VIDEO IN MATH PD 1

Video in Teacher Professional Development: Use of Video as both Record and Representation to

Support Teacher Learning

Sara Birkhead

Portfolio III

Mathematics Education Leadership and Teaching & Teacher Education

George Mason University

VIDEO IN MATH PD 2

In September of 1913 The Journal of Education published the earliest mention I could

find of moving pictures being made and used for education, both for preservice teachers (PSTs)

in normal schools and high school students (A. E. W., 1913). Since that time, the use of film and

video in education has become ubiquitous. In teacher education, the use of video has expanded

quickly in the last decades as technology has made the capture of video easier and increased the

ways in which video can be viewed and used. In a 2018 review of the literature around video in

teacher professional development (PD), Major and Wilson found most video used in PD is video

of self or peers. Further, that the use of video is promising and should be continued with specific

focus “needed to advance understanding of how professional learning is supported through the

use of video" (p. 65). This paper will investigate the use of video, particularly video taken of

teachers’ own classrooms, in teacher education. Additionally, though not exclusively, I will

focus on the use of video for professional development (PD) of inservice teachers, looking to

address Major and Wilson’s charge.

The History of Video in Teacher Education

The first research studies using video of teachers’ own practice for teacher education

emerged in the 1960s. Schueler and Gold (1964) described an intervention for PSTs using

closed circuit TV at Hunter College. PSTs were video recorded and observed while conducting

student teaching, they then participated in reflection on the lesson based on observation only,

kinescope [video] only, or both observation and video. Results showed no difference between

the treatments, but both teachers and students preferred lesson reflections that included video. In

1967, Burleigh and Peterson used a remote-control camera to make videos of PSTs during

student teaching. The videos were used for peer feedback and viewing as well as instructor

viewing, were perceived positively, and found to lead to strong reflections. These two studies

are just two samples of the research being conducted at that time.
VIDEO IN MATH PD 3

In 1973, Fuller and Manning reviewed more than 300 sources using video “in the name

of education, training, or therapy” (p. 469) in order to address the use of video in teacher

education. The authors undertook a review of literature to investigate self-confrontation through

video and found mixed results. They found that self-confrontation may have a negative impact

due to the associated stress or anxiety from being confronted with video of oneself. Further,

actions must be taken to shift viewers focus from themselves, specifically from criticism of their

physical traits. They found that there were positive results of self-confrontation, namely,

positive impact on realism of self, increasing the accuracy of rating one's own performance, and

changes in practice among preservice teachers (PSTs), especially through microteaching.

Research at the time also indicated that individual characteristics had a large impact on the

outcomes for a teacher. The impact of self-confrontation was also tied to the type of feedback

prompted received, with any type of focus being superior to unguided viewing. Additionally, the

presence of others was important in the reflection process of self-confrontation, with the skill of

a facilitator having important impact.

It is interesting to note that more than four decades later, many of the ideas which

emerged in 1973, especially the role of facilitation, viewing guides, feedback, collaboration, and

individual characteristics, are still being investigated and explored. Just after Fuller and

Manning’s review, Dawson, Dawson, and Forness (1975) conducted a study finding that the use

of video to have teacher monitor and reflect on their posture relative to students changed PST’s

behavior and had a positive impact on their students’ achievement. This last outcome measure,

connecting video-based interventions to student achievement is elusive today. Though all

interventions aimed at improving teacher practice are intended to impact student learning, few

studies try to take on that difficult task, and fewer find significant results (e.g., Desimone, Smith,

& Phillips, 2013; van Vondel, Steenbeek, van Dijk, & van Geert, 2018).
VIDEO IN MATH PD 4

Reviewing Current Research on Video Use in Professional Development

This review of literature was undertaken to focus on the use of video of one’s own

teaching by inservice teachers. Sources for this literature review were obtained first by a search

of the EBSCO databases using search terms “video AND teacher education” with refining terms

such as reflection, classroom video, and professional development. An initial search using

professional development in place of teacher education was successful, but a cursory review

indicated that many sources were missed with that combination of search terms, as teacher

education is used more pervasively in the literature. A further search was done using the

university library’s metasearch. After refinement, both searches resulted in more than 400

results which were quickly narrowed using keyword and skimming of abstracts. In both

searches, articles were limited to peer reviewed journals. Articles regarding the quality of video

or video techniques were excluded. While the overall focus of the review is regarding the use of

video of a teacher’s own classroom, several works that do not fit the criteria were included.

Specifically, several studies using preservice teachers or published video were selected due to

unique findings or methodologies (e.g., Beisiegel, Mitchell, & Hill, 2018; Bryan & Recesso,

2006; Calandra, Brantley-Dias, Lee, & Fox, 2009; Ceven McNally, 2016) or due to their

foundational nature in the literature (Brouwer, 2012; Calandra, Gurvitch, & Lund, 2008; Rosaen,

Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008). Further, some especially prolific authors, such

as Mariam Sherin and Elizabeth vvan Es along with their various colleagues, not all publications

were included. Rather, those studies that seemed to originate their ideas, add unique findings, or

were most cited were included. That is, if a paper was cited repeatedly in the reviewed literature,

it was reviewed as well. Inclusion or exclusion of these studies was taken one at a time,

depending on how they fit into the other selected literature. This is not an exhaustive review, but
VIDEO IN MATH PD 5

rather sets out to give an overview of the use of video in PD, highlighting the state of the field

and possible areas for study.

Types of Video Used in Teacher Education

In reviewing the literature on the use of video in teacher education, two main categories

of use emerge: video as a representation of practice and video as a record of practice. Each of

these main uses of video has been researched in a variety of applications with both preservice

and inservice teachers. Researchers have identified affordances of both types of video use, some

unique and some common to video of both types.

Video as Representation of Practice

The primary mode of representation of practice is seen in the use and creation of video-

based cases that can be used as part of the curriculum in teacher education courses or

professional development. Video cases present teaching video, often professionally produced,

and often with accompanying multi-media materials (e.g., Baker & Wedman, 2007; Cannings &

Talley, 2002). Support materials might include student work, lesson plans, a description of the

context of the video, etc. Cases are usually representations of high-quality teaching, intended to

give viewers a model of good teaching (e.g. Baker & Wedman, 2007; van Vondel et al., 2018;

Zhang, Lundeberg, Koehler, & Eberhardt, 2011). Cases can be used to support critical and/or

self-reflection (e.g., Baker & Wedman, 2007; Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, & Fritzen, 2010), for

improving professional vision or noticing skills by teachers (e.g., Colestock & Sherin, 2009;

Cuthrell, Steadman, Stapleton, & Hodge, 2016; Grant & Kline, 2010), or for improving

understanding of a presented content or pedagogy (e.g., Bulgar, 2007; Moreno & Valdez, 2007;

van Vondel et al., 2018). Video as representation can have drawbacks because teachers are

unfamiliar with the context and may be less emotionally invested in the material. It is also
VIDEO IN MATH PD 6

difficult for teachers to ask questions about video representations as those showing the clips may

not know the relevant details.

Video as Record of Practice

The second category of video is video as a record of practice. This video use is the

capture of classroom instruction of oneself for the purpose of reflecting on one’s own practice.

Videos in this category are now commonly captured by teachers themselves (e.g., Calandra et al.,

2009; Calandra et al., 2008; Ceven McNally, 2016; Sherin & Dyer,2017). They are often

reviewed through structures like video clubs (e.g., Cherrington & Loveridge, 2014; Christ, Arya,

& Ming Chiu, 2014; González & Skultety, 2018; Luna & Sherin, 2017; Sherin & Han, 2004;

Sherin & van Es, 2009; Tripp & Rich, 2012a; van Es, 2012; van Es & Sherin, 2006; van Es &

Sherin, 2008) that allow teachers to reflect on their own practice and that of colleagues in a

structured way. Like video cases, videos as records of practice can be used for many purposes.

