Evolution of online interactions while observing classroom situations on video during a distance...

Florian Meyer, Marc-André Gazé & Roselyne Lampron - Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

Evolution of online interactions while observing classroom situations on video during a distance education course SITE 2015 – Las Vegas

Florian Meyer, Marc-André Gazé & Roselyne Lampron Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

Florian Meyer, Marc-André Gazé & Roselyne Lampron - Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, CanadaFlorian Meyer, Marc-André Gazé & Roselyne Lampron - Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

Plan

1. Problem and goals

2. Theoretical framework

3. Methodological aspects

4. Results

5. Discussion and opening


Problem and goals


Observing videos• Modeling practices seems to have a positive effect on the development of

professional competencies allowing emotional, social, and cognitive learning (Yung, Yip, Lai, et Lo, 2010).

• Modeling (Schunk, 2001) from examples of good practice on video goes beyond a simple exemplification of practice and engages students in a complex and reflexive analysis process (Santagata et Guarino, 2011).

• Interactions between teachers participating in training "video clubs" evolve (van Es et Sherin, 2008; van Es, 2012)

• Vicarious effect (Bandura, 1997) produced by watching videos of experienced peers within an autonomous online training contributes to the positive effect on the feeling of self-efficacy, intentions to change practice and knowledge of teachers in training (Meyer, 2010)


Online training for learning• The online trainer’s role to support collaboration and interaction

between teachers (students) is complex (Santiago, Leh and Nakayama, 2011) : it requires supporting various types of interactions (Dumont, 2007)

• Learning occurs through various cognitive processes that are influenced by the environment and the social context in which a person is, the practice of reference, the observations she can do, the models that are proposed, the mediation offered by a trainer or a peer, conceptions or expectations (Cross, 1981; Bruner, 1996; Wang et Kang, 2007).


Problem

How do trainers know how to combine these aspects and support student teachers to analyze videos of practice online in order to learn better ?


Goals1. To understand the evolution of the capabilities of the

students to analyze videos, according to peer interventions and interventions of the trainer, or contextual characteristics of the training.

2. To understand to what extent the observations and analysis carried out by teachers and supported by trainers contribute to some of these cognitive processes and to what extent they contribute to learning.

3. To support trainers who need some advice for a better practice.


Theoretical framework


Online learning• Online learning occurs through socio-cognitive conflict,

collaboration, interactions (Henri et Basque, 2003)

• Four types of support can be offered by the trainer (role that can sometimes be played by peer students): – psychological and psychosocial support– methodological and organizational support– educational support– technical support (Dumont, 2007)

Florian Meyer, Marc-André Gazé & Roselyne Lampron - Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada10


(Wang & Kang, 2006, p. 226 )


Online Interactions Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson (1997) : 5 phases

during online discussions: 1. Sharing/comparing of information;2. Discovery and exploration of dissonance or

inconsistency among ideas, concepts or statement; 3. Negotiation of meaning/coconstruction of knowledge4. Testing and modification of proposed synthesis or co-

construction;5. Agreement statement(s)/applications of newly-

constructed meaning.


Instructional design• MISA (Paquette, 2004) in four axes

1. DC: Design of Content (Knowledge and Skill Representation);

2. DP: Design of Pedagogical Specifications (Application of Teaching Methods and Approaches);

3. DM: Design of Materials (Specification of Learning Materials);

4. DD: Design of Delivery (Delivery Planning)

• Charlier, De Schryver et Peraya (2006)


(Bloomberg, Renkl, Sherin, Borko & Seidel, 2013, p. 105)


Janík, Janíková, Knecht, Kubiatko, Najvar, Najvarová & Šebestová (2009, p. 208)

Types of videos


Methodological aspects


• 5 teacher trainers• First step of a 2 years

process• 9 courses of 3 credits

(Fall 11 to Fall 13)• 180 Master degree

students (same program)

• Datas– Interviews– Interactions in forums

Qualitative action research


Some results


2 different pedagogical models


Interactions


Interactions in Fabien and Lise’s courses according to social construction of knowledge

model (Gunawardena et al., 1997)


Discussion and opening


Simple video use

• Tasks proposed by Lise and Fabien, in the context of these forums, are not mandatory but merely suggested. This may explain why the number of interactions is not very high.

• But we also question the involvement of the students and what these guidelines raise in this regard. In these activities, it seems that the use of videos tend to stay at a level of simple illustration (Janik et al., 2009) when the students are only asked to identify some elements and concepts mentionned previously in the course. A very few students benefit from these videos to progress in the construction of new knowledge.


Professors’ role

• Fabien ans Lise had a small contribution in their forums to support the advancement of the interactions towards the co-construction of new knowledge.

• It is of course impossible for trainers to intervene in every discussion thread, it wouldn’t be managable. It is still unfortunate because the few times Fabien and Lise had the opportunity to do so, it has often helped to bring interactions to move towards phases 4 and 5.

• Is there any other way than simply interacting in the forums (tasks, ressources…) ?


Knowledge construction

• Activities proposed to the students in the rest of the course make them reuse knowledge built throughout the course, but do not call explicitly knowledge possibly built during the discussions made around the videos.

• It would be interesting to promote the implementation of these new co-constructed knowledge during the following activities and to ask students to explicit this integration.


Recommendations to professors

• Suggest tasks that allow students to draw on their experience to make a meaningful comparison (Yung et al., 2010)

• Ask students to defend their point of views by exploiting these videos and formalize their arguments using readings and their own experience.

• Enable students to discuss the videos in small groups in order to reach a common construction of meaning and place them in front of the obligation to solve a problem collectively. In other words, motivate the social cognitive conflict with a productive discussion (Yung et al., 2010


Conclusion

• Trainer’s role is crucial ;• Videos can play a very different role depending on the

tasks and the pedagogical model • Supporting online interactions is even more

demanding when video are at the center of the activities

• Can professors change their course in order to achieve these goals ? And how does it affect the social construction of knowledge ?


Future work…

• Is the social construction of knowledge model (Gunawardena et al., 1997) adapted to discussions around the analysis of videos ?

• Option : adapting this model integrating Professional Vision Concept (Sherin, 2007) and Yung et al.’s (2010) types of means to support learning through video analysis


Thank you very much !

[email protected]

http://pedtice.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://pedtice.org/


BibliographyBaecher, L. et Kung, S.-C. (2011). Jumpstarting Novice Teachers’ Ability to Analyze Classroom Video: Affordances of an Online

Workshop. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(1), 16–26.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Blomberg, G., Renkl, A., Sherin, M. G., Borko, H., & Seidel, T. (2013). Five research-based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education . Journal for Educational Research Online, 5(1), 90–114.

Bruner, J. (1996). L’éducation, entrée dans la culture : les problèmes de l’école à la lumière de la psychologie culturelle. Paris: Retz.

Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as Learners. London: Jossey-Bass.

Dumont (2007). Les relations enseignant-enseignés : les aspects psychoaffectifs. In J.-C. Henri, F. et Basque, J. (2003). Conception d’activités d’apprentissage collaboratif en mode virtuel. In C. Deaudelin et T. Nault (dir.), Collaborer pour apprendre et faire apprendre. La place des outils technologiques (p. 29-49). Sainte-Foy : Presses de l’Université du Québec.

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A. and Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a Global Online Debate and the Development of an Interaction Analysis Model For Examining Social Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing. Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–430.

Janík, T., Janíková, M., Knecht, P., Kubiatko, M., Najvar, P., Najvarová, V., et Šebestová, S. (2009). Exploring Different Ways of Using Video in Teacher Education: Examples from CPV Video Web. In Tomas Janík et T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 207–224). Munich, Allemagne: Waxmann Publishing.

Malo, A. (2000). Savoirs de formation et savoir d’expérience : un processus de transformation. Éducation et francophonie, 28(2), 216-235.

Manderscheid et C. Jeunesse (dir.), L'enseignement en ligne : À l'université et dans les formations professionnelles. Pourquoi ? Comment ? (p. 58-90). Bruxelles : De Boeck.

Martinet, M. A., Raymond, D. et Gauthier, C. (2001). La formation à l’enseignement. Les orientations. Les compétences professionnelles. (Document officiel). Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation, Gouvernement du Québec.


BibliographyMeyer, F. (2010). Effets d’un dispositif de formation exploitant des vidéos d’exemples de pratiques sur le développement d’une

compétence professionnelle chez des enseignants du primaire. Thèse de doctorat en éducation, Université de Montréal, Montréal.

Meyer, F., Lampron, R. et Gazé, M.-A. (2014). Four pedagogical models using video as a tool for learning in a distance teacher training program context. Form@Re - Open Journal Per La Formazione In Rete.

Mucchielli, A. (2009). Dictionnaire des méthodes qualitatives en sciences humaines et sociales. Paris: Armand Colin.

Rich, P. J. et Hannafin, M. (2009). Video Annotation Tools Technologies to Scaffold, Structure, and Transform Teacher Reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52–67.

Santiago, R., Leh, A. et Nakayama, M. (2011). Designing Effective Online Group Discussions. Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Learning, 731–738.

Sherin, M. G. (2007). The development of teachers’ professional vision in video clubs. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 383-395). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

van Es, E. A. (2012). Examining the Development of a Teacher Learning Community: The Case of a Video Club. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 28(2), 182–192.

van Es, E. A. et Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244–276.

Wang, M. et Kang, M. (2006). Cybergogy for engaged learning : a framework for creating learner engagement through information and communication technology. In D. Hung et M. S. Khine (dir.), Engaged Learning with Emerging Technologies (p. 225-253). Dordrecht: Springer.

Yung, B. H. W., Yip, V. W. Y., Lai, C. et Lo, F. Y. (2010). Towards a model of effective use of video for teacher professional development. Communication presented at The International Seminar. York, UK, February.

Evolution of online interactions while observing classroom situations on video during a distance...

Education

Transcript of Evolution of online interactions while observing classroom situations on video during a distance...