LARC Project

In earlier research, we compared the commonly-used tool of memory-based reflection with video-based reflection to investigate to what extent and in what ways video might help interns reflect on their discussion-based teaching in a more complex manner than when they use memory-based reflection (Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen & Kauer, 2006). Findings suggested that video helped interns write more specific (versus general) reflections about their teaching, reflection content shifted from a classroom management focus to an instruction focus, and interns concentrated less on themselves and more on their teaching. Although interns' video clips revealed salient details that helped them problematize their practice, the commentaries addressed only discrete and disparate moments of practice. We wondered what might be gained (both by teachers and by researchers) by asking interns to create a more coherent representation of their sense-making through the construction of video cases focused on a particular aspect of their teaching.

The possibility that video analysis aimed at case construction held the potential to prompt deeper thinking led us to the current study that investigated the following questions: Is video case construction a more powerful tool for facilitating more complex analysis of teaching than making, watching and reflecting on videos? If so, how? Six interns participated in the study (2 secondary science, 3 secondary English, and 1 elementary major). To construct a video case, interns were asked to examine videos of their teaching during one lesson in literacy or science, select aspects of practice that they regarded as important or significant and organize them into a coherent “case”. A multi-media, digital software program enabled interns to associate video clips with supporting documentation such as student work, lesson plans, and voiceover or written commentaries.

We analyzed the cases the interns created as well as their design process to understand what they thought about, why they made particular choices, and what they valued about the process. We collected baseline interviews from interns prior to the case construction process, met with interns during a design session, and after the case was completed, conducted a final interview during which the interns presented their case and reflected upon the lesson itself and their decision-making process.

Cross-case analysis of two secondary science interns' case construction process revealed that the interns became more specific and more complex in their reflection. They began to focus their attention more fully on their instruction and to listen carefully to what their students were saying and learning. There were, however, key areas that each intern did not notice, indicating areas where growth did not occur (Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper & Fritzen, 2007).

Current data analysis is comparing more specifically the interns' case construction processes in two different subject matter contexts—literacy and science—since types of knowledge and ways of knowing vary by discipline and implementation of productive discussions in the two subject matter contexts may vary.