Video records are used to promote reflection on teaching (e.g., Bryan & Recesso, 2006; Calandra

et al., 2009; Calandra et al., 2008; Cherrington & Loveridge, 2014; Christ et al., 2014; Durand,

Hopf, & Nunnenmacher, 2016; Hamilton, 2012; McCullagh, 2012; Tripp & Rich, 2012a; Zhang

et al., 2011), to improve teacher professional vision or noticing (e.g., Brouwer, Oosterheert, &

Besselink, 2017; Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013; Luna & Sherin, 2017; Seidel, Stürmer,

Blomberg, Kobarg, & Schwindt, 2011; van Es & Sherin, 2006; van Es & Sherin, 2008), to

improve a particular content or pedagogy of focus (e.g., van Vondel et al., 2018; Zhang et al.,

2011) and also for evaluation of teachers for certification and performance review as in

assessments like the edTPA and National Board Certification.

Videos as records of practice, the type of video often referred to as self-confrontation, as

in Fuller and Manning (1973), offer the opportunity to support a teacher’s memory of classroom

events with a permanent record of events from the camera’s perspective.

VIDEO IN MATH PD 7

A Continuum of Video Formats

While it might seem easy to draw a line between the two types of video, that is not the

case. Video produced professionally can be reflected on by the teacher filmed. Likewise, video

captured by an amateur for purposes of personal reflection could be used as a video case for

teachers unknown to the subject. Thus, I propose that video used in PD can be seen as a

continuum with professionally produced video-cases at one end and personally captured video

for personal use at the other, and with most video uses falling somewhere in between, based on a

combination of its method of capture and use in teacher education. I will explore some specific

examples of this idea in subsequent sections, but Figure 1 illustrates the idea visually and

including a few examples from the literature.

Purposes for Video Use in Teacher Education

As mentioned above, there are many uses for video in teacher education. However, when

the focus is on video of one’s own teaching, there are two primary goals of video use:

professional vision and reflection. Unlike the video as record and representation, professional

vision and reflection are not at opposite ends of a continuum. Reflection is required for

professional vision and without professional vision, reflection can be limited. However, for the

purposes of research, many researchers choose either reflection or professional vision, and some

use both in the theoretical framing of their study.

VIDEO IN MATH PD 8

Video Captured Professionally

Self-Captured
Self-Captured by researchers Video captured produced video
video for
video for video for use in PD by researchers cases (e.g.,
personal
club (e.g., (e.g., Alonzo & for use as video Baker &
reflection (e.g.,
Sherin & Dyer, Kim, 2018; case (e.g., Arya Wedman, 2007;
Hamilton,
2017) Cutrim Schmid, & Christ, 2013) Teaching
2012)
2011) Channel, 2018)

Figure 1. Visual model of continuum of video used in teacher education with example
studies representing different levels of video production.

Professional Vision

The term professional vision comes from Goodwin (1994). He described, “professional

vision… consists of socially organized ways of seeing and understanding events that are

answerable to the distinctive interests of a particular social group” (p. 606). Sherin and van Es

(2009) explain how professional vision is relevant in education, saying, “for teachers, the

phenomena of interest are classrooms. Thus, teachers’ professional vision involves the ability to

notice and interpret significant features of classroom interactions” (p. 22). This specific

description is important because there is a growing research base in education focused

specifically on professional vision, and measuring or tracking professional vision through

noticing using video (e.g., Brouwer et al., 2017; Colestock & Sherin, 2009; Grant & Kline, 2010;

Luna & Sherin, 2017; McFadden, Ellis, Anwar, & Roehrig, ,2014; Osipova, Prichard, Boardman,

Kiely, & Carroll, 2011; Rook & McDonald, 2012; Rosaen et al., 2008; Seidel et al., 2011; Sherin

& van Es, 2009; van Es & Sherin, 2006; van Es & Sherin, 2008). Video is used for promoting
VIDEO IN MATH PD 9

and assessing noticing in two ways. First, by having teachers interact with video in some way

(Brouwer et al., 2017; Cherrington & Loveridge, 2014; Luna & Sherin, 2017; Seidel et al., 2011;

Sherin & Han, 2004; Sherin & van Es, 2009; van Es & Sherin, 2006; van Es & Sherin, 2008).

And, second by attention to the selection of video clips with which the teachers engage. The act

of editing and selecting video gives an indication of the elements of the classroom practice to

which the teachers are attending (e.g., Sherin & Dyer, 2017).

Noticing and video clubs. Much of the work around noticing and professional vision

occurs in video clubs (e.g., Cherrington & Loveridge, 2014; Christ et al., 2014; Lebak, 2015;

Luna & Sherin, 2017; Sherin & Han, 2004; van Es, 2012; Sherin & van Es, 2009; Tripp & Rich,

2012a; van Es & Sherin, 2006; van Es & Sherin, 2008). Video clubs are:

meetings in which groups of teachers watch and discuss excerpts of videotapes from their

classrooms. Proponents and organizers of video clubs suggest that video clubs offer

teachers the opportunity to examine teaching and learning in new ways and have the

potential to foster the learning called for by reform. (Sherin & Han, 2004, p. 163)

It is clear in this description that video clubs will also fall into research using video of teachers

own practice. Although in considering the continuum of video use, in the video club settings,

teachers also view the videos of their peers. In this way, the video record also becomes a

representation of sorts used to support reflection and professional vision. In part due to the focus

on professional vision, video clubs are most commonly used with inservice teachers, though they

are implemented with PSTs as well (e.g., Charalambous, Philippou, & Olympiou, 2018; Johnson

& Cotterman, 2015; Walkoe, 2015).

Reflection and Video of Classroom Practice

Researchers framing their studies using reflection are likely to use Schon (1983), as part

of the framing of reflective practice. While some researchers explicitly address both reflection
VIDEO IN MATH PD 10

and professional vision as a framing of their research, Schon’s work actually defines reflection

within a professional context:

the workaday life of the professional depends on tacit knowing-in-action. Every

competent practitioner can recognize phenomena… for which he cannot give a

reasonably accurate or complete description. In his day-to-day practice he makes

innumerable judgments of quality for which he cannot state adequate criteria, and he

displays skills for which he cannot state the rules and procedures…. [Professionals] may

ask themselves, for example, “What features do I notice when I recognize this thing?

What are the criteria by which I make this judgment? What procedures am I enacting

when I perform this skill? How am I framing the problem that I am trying to solve?”

Usually reflection on knowing-in-action goes together with reflection on the stuff at

hand…. As he tries to make sense of it, he also reflects on the understandings which have

been implicit in his action, understandings which he surfaces, criticizes, restructures, and

embodies in further action. It is this entire process of reflection-in-action which is central

to the “art” by which practitioners sometimes deal well with situations of uncertainty,

instability, uniqueness, and value conflict. (p. 63-64)

Schon highlights that professional vision is often an innate, subconscious act that supports

professionals in making in the moment decisions. This description of both the actions of a

professional and the act of sense-making, of reflecting-in-action, matches the definition of

professional vision used by Sherin and Han (2004), and also by most other framings of reflection

(e.g., Dewey, 1933). In this way, I find it interesting that not all work on reflection mentions

professional vision, nor do those researching professional vision always indicate the link to

reflection, however most research studies most likely have elements of both.

Drawing Themes from the Literature

VIDEO IN MATH PD 11

As most studies in which teachers interact with video involve reflection or professional

noticing, themes from the literature emerge in other areas. There are five major categories that I

find significant. First, there are the affective elements associated with video use (e.g., anxiety,

enjoyment, arousal, engagement, perceived value, etc.). Teachers react differently to video of

themselves, peers, and others, making a link to the continuum of video type. Also, production

quality can impact teachers’ affective interaction with the videos. Second, there are the

structural affordances of video playback (e.g., on demand viewing, pause/play and rewind/fast

forward commands, etc.) which cause the interaction with video to be very different than other

forms of recording (e.g., notes, journaling, audio recording, etc.). Third, there are the elements,

social and structural, that support teachers’ interaction with video (e.g., mentor/mentee, video

clubs, refection guides, peer reflection, video annotation, etc.). Fourth, there is the new lens that

video allows teachers to utilize by seeing themselves from the outside. The idea of the video as a

unique perspective or a third eye highlights that through the use of video the previously unseen

or unnoticed can be brought into focus. Finally, video bridges the gap between theory and

practice by capturing practice and allowing it to be analyzed. This final category could also be

seen as the conjunction of the structures of video and the unique perspective that video allows

but is an important idea in the research and deserves individual consideration.

