Advertisement

TechTrends

pp 1–10 | Cite as

Video-Based Teaching Playgrounds: Designing Online Learning Opportunities to Foster Professional Noticing of Teaching Practices

  • Heather Lynn Johnson
  • Joanna C. Dunlap
  • Geeta Verma
  • Evan McClintock
  • Dennis J. DeBay
  • Brandy Bourdeaux
Original Paper

Abstract

In this article, we share design guidelines for the development and use of online, video-based teaching playgrounds, which provide opportunities for prospective teachers to engage in professional noticing of teaching practices. Through teaching playgrounds, we provide an instantiation of the Presence+Experience framework, which combines the Community of Inquiry model with Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. Teaching playgrounds offer a viable mechanism for instructors and designers to incorporate high touch learning experiences into high tech online teacher preparation courses. Using quantitative methods, we demonstrate the efficacy of online content methods courses incorporating teaching playgrounds. We address implications for the incorporation of online content methods courses in mathematics and science teacher education programs.

Keywords

Mathematics teacher education Online learning Science teacher education Teacher preparation Teacher noticing 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Heather Lynn Johnson declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Joanna C. Dunlap declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Geeta Verma declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Evan McClintock declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Dennis J. DeBay declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Brandy Bourdeaux declares that she has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Arya, P., Christ, T., & Chiu, M. M. (2016). Video use in teacher education: a survey of teacher-educators’ practices across disciplines. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(2), 261–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers' ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blomberg, G., Stürmer, K., & Seidel, T. (2011). How pre-service teachers observe teaching on video: effects of viewers’ teaching subjects and the subject of the video. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1131–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blomberg, G., Renkl, A., Sherin, M. G., Borko, H., & Seidel, T. (2013). Five research-based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education. Journal for Educational Research Online, 5(1), 90.Google Scholar
  5. Borba, M. C., & Llinares, S. (2012). Online mathematics teacher education: overview of an emergent field of research. ZDM, 44(6), 697–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borba, M. C., Askar, P., Engelbrecht, J., Gadanidis, G., Llinares, S., & Aguilar, M. S. (2016). Blended learning, e-learning and mobile learning in mathematics education. ZDM, 48(5), 589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2008). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bybee, R. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: personal reflections and contemporary implications. Science and Children, 51(8), 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collopy, R. M., & Arnold, J. M. (2009). To blend or not to blend: online and blended learning environments in undergraduate teacher education. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 85.Google Scholar
  10. Council of Independent Colleges. (2016). High-tech or high-touch? Online learning and independent higher education. Retrieved from http://www.cic.edu/Programs-and-Services/Programs/Documents/CICBrief5-OnlineLearning.pdf
  11. Draus, P. J., Curran, M. J., & Trempus, M. S. (2014). The influence of instructor-generated video content on student satisfaction with and engagement in asynchronous online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 240–254.Google Scholar
  12. Dunlap, J. C. (2006). The effect of enculturation on doctoral students’ self-efficacy through the development of and contributing to an online journal. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), 19–48.Google Scholar
  13. Dunlap, J. C., Verma, G., & Johnson, H. L. (2016). Presence+Experience: A framework for the purposeful design of presence in online courses. Tech Trends, 60(2), 145–151.Google Scholar
  14. Fernández, C., Llinares, S., & Valls, J. (2012). Learning to notice students’ mathematical thinking through on-line discussions. ZDM, 44(6), 747–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.Google Scholar
  17. Gibbons, J. D., & Chakraborti, S. (2011). Nonparametric statistical inference. In International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science (pp. 977–979). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  18. González-Espada, W. J. (2009). Pre-service teacher education online: student opinions from a science methods course. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science, 70(1), 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goos, M., & Geiger, V. (2012). Connecting social perspectives on mathematics teacher education in online environments. ZDM, 44(6), 705–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hibbert, M. (2014). What makes online instructional video compelling? EDUCAUSE review online. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/4/what-makes-an-online-instructional-video-compelling
  21. Keengwe, J., & Kang, J.-J. (2012). Blended learning in teacher preparation programs: a literature review. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 8(2), 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2000). Experiential learning theory: previous research and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive, learning, and thinking styles (pp. 227–247). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Llinares, S., & Valls, J. (2010). Prospective primary mathematics teachers’ learning from on-line discussions in a virtual video-based environment. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(2), 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2010). From pixel on a screen to real person in your students' lives: Establishing social presence using digital storytelling. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 70–72.Google Scholar
  26. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  27. Moloney, J. F., Hickey, C. P., Bergin, A. L., Boccia, J., Polley, K., & Riley, J. E. (2010). Characteristics of successful local blended programs in the context of the Sloan-c pillars. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1), 71–89.Google Scholar
  28. Oslund, J. A., & Crespo, S. (2014). Classroom photographs: reframing what and how we notice. Teaching Children Mathematics, 20(9), 564–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. (2008). Video annotation tools: technologies to scaffold, structure, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sánchez, M. (2011). A review of research trends in mathematics teacher education. PNA, 5(4), 129–145.Google Scholar
  31. Santagata, R., & Guarino, J. (2011). Using video to teach future teachers to learn from teaching. ZDM, 43(1), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seidel, T., Stürmer, K., Blomberg, G., Kobarg, M., & Schwindt, K. (2011). Teacher learning from analysis of videotaped classroom situations: does it make a difference whether teachers observe their own teaching or that of others? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sherin, M. G. (2002). When teaching becomes learning. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 119–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sherin, M., Jacobs, V., & Philipp, R. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Shnaikat, K., & Ahmed, A. A. (2015). High-tech human-touch for online courses: rules and principles for humanizing your online course. European Scientific Journal, 11(16), 114–133.Google Scholar
  37. Sobel, D. M., Sands, D., & Dunlap, J. C. (2009). Teaching intricate content online: It can be done and done well. Action in Teacher Education, 30(4), 28–44.Google Scholar
  38. Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: scaffolding new teachers' interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571–596.Google Scholar
  40. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’“learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heather Lynn Johnson
    • 1
  • Joanna C. Dunlap
    • 1
  • Geeta Verma
    • 1
  • Evan McClintock
    • 1
  • Dennis J. DeBay
    • 1
  • Brandy Bourdeaux
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Colorado DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations