemmas. Through the video analysis process, in combination with anon-evaluative stance, teachers increasingly began to recognize their own capacity to “see”more clearly the connections between action and student reaction. As a number of states areadopting new teacher evaluation models that include peer evaluation, as well as video-basedobservation, it is essential that the activity of peers engaged in exploration of their practicefor professional learning be distinguished from evaluation, since evaluation clearly does notcreate the conditions of trust necessary for genuine growth.

Rather than providing the teacher solutions, the group was instructed to form powerful ques-tions to spark the teacher’s analysis, which led them to construct their own knowledge. Thoseinterested in facilitating a video-mediated TCI group to explore ELL instruction might consider:

• Soliciting institutional and administrative support for teachers to gather and explore theirteaching practice free of a “top-down” agenda

• Establishing a time and space that is private and will be uninterrupted to conduct thegroup inquiry sessions

• Inviting a small group of volunteer teachers across disciplines who are united in theirinterest in understanding how their instruction meets the needs of ELLs or any select groupof students

• Using the first several sessions to establish coaching protocols, such as active listening,question framing, and descriptive versus evaluative observation (Fanselow, 1988)

• Initially examining video excerpts of teachers from another setting, rather than using videoof teacher group members

• Partnering with a university researcher as an initial “objective” facilitator and then shiftingthat role to the group members

• Determining a set of targeted learning objectives for the group regarding ELL instruction,such as examining questioning techniques, differentiation of tasks, and student-teacher talk

• Considering authentic professional forums to inspire publishing and presenting of researchfindings, as a means to enhance school-university partnerships

Video-mediated Teacher Collaborative Inquiry

59

Schools today face shrinking financial resources at the same time they must make substantiveinstructional reforms to meet the growing population of ELLs. Video-mediated teacher inquirygroups show great promise as low-cost initiatives for site-based, sustained, meaningful profes-sional learning–learning that can and should be constructed by teachers themselves.

ReferencesBall, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of

professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbookof policy and practice (pp. 1–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). The subject matter preparation of teachers. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbookof research on teacher education (pp. 437–449). New York: Macmillan.

Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English language learners: Building teacher capacity.Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.

Bartels, N. (2003). How teachers and researchers read academic articles. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(7),737–753.

Becker, J. M. (1996). Peer coaching for improvement of teaching and learning. Teachers Network. Retrieved fromhttp://teachersnetwork.org/TNLI/research/growth/becker.htm

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher,33(8), 3–15.

Cochran, K. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of TeacherEducation, 44(4), 263–272.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities.Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.

Cheliotes, L. G., & Reilly, M. F. (2010). Coaching conversations: Transforming your school one conversation at a time.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Creese, A. (2002). The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: Language and subject specialistsin mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 597–616.

Cullen, R. (1991). Video in teacher training: the use of local materials. ELT Journal, 45(1), 33–42.Curry, M. (2008). Critical Friends groups: The possibilities and limitations in teacher professional communities

aimed at instructional improvement and school reform. Teachers College Record, 110(4), 733–774.de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: Is being a good

teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101–124.DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Dunn, T., Burman, J., & Briggs, J. (2010). Education commissioner announces 57 schools identified as “persistently

lowest achieving” and eligible for new funding for turnaround; Schools to be focus of race to the top and schoolimprovement efforts. Retrieved from New York State Education Department. http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/PersistentlyLowAchiev2010.html

Ebsworth, M. E., Feknous, B., Loyet, D., & Zimmerman, S. (2004). Tape it yourself: videotapes for teacher education.ELT Journal, 58(2), 145–154.

Faltis, C., Arias, M. B., & Ramírez-Marín, F. (2010). Identifying relevant competencies for secondary teachers of Englishlearners. Bilingual Research Journal, 33(3), 307–328.

Fanselow, J. F. (1988). “Let’s see”: Contrasting conversations about teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 113–130.Fradd, S. H., & Lee, O. (1998). Development of a knowledge base for ESOL teacher education. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 14(7), 761–773.Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL

Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417.Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 1–23.Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B., Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice:

Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537–553.Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English Language Learners: A survey of

California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development needs. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysisfor California Education.

Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Rumberger, R. (2008). Resource needs for English learners: Getting down to policyrecommendations. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional developmenteffective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professionallearning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156.

González, J. M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). New concepts for new challenges: Professional development forteachers of immigrant youth. Washington, DC: Delta Systems and the Center for Applied Linguistics.

Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education.American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205.

Grossman, P. L., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers CollegeRecord, 103(6), 942–1012.

Harford, J., & MacRuairc, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective practice. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 24(7), 1884–1892.

The High School Journal – Spring 2012

60

Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2009). “Intermediate theory” building: Integrating multiple teacher and researcher per-spectives through in-depth video analysis of pedagogic strategies. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1753–1795.

Ingram, D., Louis, K. R. S., & Schroeder, R. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers tothe use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1258–1287.

Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collectiveinquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(3), 203–235.

Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education.Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.

Laycock, J., & Bunnag, P. (1991). Developing teacher self-awareness: Feedback and the use of video. ELT Journal,45(1), 43–53.

Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? A case oflesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 19(3), 325–40.

Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record,105(6), 913–945.

Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2011). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparationfor linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 55–72). New York: Routledge.

McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Menken, K., & Antunez, B. (2001). An Overview of the Preparation and Certification of Teachers Working with LimitedEnglish Proficient (LEP) Students. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, Washington, DC.

Merriam, S., & Caffarella, R. S. (1998). Learning in adulthood. A comprehensive guide, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Nelson, T., & Slavit, D. (2008). Supported teacher collaborative inquiry. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 99–116.New York City Department of Education. (2011). Comprehensive Education Policy School Demographics and Account-

ability Snapshot 2010–2011. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/30/Q450/AboutUs/Statistics/default.htm

Newhouse, C. P., Lane, J., & Brown, C. (2007). Reflecting on teaching practices using digital video representationin teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 1–12.

Reeves, J. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language learners in mainstream classrooms.The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 131–142.

Rich, P., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52–67.Rosaen, C., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing noticing: How does investigation of

video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347–360.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.

Newbury Park: Sage.Triggs, P., & John, P. (2004). From transaction to transformation: information and communication technology, profes-

sional development and the formation of communities of practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(6),426–439.

van Es, E., & Sherin, M. (2010). The influence of video clubs on teachers’ thinking and practice. Journal of MathematicsTeacher Education, 13(2), 155–176.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2006). Review on professional learning communities: What do we know? Paper pre-sented at the NSRF Research Forum. Retrieved from http://www.nsrfharmony.org/research.vescio_ross_adams.pdf

Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for reconsidering researcher-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13–22.

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of Practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wong, K., & Nicotera, A. (2003). Enhancing Teacher Quality: Peer Coaching as a Professional Development Strategy.

A Preliminary Synthesis of the Literature, Publication Series No. 5, Vanderbilt University.

Video-mediated Teacher Collaborative Inquiry

61