Instructional Science

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 91–114 | Cite as

Getting immersed in teacher and student perspectives? Facilitating analytical competence using video cases in teacher education

  • Annika Goeze
  • Jan M. Zottmann
  • Freydis Vogel
  • Frank Fischer
  • Josef Schrader
Article

Abstract

The ability to analyze and understand classroom situations through the eyes of not only teachers but also students can be seen as a crucial aspect of teachers’ professional competence. Even though video case-based learning is considered to have great potential for the promotion of analytical competence of teachers (i.e., becoming immersed in student and teacher perspectives as well as applying conceptual knowledge to better understand classroom situations), only a few studies have investigated the effects of corresponding instructional support. This empirical field study examines the effects on analytical competence of two types of instructional support—hyperlinks to multiple perspectives and hyperlinks to conceptual knowledge—by using a 2 × 2 factorial design in a computer-supported video case-based learning environment inspired by cognitive flexibility theory and participatory design. The study examines collaborative learning processes to discover what specific kind of instruction may help to counteract some of the known deficits of case-based learning and teacher thinking, such as limited perspective-taking. From a participatory design point of view, training novices to become immersed in teacher and student perspectives can be considered as an alternative for direct involvement of teachers and students in the design process. The study was realized as a four-day university course for pre-service teachers (N = 100). ANCOVAs of learning processes (small-group discussions) and outcomes (written case analyses) provide evidence that both types of instructional support (i.e., hyperlinks to multiple perspectives and conceptual knowledge) are beneficial. In particular, hyperlinks to multiple perspectives affected small-group case discussions and written post-tests as they led to increased immersion (i.e., perspective-taking). Hyperlinks to conceptual knowledge furthered the application of this knowledge, especially in the written post-tests. Implications for teacher education, participatory design, and further research are discussed.

Keywords

Video case-based learning Teacher education Teacher expertise Perspective taking Immersion Computer-supported collaborative learning 

