Workshop Activities

The aim of this Workshop was to learn from comparing and contrasting two established ways of working with video in the professional learning of teachers of mathematics, one from a UK and one from a French background; we hoped to expand the possibilities our own practice, in using video.

We addressed the following key questions: (1) how can and do facilitators guide work with mathematics teachers on video in a particular context?; (2) what are the principles, based upon research on teacher practice and teacher education, that guide our choices for teacher education and in particular our use of the video?; (3) what are the implications, for mathematics teacher learning, of different choices made by facilitators?

In the workshop, we shared the detail of our practice and how wider principles are enacted when using video. The first way of working we offered was based on principles derived from Jaworski (1990) and Coles (2014). The second way of working was based on principles derived from Horoks and Robert (2007), Chesné, Pariès, and Robert (2009), Chappet-Pariès and Robert (2011). Interestingly, we found that it was not possible to use the same video excerpt. In discussion with participants, there was broad agreement that differences in ways of working could be characterized as follows: in the method demonstrated by Coles, participants were forced to suspend their usual ways of interpreting video—any evaluation or judgment was not allowed in the initial stages, in an attempt to allow new interpretations and possibilities for action to arise. In the method demonstrated by Chesnais and Horoks, there was a specific aim to draw on teacher knowledge and expertise and put that experience to use in interpreting events—the video clip is carefully selected in relation to specific curriculum items and research findings. The role of the facilitator is therefore markedly different in each case, either attending to the kind of thing being said (e.g., is it an evaluation or is it a description of detail?), with less attention on the content (Coles); or attending to the content of what is said (e.g., does it display awareness of the complexity of teaching and learning?), with less attention to issues around whether it is offered judgmentally or not (Chesnais and Horoks).

It was clear from the Workshop that both ways of working have affordances and constraints. What has been powerful is sharing the detail of what we do as this has emerged for us as the only way of beginning to understand how each of us interprets the words we use to describe what we do.