Volume 2, Number 4, 2007 www.wwwords.co.uk/RCIE
Education
Comparative & International
Video Papers – a Means for Documenting
Practitioners’ Reflections on Practical Experiences:
the story of two teacher educators
KARI SMITH & RUNE KRUMSVIK
Department of Education, University of Bergen, Norway
ABSTRACTThis article is documentation of the personal professional reflection processes as well as staff discussions reflecting the staff’s ongoing efforts to improve the quality of teaching in the teacher education programme at the University of Bergen. The documentation is two-dimensional: video clips have been inserted into the traditional text form. This allows the reader to personally view the discussed issues and thus better form a personal opinion of the situation, without having to rely solely on written documentation and the authors’ subjective analysis. The authors claim is that video-paper as a form for publication allows for a more comprehensive presentation of the data and enables the reader to examine the documentation on which the authors base their reflections and discussions. The validity of the findings is improved as they are open to examination by a wider audience.
Introduction
This article tells the story of two experienced teacher educators who engaged in self-study in the process of developing a pedagogy of teacher education in a Norwegian university. The focus is how reflective processes documented by video recordings can be revisited, articulated and presented to a wider audience through video papers. Video-recordings of our own teaching activities served as the basis for self-reflection and in opening for a reflective dialogue with colleagues. Thus, we aimed at creating a community of practice involving the whole staff in the process of developing a shared pedagogy of teacher education.
By presenting our story in an electronic journal we invite a wide circle of colleagues to become actively involved with our video-paper, to read our subjective reflections on the process and to watch the video-clips of the teaching activities. This way you are better enabled to form an independent opinion without having to put full trust into our interpretations of the events. Through the written words as well as through authentic extracts of the activities, we hope that our story can be useful to teacher educators elsewhere in reflecting on their pedagogy of teacher education, so we can, as an international community of practitioners, jointly develop a viable pedagogy of teacher education.
Reflection
Reflection has, for quite some time, been viewed as an essential and integrated part of significant learning processes (Dewey, 1933), and even more so, in professional development processes (Zeichner, 1995; Korthagen, 2001, among numerous others). It has, until recently, been commonly accepted that reflection remain an internal and to a great extent, subjective activity (Kolb, 1984). Ur
(1996) challenges Kolb’s ego-centric reflective circle claiming that practitioners need to draw on previous personal and other people’s experiences with similar activities during the reflective process, increase awareness by studying relevant literature and listen to other people’s opinion about the action(s) which is the focus of reflection. Today we find an increasing argumentation for a more transparent reflective process, which seems to be in agreement with Kolb’s personal reflection when he, in a more recent article, uses the concept the reflective dialogue (Kolb, 1998).
Pedagogy of Teacher Education
Another emerging area of interest is developing a pedagogy of teacher education. Numerous studies examine teacher education practice and the underlying beliefs of these practices (Loughran, 1997, 2006; Korthagen et al, 2005; Russell, 1995; Smith, 2005, among others). Teaching about teaching involves a dual role, we teach content, but the content that we teach is also the act we do (Loughran, 2006; Murray & Male, 2005). In this respect every teacher educator becomes a model of teaching for the students, even though the modeling is implicit and the teacher educator’s understanding of and reasons for undertaking specific actions remain tacit. Explicit modeling is, however, essential to developing a pedagogy of teacher education (Lunenberg et al, 2007), as it is the act of setting words to actions, beliefs and knowledge guiding specific actions, which provide the foundation of a pedagogy of teacher education (Loughran, 2006). Lunenberg et al (2007) found, however, that examples of explicit modeling are few in teacher education. Loughran (2006) suggests carrying out active modeling in pairs, involving two teacher educators, one who teaches and a second who observes and is responsible for carrying out de-briefing sessions with the students. Such a model offers learning opportunities for the students, the teaching is articulated and does not remain tacit, and professional development opportunities for the de-briefer, as well as for the teacher educator, whose teaching is opened up to examination. In the process of developing a pedagogy of teacher education we try to find answers to questions such as how teachers learn, how we best can facilitate the learning process, what teachers need to learn (teachers’ professional knowledge), and what is required of teacher educators who are responsible for educating teachers (teacher educators’ professional knowledge).
Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Teacher Education
Shulman’s (1987) work on teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge has contributed to an increased understanding of what teaching means, and how it is possible to make a breakdown of the comprehensive and complex concept of teacher knowledge which is useful when designing teacher education programs. Teacher educators are seen as experts on teacher knowledge which many have gained from school teaching experience (Smith, 2005; Murray &Male, 2005). Moreover, teacher educators expected to be able to unpack the concept of teacher knowledge and present it to students of teaching (Zanting et al, 2003). This is, however, not a straightforward activity. Smith (2005) refers to Zanting et al (1998): ‘On the whole, the articulation of one’s own practical knowledge seems a complex and unusual activity for mentor teachers’ (p. 17), and she adds that ‘it can be assumed that to a certain degree of teacher educators at the university face the same problem’ (Smith, 2005, p. 181). An evolving pedagogy of teacher education depends on teacher educators’ willingness to and skills in unpacking the pedagogical content knowledge of the profession.
Self-study
Self-study is seen by many as a form for inquiry which enables practitioners to examine their own practice for personal professional development purposes (Loughran & Russell, 2002; Russell, 2004; Trumbull, 2004; Loughran, 2006; Zeichner, 2007; Korthagen & Lunenberg, 2004), as well as for issues of validity, by examining the viability of their work when opened up for criticism to a wider audience (Zeichner, 2007). Self-study is about teacher educators, ‘individually and collectively, who would be studying their own teaching, going beyond the standard image of telling others how teaching should be done without necessarily following their own advice’ (Russell, 2002, p. 3). In a
way we can say that self-study carried out by teacher educators is an attempt to make sure that we practice what we preach.
Self-study has much in common with other versions of practitioner research, more specifically action research, which is seen as a well suited approach for teachers to engage in research about their own teaching practice, mainly for professional development purposes, to improve teaching, but also for improving the status of the teaching profession (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; McNiff, 2002). It seems that self-study of teacher educators has taken on a similar role. On one hand it is a highly valued tool for enhancing reflection and articulating teacher educators’ tacit knowledge, and on the other hand it is viewed as a gateway for teacher educators to engage in research and publication, a required standard for teacher educators, especially in universities (Murray & Male, 2005), but also increasingly for teacher educators in colleges of education (Smith, 2005).
There are, however, a number of limitations to the acceptance of self-study discussed in the literature. Zeichner (2007) points out that self-studies are not trusted by policy makers to provide evidence and documentation for decision making, and he claims that ‘teacher educators are wise to be concerned about the lack of credibility to external audiences’ (p. 37). Zeichner’s advice to teacher educators is to connect to the mainstream of research in teacher educations. Small, individual case studies do not make an impact on policies. Borko et al (2007) recommends teacher educators to engage in design research, meaning that teacher education courses are being modified as they are being taught in light of the practitioners’ self-study and retrospectively to place the findings in ‘a broader theoretical context’ (p. 7).
Workbased Learning
WBL is to a large extent rooted in a socio-constructivist view of learning, and shares several basic features with Wenger’s (1998) communities of practice and Wertsch’s (1991) situated learning. In work-based learning learners construct meanings from experiences in a particular context or situation in dialogues with others (Brodie & Irving, 2007). Van Eekelen et al (2005) in their study of teacher learning, revealed that learning in interaction and learning by doing was reported as the most important factor in professional development. This is in alignment with Billett’s (2001) work in which three key-factors in work-place learning are identified: (1) engagement in everyday work tasks, (2) direct guidance from co-workers, and (3) indirect guidance provided by the workplace itself and others in the workplace. It seems that the literature on work-based learning provides a useful contribution of our understanding of professional development for practitioners and Russell (2006) claims that self-study relies on interaction with colleagues, and that professional learning involves all participants in the dialogue. We learn by sharing our own learning and by listening to experiences of others.
The view taken in this article is that enhanced reflection takes place when the situation which triggers reflection is made accessible to others, and the reflection process becomes enriched by feedback from colleagues and other significant others, thus developing a professional learning community which draws on the practice of the individual members in developing a collective body of knowledge, which becomes, when the practitioners are teacher educators, a pedagogy of teacher education.