References

  1. Ayres, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S., & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433–456). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Berliner, D. C. (1991). Perceptions of student behavior as a function of expertise. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 26(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  5. Berliner, D. C. (1994). Teacher expertise. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwait (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 6020–6026). London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463–482. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00004-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 1–49. doi:10.3102/0013189X033008003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boshuizen, H. P. A., Bromme, R., & Gruber, H. (Eds.). (2004). Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bromme, R. (1987). Teachers’ assessments of students’ difficulties and progress in understanding in the classroom. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 125–146). Salisbury: Cassell Education.Google Scholar
  11. Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2004). Using video in teacher education. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., & Berliner, D. C. (1988). Expert-novice differences in perceiving and processing visual classroom information. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 25–31. doi:10.1177/002248718803900306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233–246. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Choi, H. (2007). College students’ perceptions of learning and knowledge transfer in problem-based video instruction: A case study. Journal of Learning Design, 2(2), 105–115. doi:10.5204/jld.v2i2.44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Choi, H., & Yang, M. (2011). The effect of problem-based video instruction on student satisfaction, empathy, and learning achievement in the Korean teacher education context. Higher Education, 62(5), 551–561. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9403-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. A. (1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behaviour. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86(2), 127–137.Google Scholar
  18. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166–173. doi:10.1177/0022487100051003002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105–113. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3102_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Derry, S. J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Nagarajan, A., Chernobilsky, E., & Beitzel, B. D. (2006). Cognitive transfer revisited: Can we exploit new media to solve old problems on a large scale? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 145–162. doi:10.2190/0576-R724-T149-5432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen, Netherlands: Open University.Google Scholar
  24. Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (1999). Metacognitive instructional knowledge: Cognitive mediation and instructional design. Journal of Structural Learning & Intelligent Systems, 13, 145–169.Google Scholar
  25. Elen, J., Lowyck, J., & Bamps, H. (1998). The relation between students’ perceptions of problem-based learning and learning style components. In J. J. G. van Merriënboer & G. Moerkerke (Eds.), Instructional design for problem-based learning: Proceedings of the third workshop of the EARLI SIG instructional design (pp. 281–290). Maastricht: University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  26. Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Higher Education, 22, 201–204. doi:10.1007/BF00132287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ericsson, K. A. (2009). Development of professional expertise: Toward measurement of expert performance and design of optimal learning environments. Leiden: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T., Franke, M., Levi, L., Jacobs, V., & Empson, S. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Learning, 27(4), 403–434. doi:10.2307/749875.Google Scholar
  29. Fitzgerald, G., Koury, K., Mitchem, K., Hollingshead, C., Miller, K., Park, M. K., et al. (2009). Implementing case-based instruction in higher education through technology: What works best? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 31–63.Google Scholar
  30. Goldman, R., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., & Derry, S. (Eds.). (2007). Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Goldsmith, L. T., & Seago, N. (2011). Using classroom artifacts to focus teachers’ noticing: Affordances and opportunities. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 169–187). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hansen, A. J. (1987). Reflections of a casewriter: Writing teaching cases. In C. R. Christensen & A. J. Hansen (Eds.), Teaching and the case method (pp. 264–270). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  34. Harrington, H. L. (1995). Fostering reasoned decisions: Case-based pedagogy and the professional development of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 203–214. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)00027-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Hodges, S. D., Clark, B. A. M., & Myers, M. W. (2011). Better living through perspective taking. In R. Biswas-Diener (Ed.), Positive psychology as social change (pp. 193–218). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hogan, T. M., Rabinowitz, M., & Craven, J. A. (2003). Representation in teaching: Inferences from research of expert and novice teachers. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 235–247. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3804_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202.Google Scholar
  39. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., Philipp, R. A., & Schappelle, B. P. (2011). Deciding how to respond on the basis of children’s understandings. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 97–116). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Jacobson, M. J., & Archodidou, A. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 149–199. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0902_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. M. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer supported communication of knowledge: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 13–37). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). Towards more powerful learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers and students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 645–660. doi:10.1348/000709905X43616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Könings, K. D., van Zundert, M. J., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007). Participatory design in secondary education: Its desirability and feasibility according to teachers and students. Educational Studies, 33, 445–465. doi:10.1080/03055690701423648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Koury, K., Hollingsead, C., Fitzgerald, G., Miller, K., Mitchem, K., Tsai, H., et al. (2009). Case-based instruction in different delivery contexts: the impact of time in cases. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(4), 445–467.Google Scholar
  47. Kuckartz, U. (2007). MaxQDA. Berlin: VERBI GmbH.Google Scholar