Affective Elements Impacting the Use of Video in Teacher Education

Viewing video has the potential to stir up emotions in teachers. There are both positive

and negative emotions that can come from the use of video itself (e.g., Fuller & Manning, 1973;

Zhang et al, 2011), and also more wholistic impacts of video and especially its use for

collaborative reflection which can lead to feelings of agency and accountability (e.g., Zhang et

al, 2011).
VIDEO IN MATH PD 12

Emotional impacts of the use of video of self and others. Since the earliest research

using video in teacher education, the affective and emotional elements of using video of oneself,

or self-confrontation, has been a central theme. In fact, in the oldest piece reviewed here,

Schueler and Gold (1964) state, in a section titled Subjective Reactions:

The student teachers’ subjective reaction to use of the new medium was generally

favorable. This response arose primarily from student teachers’ feelings that they were

being helped, were learning, and were getting not only special attention but an experience

not otherwise available…. Supervisors similarly responded favorably to the use of

kinescopes. They much preferred the use of the combined method, observation in person

plus kinescopes. They felt that this technique permitted them to observe a greater range

of stimuli than was possible in the condition using kinescopes only. (p. 363)

This positive response is predominant in the literature, but there are also those who find negative

emotional impact of using video of oneself.

Again, in the early research, Fuller and Manning’s 1973 literature review focused on the

“conundrum” (p. 471) of evidence that self-confrontation can even lead to harm in some mental

health applications, and therefore focuses intentionally on the emotional impact of video,

identifying research outcomes of Stress Reactions, Focus on Body and Voice, Self Esteem,

Realism about the Self, Openness, and Activity (which refers to the apparent activation of greater

interest from hearing ones own voice/seeing oneself on video) and following his outcomes with a

section titled Subject Characteristics with subsections in regards to attitude, anxiety, body image

and how these things impact mental state and willingness to change practice. In fact, Fuller and

Manning end the section stating that video may be most beneficial to those who are young,

healthy, and already “well-satisfied by her performance” (p. 489) and summarize their review by

indicating specifically that teacher educators must consider carefully the “potential for harm” (p.
VIDEO IN MATH PD 13

501) inherent in self-confrontation. While the current educational research using video does

occasionally mention the potential anxiety caused by being filmed and watched on video (e.g.,

Charalambous et al., 2018; Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013; Zhang et al., 2011), only one

participant in the research I reviewed indicated that her anxiety left her with an overall negative

experience of self-confrontation. Zhang and colleagues (2011) share that only one teacher rated

the experience negatively on her post-survey and share Leslie’s responses to her experience in

using video of her own teaching:

“I don’t feel comfortable in front of the camera and want to fill every moment with

words, so plenty of ‘ums’ and filler words” (Survey). Interestingly, she was also the only

teacher who complained that her group members were not critical enough: “My

colleagues were very courteous and couldn’t speak as freely as they could for a stranger”

(Survey). Nonetheless, Leslie still reported some positive outcomes of watching her

video. (p. 459)

While Leslie still considered her experience with video of herself negative, several researchers

have found that initial anxiety experienced by some participants is considered inconsequential in

comparison to the benefits of viewing one’s own teaching (Charalambous et al., 2018; Zhang et

al., 2011) or is actually alleviated by the process of recording video (Zhang et al., 2011).

In studying affective response to viewing video, Kleinknecht and Schneider (2013) used

surveys to evaluate teachers’ emotional reactions to watching video of self and others. While

they found no significant difference in the emotional responses between the two types of video,

they found slightly increased negative emotions based on watching video of others. This result,

seems to me, to fall into the same category as another problem with video that falls into the

affective realm, and that is the tendency for a culture of nice or an unwillingness to be critical of

colleagues (Beisiegel et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2011) or an inflated sense of one’s own
VIDEO IN MATH PD 14

performance to be found in the use of video (e.g., Osipova et al., 2011 ). While there is evidence

of teachers bias to “be nice” to themselves, there is also evidence to the contrary (e.g., Beisiegel

et al., 2018; Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013; Seidel et al., 2011). In fact, Beisiegel and

colleagues (2018) found that teachers might tend to “be nice” to peers but were more critical of

themselves than others were. Seidel and colleagues (2011), found that teachers had more

positive emotional responses to video of themselves and found no significant difference in their

level of analysis of video of self over others. Reflecting on this result, the authors commented

that, “video offers unique opportunities for knowledge activation. It is thought to facilitate

learner experiences of immersion, resonance, authenticity, and motivation" (Seidel et al., 2011,

p. 260) as a result of the emotional connection. This statement is reminiscent of Fuller and

Manning’s (1973) stance on video, but while it was meant as a warning in 1973, it is today

viewed in a positive light.

Related to the activation that results from video viewing, Kleinknecht and Schneider’s

(2013) results indicated that teachers who watched video of others had higher levels of

enjoyment but also anxiety, and shame, while those watching their own video had higher feelings

of guilt and disappointment. These results perhaps, “suggest that teachers reflecting on their own

videos are in such an extent accustomed to their own practice and their strategies of self-

reflection, thus they are less able to reflect about alternatives to their own practices” (p. 21),

which could seem to lead to feeling of guilt for perceived fault in performance or disappointment

in not doing better. This is related to the warning issued by Fuller and Manning (1973) about the

potential negative impact of video, however, despite acknowledging elements of negative

emotions, teachers generally find value in using video, and even find video of self the most

valuable, even if also linked to issues of anxiety (Zhang et al., 2011).

VIDEO IN MATH PD 15

While existing research generally suggests that teachers are more emotionally positive

about interacting with their own video and more critical of video of others (Borko, Jacobs,

Eiteljorg, & Pittman, 2008; Rosaen et al., 2008; Seidel et al., 2011), other research, as mentioned

above, has found otherwise. Thus, there is not consensus about the best way or type of video to

use with teachers from an affective perspective. In fact, Zhang and colleagues set out to compare

the three main types of video, video of self, video of peers, and published video, and found

important benefits from each, adding to the difficulty. While having more video choices that

allow positive impact on teacher practice for use during PD is a positive, in practice, the

resources required to access published video, which often requires a subscription, or to carefully

select and transcribe clips, as done by some researchers (e.g., van Es & Sherin, 2006), make

investment in video a potentially costly decision. Those developing PD must consider the

options and resources available, which may not include a library of published video or the time

to select and transcribe video.

The selection of video type from an affective and emotional standpoint points to the

strength of using video of self. Providing guidance on both video production/capture and video

reflection can help to mediate any negative impact. Further, the use of video of one’s own

teaching opens the possibility of both peer viewing and collaborative reflection.

Wholistic impacts of video used in collaborative settings. Saito and Khong (2017)

conducted a cross case comparison of schools in Vietnam. Three schools all implemented

Lesson Study for Learning Community (LSLC) and vide-flection. Both interventions intended to

create community around improved instruction in the schools. LSLC is intended to create

community around instruction and improvement through constant observation and collaboration.

“The term ‘vide-flection’ [is used] to refer to collaborative joint reflection by school leaders and

teachers based on video-recordings of daily practice” (p. 840). Implementation was difficult for
VIDEO IN MATH PD 16

some schools, with frequent repetition and support needed for success; for teachers to see value

in practices. “However, by being exposed to visual information, initially through LSLC and later

through vide-flection, they started to feel greater responsibility for their children’s learning and

changed themselves from more controller-like to more receptive and facilitator-like” (p. 847).

This hints at a feeling of accountability or agency that the teachers began to feel both due to

exposure to video and a desire to change the content of that video.

Tripp and Rich (2012a) found a link between the use of video and feelings of agency and

accountability as well. Teachers found that the process of reviewing video in a video club made

them feel agency and authority over their teaching, but also held them accountable for making

changes. Additionally, both the collaboration and the opportunity to see each other teach

through video increased the empathy that teachers felt for each other. This emotional investment

seemed to increase the power of the PD teachers experienced, contributing to their indication that

it was the PD most likely to result in a change in their instructional practice.

Concluding thoughts on the affective components of video. While there is mixed

evidence in this area, overall, the vast benefits of video of one’s own teaching, both emotionally

and motivationally, seem to outweigh any emotional difficulties, and the ease with which video

of self can now be made in addition to its many advantages, makes it the ideal tool for inservice

teacher PD, especially if resources (i.e., time, money) are limited.

Structural Affordances of Video in Teacher Education

Video allows interaction with a record of events that is different than possible through

other means. “In providing a detailed account of what actually took place, as opposed to what is

remembered, video provides the opportunity to re-live a teaching episode. The video recording

also provides the opportunity for reflection at a time and place which suit the teacher,” explains

McCullagh (2012). Education has used text-based cases to expose PSTs to classroom events, but
VIDEO IN MATH PD 17

research comparing the two has found that video makes interaction with the cases more

impactful for teachers (e.g., Moreno & Valdez, 2007). While the format of video has many

affordances, part of its value is in the physical nature of its play back. Utilizing any video

playback device, video can be stopped, rewound, replayed, fast forwarded, even slowed or sped

up. These qualities allow for a kind of fine grained analysis of events that is not possible without

the video record.

Video playback properties appreciated by teachers. While the outcomes of studies

may vary, there are certain qualities of video that teachers recognize as advantageous when

presented with the opportunity to interact with video. One is that video allows time to slow

down and repeat. Teachers appreciate the ability to revisit video both as a reminder of an event,

and to carefully analyze the content (e.g., Cherrington & Loveridge, 2014; Rosaen et al., 2008;

Zhang et al., 2011). A teacher participant who had the opportunity to view her own video stated,

“When you get to watch the video and can replay it numerous times, you do notice things about

your teaching and about how students are reacting because you have the video to watch” (Zhang

et al., 2011, p. 457). Rosaen and colleagues commented on this quality of video playback with

PSTs in their clinical placements:

The ‘slowing-down’ effect allows continual replay, which enables the intern to capture

what was missed the first time either orally or visually. Moreover, the technology not

only slows but allows moments to be frozen in time through the isolation of specific clips

that can be extracted from the whole lesson for further analysis. These functions of video

have a compelling effect: The dissonance created between what interns recall from

memory and what they see on close analysis is hard to ignore. Dissonance does not need

to be negative to lead to learning; it just needs to jar complacency. (p. 358)

VIDEO IN MATH PD 18

These quotations highlight the fact that the mere presence of the video record impacts teacher

learning.

This fact was investigated further; whether the mere presence of video impacts teacher

outcomes. Brouwer and colleagues (2017) compared interventions with both preservice and

inservice teachers and found that the use of video in the interventions resulted in positive change

in their teaching behaviors towards targeted, more student-centered teaching when compared to a

control group. Video helped identify strong and weak points in their teaching, allowing

participants to make purposeful and targeted changes to their practice.

Video capture and editing. It is not only the playback of video that has affordances for

use in education. The actual capture and editing of video has been found to be beneficial to

teachers (e.g., Calandra et al., 2008; Calandra et al., 2009; Luna & Sherin, 2017; Sherin & Dyer,

2017). Both Luna and Sherin (2017), and Sherin and Dyer (2017) found benefits from the

process of capturing video. The first element that made the process of video capture significant

was the innovative Point of View camera, which is worn by the teacher and captures the

teacher’s view of the classroom. This unique camera perspective helped teachers focus on

student thinking when reviewing the video because the camera image was focused on the student

(Luna & Sherin, 2017).

Sherin and Dyer (2017) asked teachers to capture video of student thinking, forcing the

participating PSTs to anticipate when in the lesson they were likely to elicit good examples of

student thinking. The result of this focus seemed to be that during instruction, the task of

capturing student thinking focused teachers' instruction on student thinking and the teachers took

action to make student thinking more visible to the camera. Thus, the act of anticipating video

capture seemed to improve instruction. The reviewing of clips led teachers to reflect on

moments they did not capture but also when the capture did not reflect desired level of student
VIDEO IN MATH PD 19

thinking. In Sherin and Dyer’s work, it seems evident that the entire process of using video of

one’s own teaching, from anticipating, to capturing, to viewing, has the potential to improve

instruction.

Often teachers are asked to capture video of a whole lesson and then select portions that

they will analyze or share in video clubs, etc. There is evidence that the process of selection is

important to teacher learning, by encouraging professional vision of the elements that warrant

review, and through the opportunity for reflecting on the lesson implementation that has been

recorded (e.g., Calandra et al., 2008; Sherin & Dyer, 2017). Specifically, Calandra and

colleagues (2008) concluded that PSTs focus on video of themselves when creating vignettes and

the process of creating the vignettes led to more reflective, critical, and action-oriented response

from the PSTs. Digital video has made video editing simple and accessible. As a result,

research into the impact of selecting and editing video seems likely to increase.

Video in multimedia applications. As the Internet capabilities have grown, the use of

online media technologies has expanded to include educational applications. Multimedia

environments allow teachers to interact with video cases which include attached documents, like

lessons plans, student work samples, and school and class data to give context to video segments

(e.g., Admiraal, 2014; Baker & Wedman, 2007; Bulgar, 2007; Cannings & Talley, 2002). These

multimedia video resources are often used with PSTs to help them understand instructional

representations through video in the context of a real school, classroom, etc. Researchers have

found that PSTs benefit from interacting with these types of environments (e.g., Admiraal, 2014;

Baker & Wedman, 2007). These types of environments are, by definition, using video as a

representation of practice for those who access the multimedia cases. This aspect is more

troublesome for in-service teachers who are more likely to find frustration in mismatches

between their own situation (e.g., grade level, school setting, content areas, etc.) and the video
VIDEO IN MATH PD 20

representation (Zhang et al., 2011). In this way, there is reason to see why video of self may be

even more advantageous for use with inservice teachers.

Another multimedia application of video is found in video annotation tools. There are

dozens of these tools mentioned in the literature and currently available online. These tools are

becoming ubiquitous and their use in teacher education, primarily with PSTs, is receiving

attention in the research world. Rich & Hannafin (2009) conducted a review of literature on

video annotation tools with PSTs, commenting that, “video annotation tools allow an individual

to both capture and analyze video of personal teaching practice, enabling teachers to review,

analyze, and synthesize captured examples of their own teaching in authentic classroom

contexts” (p. 53). An echo of this is found by McFadden and colleagues (2014) who found that

beginning science teachers in an online induction program develop reflective practices though

their participation video annotation. Furthering this idea, Bryan and Recesso (2006) found that

PSTs using an online annotation platform discovered, through the video interaction, that their

beliefs did not match their practice. An idea also supported by McCullagh’s (2012) case study

on the use of video. This phenomenon is a further illustration of the dissonance noted by Rosaen

and colleagues (2008); teachers, through interacting with video, found themselves ‘jarred out of

complacency’.

Concluding thoughts on the structural components of video. The very nature of the

video medium makes it ideal. It creates a permanent record of what happened in the classroom

that can them be viewed in multiple ways, multiple times allowing for reflection and analysis

that have important implications for teacher learning. The qualities of video of oneself are

especially strongly linked to the structural components of video as teachers have direct control

over every element of the video capture, editing, and reviewing process. The added benefits of
VIDEO IN MATH PD 21

media tools, like annotation platforms, add to the benefits of video use and increase opportunities

for reflection and interaction with video.

Forms of Interaction Around Video in Teacher Education

While there may be value in teachers simply watching video of their practice, research

has repeatedly shown that some mediation of the viewing process leads to better outcomes for

teacher learning (e.g., Alonzo & Kim, 2018; Borko, Koellner, Jacobs, & Seago, 2011; Ceven

McNally, 2016; Durand et al., 2016; Seidel et al., 2011; Sherin & Han, 2004; van Es & Sherin,

2006). The mediation process comes in many forms: viewing guides, guided discussion like in

video clubs, goal setting, hypothesis testing, etc. Regardless of the form, teachers generally

demonstrate more critical reflection and more nuanced noticing if their interactions with video

are guided in some way. While they may have positive affective reactions to viewing video,

critical reactions are unlikely to occur without guidance (Cherrington & Loveridge, 2014).

Collaborative forms of interaction with video. Many teacher education settings

encourage collaboration. In fact, the inclusion of collaboration with peers is a required quality of

successful PD (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002; Loucks‐Horsley, Love, Stiles,

Mundry, & Hewson, 2008). While reviewing literature on reflection and video use, Tripp &

Rich (2012b) discovered the importance of collaboration around video prevalent in many studies:

When given the opportunity, teachers preferred conferences over other reflection tasks.

This confirms Barber’s (1990) paradox that self-assessment is best done in collaboration

with others. Furthermore, the use of video provided a common frame of reference on

which the discussions were based. As a result, teachers felt like the suggestions and

recommendations made during the video conferences were the most important factor in

the changes they made.… Teachers overwhelmingly reported that they preferred

discussing their reflections with others over reflecting individually on their videos. This
VIDEO IN MATH PD 22

was especially prominent in preservice teachers, who reportedly trusted others’ opinions

more than their own. A few studies indicated that asking teachers to discuss their video

individually and then collectively improved collaborative discussions because teachers

were more prepared to discuss specific aspects of their teaching they wished to improve.

(p. 687-688).

While not all video interaction is done in a collaborative environment. It is clear in the research

that teachers prefer collaborative opportunities and that they are possibly more productive to

changing teacher practice.

Video clubs. One form of collaboration around video that is very popular in the research

literature are video clubs. Part of the video club structure includes a facilitator, and their skill

has been found significant to the outcome of video clubs (e.g., Beisiegel et al., 2018; Fuller &

Manning, 1973; Seago et al., 2018; van Es, Tunney, Goldsmith, & Seago, 2014). In video clubs,

the facilitator guides the interaction with video by focusing discussion on the group’s goals. In

some cases, the facilitator even selects the video to be watched (e.g., Sherin, Linsenmeier, & Van

Es, 2009; Sherin & van Es, 2009; van Es & Sherin, 2006). In fact, in analyzing video clip

selection, Sherin and colleague (2009) found that the depth of student thinking, the window that

the clip provided into that student thinking, and the clarity of the student thinking present in a

video clip impacted the conversation that teachers could have about the clip. While depth and

window were generally more important, a surprising finding was that clarity with little depth or

window also initiated deeply reflective conversation. Their findings highlight the importance of

a skilled facilitator who is ready to adjust to conditions in the moment, with the video club goals

in mind.
VIDEO IN MATH PD 23

Regardless of the video selection, the facilitation of the discussion must still be handled

with skill and focus. Addressing the skill of video club facilitators, van Es, and colleagues

(2014) stated:

teachers need guidance from facilitators who are deeply familiar with the content of the

clips, and the important features captured therein, to help them learn to identify and make

sense of what is captured in video. Moreover, they need support to learn how to use video

as a tool for their learning—to not only see what is worthwhile but also how to dissect the

details of the interactions represented in this video and use them as evidence to draw

informed interpretations of teaching and learning. (p. 352)

Not only does this emphasize that video club facilitators need to understand how to support

video use, but also that teachers require careful guidance to make the most of using video of their

practice to guide instructional change.

Facilitation and exposure seem to make a difference in teachers’ practice. Findings show

that, over time, teachers skills at noticing and analyzing student thinking improve (Cherrington

& Loveridge, 2014; Sherin & Han, 2004), that teachers’ views can be broadened through

collaboration around video in a video club (Sherin & van Es, 2009), and even that their

classroom practice can be changed (e.g., Christ et al., 2014; Lebak, 2015; Sherin & van Es, 2009;

Tripp & Rich, 2012a). By looking at evidence from video clubs, Sherin and van Es (2009) found

that there was an increased attention to student thinking in the classroom in all participants, “by

the end of the year, the teachers were, overall, engaged in more in-depth reasoning, during

instruction, of the ideas students raised in class” (p. 31). There seems to be a direct connection

between interactions around video and change in instructional practices.

Other collaborative interactions around video. While video clubs are growing in

prevalence, collaborative discussions using video do not have to take place in a video club
VIDEO IN MATH PD 24

setting. Regardless of the discussion format, there still must be a viewing guide or facilitator

ready to ensure that the discussion is productive and meets the goals of the PD (e.g., Borko et al.,

2011). Alonzo and Kim (2018) found that when teachers participated in video discussion during

PD, the quality of the discussion was reflected in the teachers’ judgements about the instruction.

The collaborative nature also supported teachers with weak content knowledge and encouraged a

more nuanced reflection about student thinking. This study was also noteworthy because it used

video of local area classrooms collected by the researchers. This places the video towards the

center of the video continuum described in Figure 1. While the video should have had strong

elements of familiarity to the teachers in the PD, it was not video of any of the PD participants.

Another collaborative PD utilized a “video-in-the-middle” design to promote critical

reflection by PD participants (Seago, Koellner, & Jacobs, 2018). The researchers designed

interactions with carefully selected video clips to fall between strategically prepared previewing

and postviewing activities. With the addition of skilled facilitation, “incorporating a video in the

middle design within a video-based mathematics PD environment can promote a detailed and

focused examination of complex mathematical content, the relationship between pedagogical

decisions and practices, and an unpacking of students’ mathematical thinking” (Seago et al.,

2018, p. 44). These finding highlight that not only does the facilitation of video analysis occur

during the viewing of the video, but also in the larger context in which the video is used.

Collaboration also occurs in smaller groups or pairs of peers on in mentor-mentee groups.

Both the collaboration and the viewing and feedback structures of these types of video

interactions have been found beneficial. Ceven McNally (2016) studied mentor-mentee

interactions around video and found that the more focused the feedback and viewing goals, them

more concrete evidence was used by teachers to understand practice and hold an inquiry stance
VIDEO IN MATH PD 25

on their instruction. The most productive results came from the creation and testing of

hypothesis about teaching through multiple coaching cycles between the mentor and mentee.

As part of an elementary science PD aimed at supporting implementation of inquiry-

based science teaching, van Vondel and colleagues (2018) used a coaching model to facilitate

teachers’ implementation and support their process of changing practice. Coaching discussions

were guided by both the teachers’ learning goals and inquiry-based methods of science teaching.

This study used a quasi-experimental design to compare the achievement for the students of the

participating teachers to the achievement of a control group. While no significant different on

the standardized science measure was found, on measures of situated learning assessed using

video of the classrooms, students showed an increase in number and complexity of predications

and explanations in the classroom. This finding attempts to evaluate the combined impact of the

PD and coaching, which was conducted through video discussions, on student achievement. An

ambitious and important goal.

In another coaching-based PD, Osipova and colleagues (2011) found that with practice in

analyzing video, teachers who initially had over-inflated views of their own teaching moved

towards having more realistic views, made more suggestions for future action, and were

generally more accurate and self-critical in their analysis. Further, teachers who rated

themselves most closely to the ratings assigned by coaches were most willing to engage and

change their practice. They also felt that the feedback from coaches was critical to the process of

change, highlighting the collaborative nature of the coaching, “feedback caused heightened

mindfulness of certain components of the lesson and sparked an interest in change in teaching

routines" (p. 166). The teachers overall attitude toward the use of video and their instruction

impacted the trajectory of participants reflection.

VIDEO IN MATH PD 26

Individual Interactions with Video Mediated by a Viewing Guide. Not all video-

based interventions are collaborative. Teachers can have productive independent interactions

with video given the presence of a viewing guide to focus their attention. In independent

interactions the focus and specificity of the viewing guide is paramount. In a PD designed for

elementary mathematics teachers (Santagata, 2009), initial implementation of the designed video

prompts did not elicit the desired results and revealed that teachers had difficulties with both

mathematics content and understanding student understanding and work, so the PD designers

made questions more specific to focus teacher attention on elements that would elicit or support

the knowledge absent in the first PD iteration.

The idea that more focused reflection prompts will elicit more productive reflection and

analysis mirrors another approach to teacher education by Santagata and colleagues (2007). They

tested an intervention designed to teach Italian PSTs how to analyze video using a three-step

video framework (goals of the lesson, student learning, and teaching alternatives) and guiding

questions. After participating in the training, PSTs, “comments became more elaborated, and

included reflections on student behavior and thinking and on the mathematical content being

taught" (p. 139). Further, PSTs became more critical and more capable of offering and justifying

future instructional ideas after the training. The design of the reflection tool used with teachers

is an important part of using video in PD settings.

Concluding thoughts on interactions around video. There is strong evidence that

when interaction with video is successfully guided, teachers can become more skillful at

reflecting on video and classroom situations in ways that can change their practice. Further, the

use of both collaborative and individual structures can lead to desired results, but both require

careful design and skillful implementation. In this way, it seems important that when teachers
VIDEO IN MATH PD 27

interact with video, those interactions are guided by a knowledgeable other, or knowledgeable

peer, who is responsible for focusing the interaction on the desired outcomes.

The Unique Perspective of Video

Video allows teachers to see their practice in a new way, both literally and figuratively.

“I found this [my own video] very useful, in particular how I interact with the students, like

having a mirror placed in my face” (Zhang et al., 2011, p. 458). This idea of viewing one’s

teaching in the mirror is important. The idea that the previously unseen might be reveal is

important, as is the fact that the mirror turns things around, exposing the unexpected.

The video as mirror analogy is relevant to work by Durand and colleagues (2016) who

see video as the means of self-confrontation described by Fuller and Manning (1973). Through

guided reflection, teachers can be encouraged move beyond their own framework, but will not do

so without guidance. Teachers could use the video in combination with appropriate reflective

frameworks to see a new way of practice. This aspect of using video emerges as the realization

that through the combined use of video and collaboration, teachers have access to ideas that they

would not have had on their own (e.g., Alonzo & Kim, 2018; Barnett, 2006; Christ et al., 2014;

Lebak, 2015; Santagata & Bray, 2016). The different perspectives and thinking that emerge due

to collaborative environments with the evidence and examples presented by the video, combine

in unique ways to push knowledge forward and give all participants access to the new group

knowledge.

The power of reflection and collaboration around video was also seen by Lebak (2015) in

studying the change of a science teacher to inquiry-based teaching. Through reflective work,

both individual and collaborative, the teacher brought his practice in line with his beliefs about

learning science. His original view had been one that blamed his students for being incapable of
VIDEO IN MATH PD 28

doing the work on inquiry, but through reflection around video, he was able to shift from

blaming students to blaming instruction and to change is practice.

This same phenomenon of the emergence of new ideas based on video interactions was

seen by Tripp and Rich (2012a). They found that as a result of participation in video clubs,

teachers gained a different perspective on their own teaching and the ability to be specific and

purposeful while reflecting on their practices, as opposed to the type of general reflection that

was previously possible based on memory or observation notes. This difference in perspective

caused teachers to comment, “that they were more likely to change their practices than after

participating in other feedback methods because video allowed them to literally “see” the need to

change with their own eyes” (p. 732). Teachers also saw themselves in a new way, “as the

teachers watched their videos, they often seemed surprised when what they viewed was different

from what they remembered” (p. 733). In reviewing the literature around video use and

reflection, Tripp & Rich (2012b) continued acknowledgement of this same idea, that reflecting

through guided video analysis, “helped teachers to literally see their teaching from a different

perspective, noticing that which they had previously either disbelieved or ignored altogether” (p.

686-687).

While this idea of the unique perspective offered by video was only foregrounded in a

few studies, it is a critical affordance of video: it provides a new window to view one’s teaching

both by recording practice and by allowing analysis that leads to new understanding of classroom

events. As Tripp and Rich (2012 a) commented, “the implication is that, where teachers see no

need to change their practice, participation in video reflection may alter that view and create an

intrinsic desire to change” (p. 738). This unique perspective afforded by video not only broadens

what teachers see when working to change practice but may in fact even reveal the need for

change.
VIDEO IN MATH PD 29

Video as a Link Between Theory and Practice

A common cry of frustration in the education community is the disconnect between

theory and practice. One strength of video is to bridge that gap (e.g., Barnett, 2006; Durand et

al., 2016; Marsh & Mitchell, 2014). While this is especially important for PSTs, it is also critical

for inservice teachers undertaking a change in practice. "There is reason to believe that video

viewing and accompanying discussion between teachers and their coaches, mentors and/or tutors

provide a platform for constructing group and individual theorisations of practice, which can in

turn potentially promote teacher learning" (Marsh & Mitchell, 2014, p. 413). Video, in both its

record and representation format allow teachers to connect theoretical ideas to actual practice by

seeing how something is carried out and critiquing what is recorded. This idea is addressed by

Kersting, Givvin, Thompson, Santagata, & Stigler (2012) in regards to their work on video

analysis as a predictor of instruction and student performance. "By asking teachers to analyze

video clips of classroom interactions, we are assessing not just what teachers know but also what

knowledge they are able to access and likely apply in the course of classroom instruction" (p.

586). In this way, video interaction is not only a link between theory and practice, but also a

means of anticipating practice.

Ongoing exposure to video records and representations of practice has lasting impact on

teachers. Satangata & Taylor (2018) found a year after participating in a methods course

incorporating video and video analysis, novice teachers who participated in a video-based

methods course showed more evidence and critical reflection in their responses than those who

took a traditional, reform-based methods course. Reflecting on the differences in the methods

courses, the authors state:

although written cases and analyses of student work samples would achieve similar goals

as video analyses, images of classroom lessons provide unique opportunities for novice
VIDEO IN MATH PD 30

teachers to see in action how more experienced colleagues make space for student

thinking to become visible, probe student thinking to move learning forward, engage

students in classroom discourse and learn about students’ individual ideas while they

teach (p. 25).

Santagata and Taylor are focused on the fact that video shows PSTs that the theories they learn

do exist in practice and allow them to see themselves in those practices. Rosaen and colleagues

(2008) also noticed this phenomenon, "video became a tool for the interns to make note of and

ponder discrepancies and, in some cases, affirm theory to practice connections" (p. 357). Not

only does video link theory and practice it highlights that there is a link between theory and

practice.

The power of video to link theory to practice is not solely a benefit to PSTs. Durand and

colleagues (2016) found that through practice using self-reflection, early childhood educators

showed an increase in connecting their theoretical knowledge to their practice and making

proposals to change their behavior based on concrete actions. When confronted with their

practice through a video record, inservice teachers recognized a dissonance between the known

theory and their own practice that was not evident to them previously. This demonstrates that all

teachers need explicit support in implementing educational theory in the classroom, a task for

which video seems uniquely qualified.

Considering video as a link between theory and practice gives the one place where video

as representation may have some advantage over video as record. With video as representation

there is the possibility to demonstrate the types of teaching that best match current theory on best

practice in instruction. However, there is also value in the use of video records to assess both the

presence and lack of theory-based practice. If teachers are not given the opportunity to link
VIDEO IN MATH PD 31

theory to their own practice then the expectation of changing teacher behavior seems unlikely to

be met.

Conclusions about Video Use

There is research working to compare and or evaluate the use of the type of video, video

as a Record or Representation, usually differentiated as video of self or a video case, in the

literature (e.g., Baker & Wedman, 2007; Beisiegel et al., 2018; Borko et al., 2011; Kersting et al.,

2010; Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013; Santagata, 2009; Seidel et al., 2011). However, I think

that this distinction is too rigid. In fact, some research agrees with this assessment, as Zhang and

colleagues (2011) described three types of video in their study: video of self, video of peers, and

published video. In this way they are highlighting that video is not either of one’s self or a case.

There is an area in between, for them made of video of peers. This is, in fact, a video type

experienced by all participants in video clubs as they watch videos of other members’ teaching.

In evaluating their three types of video, Zhang and colleagues (2011) found that teachers

identified video of self as the most valuable, followed by videos of peers, and rated published

video as the least useful, though all video was perceived positively. Teachers found value in

published video as a model of instruction, in this case, implementing PBL, as well as for

comparative reflection. However, content, grade-level, and context differences constrained the

usefulness of published video, in addition to issues of access as many published videos require

subscriptions or accounts. Video of self offered teachers a mirror of their practice and the

opportunity for both descriptive and critical reflection on their own practice, providing new

perspective. For collaborative reflection, video was considered an objective record of practice,

with peers offering new insights and positive support. Teachers were in fact most critical of

themselves, a finding also found by Borko and colleagues (2008). Video quality is the main

mark against both the use of video or self and peers due to the usually lower production quality.
VIDEO IN MATH PD 32

The use of peer video had the added affordance of reducing the feeling of isolation of teaching,

allowed for comparative reflection, and was also a source of new ideas (Zhang et al., 2011),

similar to published video cases.

The careful enumeration of the affordances of each type of video helps to focus attention

on how they are different in a concrete sense. Attention to production value and process is one

idea that is important, especially when considering video of self or peers in teacher education. In

some instances, teachers are expected to capture their own video (e.g., Zhang et al., 2011), but in

other instances members of the research team may act as videographers (e.g., Sherin & Han,

2004). This technical element of video capture impacts video quality and relevance. A video

captured by a teacher with a digital camera carried with them in order to capture student

interactions and work will make it difficult to get a feel for the classroom context, but will give

insight into in-the-moment actions and student-teacher interactions. Without some amount of

visual context, however, video is hard to access for those unfamiliar with the class/school/etc.

Professional videos generally have a wider view which can limit access to student work and

sometimes make it difficult to understand what students are doing. In video production, choices

about video capture are likely to be made based, at least in part, on the focus desired for the

video, and it’s intended use on the record-to-representation continuum.

Insight into considering the nature and value of different types of video is highlighted by

Coles (2013) in response to conflicting research findings about the use of video of self and peers

for teacher education said, “I take these conflicting findings to further support the notion that

more research is needed about using video for teacher development; but they also indicate that

perhaps the choice of video is not as important as the use made of it” (p. 166). This idea seems

the one most strongly supported by the research of any found in reviewing the literature. There

are researchers who have found potential benefits of almost any type of video, however there are
VIDEO IN MATH PD 33

consistent research findings that the mediation of video interaction is the critical piece in

supporting teacher change through video use. In fact, Osiova and colleagues (2011) make this

exact call for research, “further research examining the actual change in practice and pedagogical

effectiveness over time is needed to measure the effectiveness of video self-reflections of in-

service teachers” (p. 169). Due to their own research focus, the limited nature of the call makes

sense, and is in fact, in line with this review in focusing on video of self with inservice teachers.

However, even for researchers working with video cases, the same call for research should stand.

A final consideration in working with video is that researchers must be careful not to over

value the record of practice preserved on film. Chavez (2007) comments on this in a short

literature review on video use in teacher education:

Of course, video cases can never fully replicate the complexity of working in a real

classroom. Watching someone else does not necessarily ensure that student-teachers will

reflect on their own beliefs and practices. In that sense, video cases can be too distant.

Focused activities based on video cases are often necessary to ensure that observers

become critical, reflective, and analytical (p. 269).

This is true and can be extended even further, video is also not an infallible record. Elements of

the classroom that are off camera cease to exist, and their influence, therefore is unknowable

from the video record. However, this shortcoming does not negate the power of videos to

promote reflection on and analysis of teaching. By engaging in these practices, teachers can gain

evidence to improve practice and conduct inquiry into their own teaching.

Implications of This Review

Research makes it clear that there are benefits of all types of video use in teacher

education. While types of video can be seen as a continuum between two different forms, the

benefits of different video types show much more overlap. While the use of cases offers teachers
VIDEO IN MATH PD 34

new perspectives and ideas, as well as models of good practice, videos of peers can accomplish

the same. Further, video of one’s own practice is the only video type that can offer a mirror on

teachers’ practice. Also, only by viewing video of one’s own teaching can the application of

theory be evaluated in one’s teaching, leading to a potential of changing practice (e.g., Brouwer

et al., 2017; Bryan & Recesso, 2006; Lebak, 2015). These properties the impact teacher practice

make video of self more valuable as a PD tool. Research demonstrates that this may be the case

(e.g., Zhang et al., 2011), as judged by teachers as well.

Capturing video in the least obtrusive and most economical way possible, both in terms

of time and monetary resources is critical. With very little investment, as almost all teachers

now carry powerful cameras in their pockets due to the ubiquitous nature of Smart phones, PD

can utilize video of participating teachers. The use of multimedia technology to support video

interaction, such as with annotation software, is available for less than $100 per teacher per year

(see www.sibme.com or www.edthena.com). Less sophisticated platforms are even available for

free (see moocnote.com).

Using readily available, pre-existing resources, it is possible to envision powerful,

school-based PD that has the potential to make real change in teacher practice utilizing primarily

video of teachers’ own practice. The success of video programs in wide ranging contexts and

with widely varied resources highlights how robust the use of video can be, given that

interactions with video are properly mediated. This potential should be explored by the research

community.
VIDEO IN MATH PD 35

References

A. E. W. (1913). Moving pictures in school. The Journal of Education, 78, 271.

Admiraal, W. (2014). Meaningful learning from practice: web-based video in professional

preparation programmes in university. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 23(4), 491-

506. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2013.813403

Alonzo, A. C., & Kim, J. (in press). Affordances of video-based professional development for

supporting physics teachers’ judgments about evidence of student thinking. Teaching &

Teacher Education. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.008

Arya, P., & Christ, T. (2013). An exploration of how professors' facilitation is related to literacy

teachers' meaning-construction process during video-case discussions. Journal of

Reading Education, 39(1), 15-22.

Baker, E. A., & Wedman, J. M. (2007). Developing preservice literacy teachers' observation

skills: two stories, two technologies. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher

Education, 7(4), 293-317.

Bañas, C., López, A., Mellado, V., & Ruiz, C. (2009). Metacognition and professional

development of secondary education science teachers: A case study. Journal of

Education Research, 3(1/2), 129-147.

Barnett, M. (2006). Using a web-based professional development system to support preservice

teachers in examining authentic classroom practice. Journal of Technology & Teacher

Education, 14(4), 701-729.

Beisiegel, M., Mitchell, R., & Hill, H. C. (2018). The design of video-based professional

development: An exploratory experiment intended to identify effective features. Journal

of Teacher Education, 69(1), 69-89. doi:10.1177/0022487117705096

VIDEO IN MATH PD 36

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering

productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching & Teacher

Education, 24(2), 417–436. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.012

Borko, H., Koellner, K., Jacobs, J., & Seago, N. (2011). Using video representations of teaching

in practice-based professional development programs. ZDM, 43(1), 175–187.

doi:10.1007/s11858-010-0302-5

Brouwer, N. (2012, 16 April). Self-viewing with structured viewing guides. Paper presented at

the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved

from the AERA Online Paper Repository.

Brouwer, N., Oosterheert, I., & Besselink, E. (2017). The power of video feedback with

structured viewing guides. Teaching & Teacher Education, 66, 60-73.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.013

Bryan, L. A., & Recesso, A. (2006). Promoting reflection among science student teachers using a

web-based video analysis tool. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(1), 31-

39.

Bulgar, S. (2007). using supported video exemplars for the professional development of

preservice elementary school teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher

Education,7(2), 28-41.

Burleigh, J. C., & Peterson, H. W. (1967). Videotapes in teacher education. Elementary School

Journal, 68(1), 35-38.

Calandra, B., Brantley-Dias, L., Lee, J. K., & Fox, D. L. (2009). Using video editing to cultivate

novice teachers’ practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(1), 73-94.

VIDEO IN MATH PD 37

Calandra, B., Gurvitch, R., & Lund, J. (2008). An exploratory study of digital video editing as a

tool for teacher preparation. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 16(2), 137-

153.

Cannings, T. R., & Talley, S. (2002). Multimedia and online video case studies for preservice

teacher preparation. In D. Watson & J. Andersen (Eds.), Networking the Learner (pp.

699–710). Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35596-2_70

Ceven McNally, J. (2016). Learning from one’s own teaching: New science teachers analyzing

their practice through classroom observation cycles. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 53(3), 473–501. doi:10.1002/tea.21253

Charalambous, C. Y., Philippou, S., & Olympiou, G. (2018). Reconsidering the use of video

clubs for student-teachers' learning during field placement: Lessons drawn from a

longitudinal multiple case study. Teaching & Teacher Education, 74, 49-61.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.002

Chavez, A. R. (2007). Classroom videos in professional development. School Science &

Mathematics, 107(7), 269-270.

Cherrington, S., & Loveridge, J. (2014). Using video to promote early childhood teachers’

thinking and reflection. Teaching & Teacher Education, 41, 42–51.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.004

Christ, T., Arya, P., & Ming Chiu, M. (2014). Teachers’ reports of learning and application to

pedagogy based on engagement in collaborative peer video analysis. Teaching Education,

25(4), 349-374. doi:10.1080/10476210.2014.920001

Colestock, A., & Sherin, M. G. (2009). Teachers' sense-making strategies while watching video

of mathematics instruction. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 17(1), 7-29.

VIDEO IN MATH PD 38

Cuthrell, K., Steadman, S. C., Stapleton, J., & Hodge, E. (2016). Developing expertise: Using

video to hone teacher candidates’ classroom observation skills. New Educator, 12(1), 5-

27. doi:10.1080/1547688X.2015.1113349

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2011). Video-stimulated reflection as a professional development tool in

interactive whiteboard research. Recall, 23(3), 252-270.

doi:10.1017/S0958344011000176

Dawson, P. J., Dawson, K. E., & Forness, S. R. (1975). Effect of video feedback on teacher

behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 68(5),

Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of

professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal

study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.

Desimone, L., Smith, T., Phillips, K. (2013). Linking student achievement growth to professional

development participation and changes in instruction: A longitudinal study of elementary

teachers in Title I schools. Teachers College Record, 115, 1-46.

Durand, J., Hopf, M., & Nunnenmacher, S. (2016). Potentials and challenges of video-based self-

reflection for the professionalisation of early childhood education and care professionals.

Early Child Development & Care, 186(1), 23-41. doi:10.1080/03004430.2015.1031124

Fuller, F., & Manning, B. (1973). Self-confrontation reviewed: A conceptualization for video

playback in teacher education. Review of Educational Research, 43(4), 469-528.

González, G., & Skultety, L. (2018). Teacher learning in a combined professional development

intervention. Teaching & Teacher Education, 71, 341-354.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.003

Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.

VIDEO IN MATH PD 39

Grant, T. J., & Kline, K. (2010). The impact of video-based lesson analysis on teachers' thinking

and practice. Teacher Development, 14(1), 69-83. doi:10.1080/13664531003696600

Hamilton, E. R. (2012). Video as a metaphorical eye: Images of positionality, pedagogy, and

practice. College Teaching, 60(1), 10-16. doi:10.1080/87567555.2011.604803

Johnson, H., & Cotterman, M. (2015). Developing preservice teachers' knowledge of science

teaching through video clubs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(4), 393-417.

doi:10.1007/s10972-015-9429-0

Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Thompson, B. J., Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2012).

Measuring usable knowledge: Teachers' analyses of mathematics classroom videos

predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational Research Journal,

49(3), 568-589. doi:10.3102/0002831212437853

Kleinknecht, M., & Schneider, J. (2013). What do teachers think and feel when analyzing videos

of themselves and other teachers teaching? Teaching & Teacher Education, 33, 13–23.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.002

Lebak, K. (2015). Unpacking the complex relationship between beliefs, practice, and change

related to inquiry-based instruction of one science teacher. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 26(8), 695-713. doi:10.1007/s10972-015-9445-0

Loucks‐Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2008). Designing

professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin.

Luna, M. J., & Sherin, M. G. (2017). Using a video club design to promote teacher attention to

students' ideas in science. Teaching & Teacher Education, 66, 282-294.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.019
VIDEO IN MATH PD 40

Major, L., & Watson, S. (2018). Using video to support in-service teacher professional

development: the state of the field, limitations and possibilities. Technology, Pedagogy &

Education, 27(1), 49-68. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2017.1361469

Marsh, B., & Mitchell, N. (2014). The role of video in teacher professional development.

Teacher Development, 18(3), 403-417. doi:10.1080/13664530.2014.938106

McCullagh, J. (2012). How can video supported reflection enhance teachers' professional

development? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(1), 137-152. doi:10.1007/s11422-

012-9396-0

McFadden, J., Ellis, J., Anwar, T., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Beginning science teachers' use of a

digital video annotation tool to promote reflective practices. Journal of Science

Education & Technology, 23(3), 458-470. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9476-2

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

Osipova, A., Prichard, B., Boardman, A. G., Kiely, M. T., & Carroll, P. E. (2011). Refocusing

the lens: Enhancing elementary special education reading instruction through video self-

reflection. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(3), 158-171.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00335.x

Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools: Technologies to scaffold, structure,

and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52-67.

Rook, M. M., & McDonald, S. P. (2012). Digital records of practice: A literature review of video

analysis in teacher practice. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information

Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 1441–1446).

VIDEO IN MATH PD 41

Austin, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

(AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/39784

Rosaen, C., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., & Fritzen, A. (2010). Interns' use of video cases to

problematize their practice: Crash, burn, and (maybe) learn. Journal of Technology &

Teacher Education, 18(3), 459-488.

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.

Saito, E., & Khong, T. H. (2017). Not just for special occasions: Supporting the professional

learning of teachers through critical reflection with audio-visual information. Reflective

Practice, 18(6), 837-851. doi:10.1080/14623943.2017.1361921

Santagata, R. (2009). Designing video-based professional development for mathematics teachers

in low-performing schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 38–51.

doi:10.1177/0022487108328485

Santagata, R., & Bray, W. (2016). Professional development processes that promote teacher

change: the case of a video-based program focused on leveraging students’ mathematical

errors. Professional Development in Education, 42(4), 547-568.

doi:10.1080/19415257.2015.1082076

Santagata, R., & Taylor, K. (2018). Novice teachers' use of student thinking and learning as

evidence of teaching effectiveness: A longitudinal study of video-enhanced teacher

preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 18(1), 11-28.

Santagata, R., Zannoni, C., & Stigler, J. W. (2007). The role of lesson analysis in pre-service

teacher education: An empirical investigation of teacher learning from a virtual video-

VIDEO IN MATH PD 42

based field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(2), 123-140.

doi:10.1007/s10857-007-9029-9

Schueler, H., & Gold, M. J. (1964). Video recordings of student teachers—A report of the hunter

college research project evaluating the use of kinescopes in preparing student teachers.

Journal of Teacher Education, 15(4), 358-364.

Seago, N., Koellner, K., & Jacobs, J. (2018). Video in the middle: Purposeful design of video-

based mathematics professional development. Contemporary Issues in Technology and

Teacher Education, 18(1), 29–49.

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 & Teacher Education,

27(2), 259–267. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.009

Sherin, M. G., & Dyer, E. B. (2017). Mathematics teachers' self-captured video and opportunities

for learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 20(5), 477-495.

doi:10.1007/s10857-017-9383-1

Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching &

Teacher Education, 20(2), 163. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.08.001

Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers'

professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20-37.

Sherin, M. G., Linsenmeier, K. A., & Van Es, E. A. (2009). Selecting video clips to promote

mathematics teachers' discussion of student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education,

60(3), 213-230. doi:10.1177/0022487109336967

Teaching Channel (2018). My favorite no: Learning from mistakes. Retrieved from

https://www.teachingchannel.org/video/class-warm-up-routine
VIDEO IN MATH PD 43

Tripp, T. R., & Rich, P. J. (2012a). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher

change. Teaching & Teacher Education, 28(5), 728–739.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.011

Tripp, T., & Rich, P. J (2012b). Using video to analyze one's own teaching. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 43(4), 678-704. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01234.x

van Es, E. A. (2012). Using video to collaborate around problems of practice. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 39(2), 103-116.

van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). How different video club designs support teachers in

"learning to notice". Journal of Computing In Teacher Education, 22(4), 125-135.

van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context

of a video club. Teaching & Teacher Education, 24(2), 244-276.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.005

van Vondel, S., Steenbeek, H., van Dijk, M., & van Geert, P. (2018). The effects of video

feedback coaching for teachers on scientific knowledge of primary students. Research in

Science Education, 48(2), 301-324. doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9569-z

Walkoe, J. (2015). Exploring teacher noticing of student algebraic thinking in a video

club. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(6), 523-550. doi:10.1007/s10857-

014-9289-0

Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. (2011). Understanding affordances

and challenges of three types of video for teacher professional development. Teaching &

Teacher Education, 27(2), 454-462. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.015