Video Papers
Margaret Mead was one of the first scientists that underlined the importance of visual representations in research, and jointly with Gregory Bateson she challenged the established research practice within anthropology during the 1930s (Goldman 2007) by saying: ‘Those who have been the loudest in their demand for ‘scientific’ work have been the least willing to use instruments that would do for anthropology what instrumentation has done for other sciences – refine and expand the accurate observation’ (Hockins 1973 in Goldman 2007, p. 3). The study of education and anthropology has several similarities and common epistemological challenges, and both have moved from the ‘…grand narrative to a focus on local, situated knowledge (Goldman 2007, p. 4). In light of the digital revolution, we as educational researchers have to reconsider how
digital video technology can improve our research examining local, situated knowledge in quite new ways. An important aspect is stressed by Goldman in his claim that:’…how the use of networked visual data, tools, and methods enable researchers not only to reflect more deeply on their observations, but also on the entire research process that have moved away from the solitary researcher to the community with multiple stakeholders’ (Goldman 2007, p. 4). In relation to such issues, the video paper concept has several of these qualities.
A video paper is a presentation of a text and video side by side, allowing authors to annotate digital video (Beardsley et al, 2007). This means that when reading the text, the reader can activate different modes of presentation, watching the context in which the text is placed as well as presenting authentic examples to improve the validity of the text. A video paper ‘integrates and synchronizes different forms or representation in one cohesive document’ (Olivero et al, 2004, p. 182). Thus video papers grasp an authentic event and allow the readers, in our case teacher educators, to revisit the event and verify the reflective text on passed performance. The main advantages of video papers in our context are:
• Tacit knowledge or knowledge found in actions and which are difficult to articulate can be exemplified and presented.
• The event on which the text is based can be viewed by the reader, there is a two-dimensional presentation of a situation. This adds to the credibility of the text as the reader becomes the viewer as well and does not need to rely solely on the author’s subjective interpretation of the event.
Video recordings make it possible to revisit passed events, whereas the reflection processes itself can be multi-dimensionally documented through text and pictures (video recordings) in video papers which allow for a more comprehensive critique of the analysis of events.
The current article presents a self-study of two teacher educators who are engaged in developing a pedagogy of teacher education within the context of their work. Video-paper was chosen as the form for presentation to enable international colleagues to participate and feed into the professional development process of the two, of the whole staff, and probably for the readers too.
The Study
Two senior teacher educators at the University of Bergen, Norway, decided to video-record a plenary lecture to a large group of students and a workshop with a seminar group of 20 students with the main purpose of using the recordings in their personal reflection and development to improve the quality of their teaching. The recorded sessions were revisited several times with a special focus on the way communication was carried out with the students. In addition to analyzing the quality of the teaching, another important focus was in what ways the two different lecture modes invite different approaches of communication with students.
Relevant parts of the video recordings were presented in a staff meeting and used as triggers for critical discussion of the quality of teaching as well as how various teaching modes require different teaching styles. This session was also recorded and used for reflective discussion within the staff, the outcome of which served as material for writing a presentation for an international conference. Moreover, the discussion at the conference was recorded and taken back to the staff for further discussions involving all, and for a more informed personal reflection of the two teacher educators in particular.
Methodology
The methodology of the self-study compiled, as above described, several loops of documented reflection with a variety of dialogue partners at a personal, local and international level.
Reflection loops
1st loop: Teacher educators’ personal reflection on the video-recorded lecture
2nd loop: The staff’s reflection and feedback of the teacher educator’s lecture, based on the video-recording
3rd loop: Teacher educators’ reflection around the staff’s feedback and their personal perception of this
4th loop: Teacher educators’ presentation of their preliminary interpretations of the material in video-paper presentations at international conferences and submission to international journals 5th loop: Reflections on refereed feedback from international colleagues on the interpretation of the 1st and 2nd loop as presented in a video paper
6th loop: An international audience perception and reflection around the authors’ interpretations and findings in the published video article.
In the current article the three first loops and the sixth loop are discussed.
Methodological Limitations
In the lengthy process we were going through some limitations of the above methodology for self-study became apparent. First of all, the effect of being video recorded when teaching might lead some practitioners to become more conscious about the way they teach, even ‘putting on a show’, or to the contrary, that the teaching becomes inhibited, and not up to the teacher educator’s common standard of teaching. It is possible to minimize the limitation by using small, invisible cameras (with the practitioner’s permission), or, as in our situation, the consciousness of the camera diminished after a few minutes.
A second limitation in the current study was the fact that the two teacher educators belonged to the senior staff, with one acting as the head of the section for teacher education. There was likely to be an effect of avoiding criticising senior colleagues, and indeed this was mentioned in the very beginning of the staff reflection. However, it was made quite clear that the two teacher educators in case had full confidence in the mutually including and collegial atmosphere in the section and requested the right to benefit from feedback and criticism in the same way other members of staff do. It was also a deliberate step to start recording two senior members of staff in order to set an example for future professional development processes. The feedback from the staff was quite open and constructively critical:
http://www.wwwords.co.uk/rcie/content/video/2/2/Videoclip1.wmv
A third limitation is that this kind of paper can only be fully presented in an electronic journal to maintain its completeness. The paper invites the reader to personally look at the behaviour described and in this way, to form a personal opinion independently of the analysis of the author. There are fewer electronic journals around than journals which are based on texts only. It is, however, our opinion that the number of electronic journals is on a speedy increase.
Findings
The presentation of the findings relates to the three first loops. The sixth loop is discussed in the last part of the article, titled ‘Discussion and Conclusions’. The first loop is presented as a narrative by the two teacher educators, what they learned about their own teaching, and the reflective processes that were initiated. The use of video recordings served as documentation of a past event to which the teacher educators could return as often as they wanted to get a better understanding of what had taken place during the actual teaching activity. Thus the narratives reported below are not based on memory alone (reflection on action) but a kind of post reflection–in-action became possible, adding to the validity of the narrative.
A briefer, second section of this part relates to clear differences between giving a plenary lecture and leading a seminar group in terms of teacher-student communication.
The latter is linked to the emerging local pedagogy of teacher education, a process that has just started at our university.
Loop 1. Narrative of the teacher educator giving the plenary lecture:
I became very aware for the fact that I am searching for words when lecturing in Norwegian. Even though I knew this was the case, I did not know it was obvious.
http://www.wwwords.co.uk/rcie/content/video/2/2/Videoclip2.wmv
Another thing related to language is the shifts I make from using a formal to using an informal, rather colloquial language. There is no consistency in my language use, and this might have a disturbing effect on some of the students, and it is not the way I think it should be. I really have to work on the language when lecturing in Norwegian, even though it is my mother tongue. Having been away from Norway for more than 30 years has lead to a language attrition and even lack of vocabulary within my academic field.
It is obvious I am having fun when lecturing and that I enjoy the meeting with the students, introducing them to a topic about which I am enthusiastic. This also gives me the confidence to invite students to ask questions and to wait patiently for students to respond when posing questions.
Narrative of the teacher educator giving the seminar
The idea behind the seminars in our teacher education is to complement the plenary lectures and create a fertile ground for dialogue and discussions between teacher educators and students. The video-clip reveals that I only to a certain degree am able to handle this issue, and I have thought of why I don’t practice what I preach. It might be that I am influenced by the strong criticism towards Norwegian teacher education pedagogy, which is often criticized for being too vague and unstructured (e.g. too much project-work, portfolios, group-discussions and too little substance). This, combined with my awareness of the fact that our students are well-educated with a master-degree, makes me choose the safe ‘blackboard-teaching’ as a teaching style in the seminars, spiced up by a heavy use of academic expressions and acronyms. When I examine the video-recording further, I also recognize that the use of too many power-point slides steers my seminar-teaching which becomes similar to a plenary lecture-style. The next video-clip, ‘the watch-pitfall’, is an illustration of my ambivalence between dialogue and discussion in the seminars and my eagerness to get back to the controlled ‘blackboard-teaching’.
http://www.wwwords.co.uk/rcie/content/video/2/2/Videoclip3.wmv
Loop 2, Staff discussion and reflection Plenary Lecture
In the discussions that followed after the staff had watched the video, the lecturer first presented the issues on which she had focused in her personal reflections after having had the opportunity to watch the video several times. In the course of discussion colleagues provided concrete advice such as using English words instead of searching for the Norwegian term, everybody understands English anyhow. In relation to the various levels of register in the language use, it was pointed out that it is better to stick to the same level of formality throughout the lecture.
Another question that was brought to the filmed teacher educator’s attention was the comment that this teacher educator reflected a high level of ‘presence’ when lecturing. The verbal presentation was accompanied effectively by gestures and voice volume.
http://www.wwwords.co.uk/rcie/content/video/2/2/Videoclip4.wmv
However, it was also pointed out that too much of this might have an overwhelming effect on the audience reducing some of their own energy. This was a useful comment for the teacher educator to bring into her own reflective process, a feature which the teacher educator could examine more carefully by going back to the video-recording.
A more generic issue that was discussed in relation to the pedagogy of giving plenary lectures was the importance of reflecting professional confidence and authority, especially when handling spontaneous and often un-expected questions. In the current setting we are interested in developing an including teaching style, also in plenary lectures, so using frequent recaps, inviting questions and comments and allowing for thinking time (acknowledge the importance of silence) are all necessary elements when using this teaching mode. The video-recording served as a focus
point for discussion for the entire staff about what is good teaching in our local teacher education, some of which will be of a more generic value.
Seminar Session
We followed the same feedback routine for both lecturers, so in the course of discussion when colleagues provided concrete advice, it was interesting to notice that our colleagues recognized the same main challenge as the seminar lecturer did himself, the problem of lecture style in the seminar mode. The colleagues also found this issue strengthened by commenting that there was little direct face-to-face interaction with the students. On the other hand, they praised the lecturer for handling unexpected questions well, that the session had a stringent structure, and that the lecturer seemed to be confident and well-prepared. The feedback provided the seminar lecturer and the entire staff with a wider horizon for reflections and the video recording is a form of documentation that can be revisited by the individual teacher educator in his personal professional development process as well as by other colleagues within the community of practice.
Loop 3. Teacher educators’ personal reflections after the staff discussion
The outcome of loop 3 was a greater awareness of personal teaching styles which provides a starting point for future professional growth.
Plenary Lecture
The main issues the teacher educator took with her from the staff meeting into her professional development process which included watching the video recording several times, can be listed as such:
At a personal level
Be aware of language style and register At a generic level (pedagogy of education)
It is recommended to involve students also in plenary lectures
It is recommended to balance time for transmission, questions and discussions It is recommended to reflect confidence and mastery of the topic
It is recommended to use brief recaps from time to time
It is recommended to apply an effective use of gestures and voice
Some of the above points are of value mainly to the individual teacher educator, whereas the last points are of value to the whole staff involved with the process of developing a shared local pedagogy of teacher education.
Seminar Session
The seminar lecturer professional development process can be listed as such:
• At a personal level
• It is recommended to have more face-to-face interaction when teaching
• It is recommended to use subject-terms, not acronyms
• At a generic level (pedagogy of education)
• It is recommended to create a fertile ground for dialogue and discussion in the seminar group, and avoid a lecture-style
• It is recommended to let the students reflect more around questions and not ‘give the answer’.
• It is recommended to balance the good structure and the clear content in the seminars with more flexible working-methods
Supported by the video recording of the seminar, there was evidence of learning and development at a personal as well as at a staff level.
We have not yet analysed the recordings from loop 4 (presentations at international conferences) and at the time of the writing, we have not been through the other two loops. We believe, however, that it is essential to present how we see the full process, and our intentions are to present findings from the remaining loops in a future article.
Discussion
The authors do not claim that there is revolutionary news in the findings related to various teaching styles and modes. Most teacher educators would be aware of the differences between plenary lectures and seminar sessions. However, using video recordings of teacher educators’ teaching as documentation that can be revisited again and again is more innovative. Video recordings have long been used as a tool for developing reflection in student teachers, but it is not as frequently used in teacher educators’ own professional development. The method of using video recordings for faculty’s professional development as described here initiated a process which led to greater personal and staff awareness of how teaching about teaching is handled.
By inserting video clips of our teaching into the current article, we invite a wide group of international colleagues to join us in developing an articulated pedagogy of teacher education. The reflective process as described in the current article is a kind of design research, as presented by Borko et al (2007). Design research has two levels, the first is a continuous analyses of the teaching and the program as it is being taught, and the second level is a more summative examination of the program upon completion, however, with the formative intentions of redesigning it to ensure an on-going improvement of the course. The reflection process of the two levels is not based mainly on memory of past events, but on evidence which is made available for re-examination by the practitioners themselves and for new examination by a wider professional audience at a local as well as at an international level.
At a local level the practical contribution is found in the fact that the process led to personal as well as staff professional development. The two teacher educators became aware of strengths and weaknesses in their teaching by watching the video recording, and by discussing it with colleagues, listening to their comments in a community of practice. Borko et al (2007) claim that ‘…design research is grounded in a conception of teacher educators as professionals who continually adjust their plans on the basis of ongoing assessment of individual and collective activity’ (p.7).
The practical contributions of the process are found in the fact that the video recordings were used for discussions at a personal as well as at a collective activity within a community of practice.
Moreover, the process led to theoretical contributions in developing a pedagogy of teacher education by adding to the staff’s understanding of differences in communication with students when giving a plenary lecture in an auditorium and when teaching a smaller seminar group. The discussions of these differences, and of how to best exploit the two different settings (both of which have a justified place in the programme), added to the local pedagogy of teacher education at our university. The new knowledge that was developed can be translated into other teacher education settings through channels of professional networking (conferences, publications). In this way, the ‘new’ knowledge goes beyond the personal level and is open to external examination by the professional community elsewhere (Loughran, 2006).
The methodological contribution of the study lies in the way it meets the call for improved and clear methodologies of self-studies (Zeichner, 2007). Borko et al (2007) stress the importance of quality in practitioners’ research so it meets the requirements of academic research and is accepted by the professional community as well as by decision-makers. By presenting the raw data (video extracts) and the analysis of the data, at a personal as well as at a staff level, to a wider community of colleagues, our work within the teacher education program has, by choosing video papers as the mode of publication, been exposed to examination and criticism by a wider community of practice and researchers, a fact which strengthens the viability and validity of the local pedagogy of teacher education.
The empirical contribution of the current article lies mainly in the fact that it provides multiple data for analysing two modes of teaching in teacher education, namely plenary lectures to a larger group of students and interactive seminars to smaller groups of students. In this article the focus is, however, to present the methodology of self-study through video-recordings and presentations of reflections at various levels in a two dimensional format (text and video clips). The analysis of the different modes of communication with students provides the empirical findings which will contribute to the developing pedagogy of teacher education. Such an analysis is the underlying question around which the presented methodology is developed, and the findings are likely to be presented more in depth in a future article discussing the various teaching modes in teacher education.
Concluding Comments
The current video article is documentation of the personal professional reflection processes as well as staff discussions reflecting our ongoing efforts to improve the quality of teaching in the teacher education programme at the University of Bergen. The documentation in form of video paper, is two-dimensional, video clips have been inserted into the traditional text form. This allows the reader to personally view the discussed issues and thus better form a personal opinion of the situation, without having to rely solely on written documentation and the authors’ subjective analysis. Our claim is that video-paper as a form for publication allows for a more comprehensive presentation of the data and enables the reader to examine the documentation on which the authors base their reflections and discussions. The validity of the findings is improved as they are open to examination by a wider audience. Video-papers seem to be a mode of publications which facilitates the implementation of Loughran’s (2006) thoughts that ‘the notion of personal principles of practice emerges and, for individual teachers educators in the way they develop, adapt and articulate such principles personally, may well form the foundations from which to build a pedagogy of teacher education’ (p. 81). Video-papers enable teacher educators to invite a wide range of colleagues to provide input into the professional development process, a win-win situation for all.
References
Beardsley, L., Cogan-Drew, D., & Olviro, F. (2007) Video-paper: bridging research and practice for pre-service and experienced teachers, in R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron & S. Derry (Eds) Video Research in the Learning Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Billett, S. (2001) Learning through Work: workplace affordances and individual engagement, Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(5), 209-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005548
Borko, H., Liston, D. & Whitcomb, J. A. (2007) Genres of Empirical Research in Teacher Education, Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1),3-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487106296220
Brodie, P. & Irving, K. (2007) Assessment in Work-based Learning: investigating a pedagogical approach to enhance student learning, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(1), 11-19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930600848218
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (Eds) (1993) Inside Outside Teacher Research and Knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Goldman, R. (2007) Video Representations and the Perspectivity Framework: Epistemology, Ethnography, Evaluation, and Ethics, in R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds), Video Research in the Learning Sciences. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. A. (1998) Experiential Learning: from discourse model to conversation (interview), LLine, Lifelong Learning in Europe, 3(3), 148-153.
Korthagen, F. A. J. & Lunenberg, M. (2004) Links Between Self-study and Teacher Education Reform, in J.J. Loughran, M.L. Hamilton, V.K. LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds) International Handbook of Self-study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (Vol. 1, pp. 421-449). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Korthagen, F. J. (2001) Linking Practice and Theory: the pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J. & Lunenberg, M. (2005) Teaching Teachers - Studies into the Expertise of Teacher Educators: an introduction to this theme issue, Teachers and Teacher Education, 21(2), 107-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.007
Loughran, J. & Russell, T. (Eds) (2002) Improving Teacher Education Practices Through Self-Study. London: Routledge Falmer.
Loughran, J. (2006) Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education. London: Routledge.
Loughran, J. (2006) Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education: understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London: Routledge.
Loughran, J. J. (1997) Teaching about Teaching: principles and practice, in J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds),
Teaching about Teaching: purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education, pp. 57-69. London: Falmer Press.
Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F. & Swennen, A. (2007) The Teacher Educator as a Role Model, Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 586-601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.001
McNiff, J. (2002).Action Research for Professional Development: concise advice for new action researchers. http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html
Murray, J. & Male, T. (2005) Becoming a Teacher Educator: evidence from the field, Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 125-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.006
Olivero, F., John, P. & Sutherland, R. (2004) Seeing is Believing: using videopapers to transform teachers’ professional knowledge and practice, Cambridge Journal of Education, 2(34), 179-191.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057640410001700552
Russell, T. (1995) Returning to the Physics Classroom to Re-think How One Learns to Teach Physics, in T. Russell & F. Korthagen (Eds), Teachers who Teach Teachers: Reflections on Teacher Education, pp. 95-109. London: Falmer Press.
Russell, T. (2002) Guiding New Teachers’ Learning from Classroom Experience: self-study of the faculty liaison role, in J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds), Improving Teacher Education Practices Through Self-Study,
pp. 73-87. London: Routledge Falmer.
Russell, T. (2004) Tracing the Development of Self-study in Teacher Education Research and Practice, in J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. Laboskey & T. Russell (Eds.) International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (Vol. 2, pp. 1191-1210). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Shulman, L. S. (1987) Knowledge and Teaching: foundations of the new reform, Harvard Educational Review,
57(1), 1-22.
Smith, K. (2005) Teacher Educators’ Expertise: what do novice teachers and teacher educators say?, Teachers and Teacher Education,21(2), 177-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.008
Trumbull, D. (2004) Factors Important for the Scholarship of Self-study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices, in J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. Laboskey & T. Russell (Eds) International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (Vol. 2, pp. 1211-1230). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ur, P.(1996) A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Eekelen, I. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A. & Vermunt, J. D. (2005) Self Regulation in Higher Education Teacher Learning, Higher Education, 50(3), 447-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6362-0 Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991) Voices of the Mind: a sociocultural approach to mediate action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zanting, A., Verloop, N, & Vermunt, J. D. (2003) How Do Student Teachers Elicit their Mentors’ Practical Knowledge?, Teachers and Teaching, 9(3), 197-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600309383
Zanting, A., Verloop, N., Vermunt, J. D., & van Driel, J. H. (1998) Explicating Practical Knowledge: an extension of mentor teachers’ roles, European Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 11-27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0261976980210104
Zeichner, K. (1995) Reflections of a Teacher Educator Working for Social Change, in T. Russell & F. Korthagen (Eds) Teachers Who Teach Teachers: Reflections on Teacher Education (pp. 11-24). London: Falmer Press.
Zeichner, K. (2007) Accumulating Knowledge Across Self-studies in Teacher Education, Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 36-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487106296219
KARI SMITH is Professor of Education at the University of Bergen, Norway. Her main research interests are in the areas of educational assessment and professional development of teachers and teacher educators. Correspondence: Kari Smith, Department of Education, University of Bergen, Christiesgatan 13, N-5020 Bergen, Norway ([email protected]).
RUNE KRUMSVIK is Associate Professor of Education at the University of Bergen, Norway. His main research interests are in the area of ICT, educational technology and learning. Correspondence:
Rune Krumsvik, Department of Education, University of Bergen, Christiesgatan 13, N-5020 Bergen, Norway ([email protected]).