  48. LeFevre, D. M. (2004). Designing for teacher learning: Video-based curriculum design. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 235–258). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  49. Lin, T., & Anderson, R. (2008). Reflections on collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 443–448. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lundeberg, M. A., & Scheurman, G. (1997). Looking twice means seeing more: Developing pedagogical knowledge through case analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(8), 783–797. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(97)00020-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Menna, R., & Cohen, N. J. (1997). Social perspective taking. In M. McCallum & W. E. Piper (Eds.), Psychological mindedness: A concept in search of meaning (pp. 189–220). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Merseth, K. K. (1996). Cases and case methods in teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 722–744). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  53. Miller, K. K. (2001). Teacher perspective-taking: Developmental and individual differences. Educational Research Quarterly, 25(2), 22–33.Google Scholar
  54. Minnameier, G. (2009). Kognitive Voraussetzungen der Entwicklung von pädagogischer Professionalität [Cognitive preconditions for the development of pedagogical professionalism]. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, K. Beck, D. Sembill, R. Nickolaus, & R. Mulder (Eds.), Lehrerprofessionalität. Bedingungen, Genese, Wirkungen und ihre Messung (pp. 333–344). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  55. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2007). Immediate and delayed effects of using a classroom case exemplar in teacher education: The role of presentation format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 194–206. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nemirovsky, R., & Galvis, A. (2004). Facilitating grounded online interactions in video case-based teacher professional development. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33(1), 67–97. doi:10.1023/B:JOST.0000019639.06127.67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nussbaum, E. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. OECD. (2005). Teachers matter. Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Olleck, R. (2010). Mediengestützte Fallarbeit in computerunterstützten Lernumgebungen: Technische Anforderungen und Funktionalitäten für Einzelarbeit, Gruppenarbeit und Blended-Learning-Szenarien [Computer-supported video case-based learning environments: Technical requirements and functionalities for individual work, group work, and blended learning scenarios]. In J. Schrader, R. Hohmann, & S. Hartz (Eds.), Mediengestützte Fallarbeit—Konzepte, Erfahrungen und Befunde zur Kompetenzentwicklung von Erwachsenenbildnern (pp. 191–207). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  60. Oser, F. K., & Baeriswyl, F. (2000). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1031–1065). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  61. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgement of the child. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  62. Rimmele, R. (2004). Videograph. Kiel: IPN.Google Scholar
  63. Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253.Google Scholar
  64. Rosaen, C. L., 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. doi:10.1177/0022487108322128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rosier, R. H. (1995). The competency model handbook (Vol. 2). Boston: Linkage.Google Scholar
  66. Roters, B., Nold, G., Haudeck, H., Keßler, J.-U., & Stancel-Piatak, A. (2011). Professionelles Wissen von Studierenden des Lehramts Englisch [Professional knowledge of pre-service English teachers]. In S. Blömeke, A. Bremerich-Vos, H. Haudeck, G. Kaiser, G. Nold, K. Schwippert, & H. Willenberg (Eds.), Kompetenzen von Lehramtsstudierenden in gering strukturierten Domänen—Erste Ergebnisse aus TEDS-LT (pp. 77–99). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  67. Rothe, H. J., & Schindler, M. (1996). Expertise und Wissen [Expertise and knowledge]. In H. Gruber & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Expertiseforschung: Theoretische und methodische Grundlagen (pp. 35–57). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Santagata, R., Zannoni, C., & Stigler, W. J. (2007). The role of lesson analysis in pre-service teacher education: An empirical investigation of teacher learning from a virtual video-based field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(2), 123–140. doi:10.1007/s10857-007-9029-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). Noticing matters—A lot: Now what? In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 223–238). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Schrader, J., Hohmann, R., & Hartz, S. (Eds.). (2010). Mediengestützte Fallarbeit—Konzepte, Erfahrungen und Befunde zur Kompetenzentwicklung von Erwachsenenbildnern [Video case-based learning—Concepts, experiences, and findings regarding adult educators’ competence development]. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  71. Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  72. Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  75. Shulman, J. H. (Ed.). (1992). Case methods in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  76. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  77. Steins, G., & Wicklund, R. A. (1993). Zum Konzept der Perspektivenübernahme: Ein kritischer Überblick [The concept of perspective-taking: A critical overview]. Psychologische Rundschau, 44(2), 226–239.Google Scholar
  78. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46(1), 29–48. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tietgens, H. (1988). Professionalität für die Erwachsenenbildung [Professionalism for adult education]. In W. Gieseke (Ed.), Professionalität und Professionalisierung (pp. 28–75). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  80. van den Berg, E. (2001). An exploration of the use of multimedia cases as a reflective tool in teacher education. Research in Science Education, 31(2), 245–265. doi:10.1023/A:1013193111324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. van Es, E. (2011). A framework for learning to notice student thinking. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing. Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 134–151). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. van Zundert, M. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Könings, K. D., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). The differential effects of task complexity on domain-specific and peer assessment skills. Educational Psychology, 32, 127–145. doi:10.1080/01443410.2011.626122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Webb, N. M., Trooper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406–423. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Weinberger, A., & Seyfried, C. (2009). RIFE: Reflection Instrument for Education. Salzburger Beiträge zur Erziehungswissenschaft, 13, 83–94.Google Scholar
  85. Willis, J., & Wright, K. E. (2000). A general set of procedures for constructivist instructional design: The new R2D2 model. Educational Technology, 40(2), 5–20.Google Scholar
  86. Wolfe, J. (2008). Annotations and the collaborative digital library: Effects of an aligned interface on student argumentation and reading strategies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 141–164. doi:10.1007/s11412-008-9040-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zottmann, J. M., Goeze, A., Frank, C., Zentner, U., Fischer, F., & Schrader, J. (2012). Fostering the analytical competency of pre-service teachers in a computer-supported case-based learning environment: A matter of perspective? Interactive Learning Environments, 20(6), 513–532. doi:10.1080/10494820.2010.539885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annika Goeze
    • 1
  • Jan M. Zottmann
    • 2
  • Freydis Vogel
    • 2
  • Frank Fischer
    • 2
  • Josef Schrader
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.German Institute for Adult Education—Leibniz Center for Lifelong LearningBonnGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyLMU MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Educational ScienceUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations