Author(s):
Need: Science education has shifted from a focus on canonical correctness toward sensemaking (Campbell, 2016; NGSS Lead States, 2013). This shift requires teacher educators to help prospective teachers recognize and respond to students’ resources (Haverly et al., 2020; Nasir et al., 2006). However, when observing or analyzing classrooms, teacher candidates (TCs) often focus on teacher actions (Roth McDuffie et al., 2014) and on classroom management (Mitchell & Marin, 2015) rather than on students and their resources. This focus can prevent TCs from noticing students and their strengths (Feiman-Nemser, 2012). In response, teacher educators have explored video analysis as an activity for supporting noticing (Barnhart & van Es, 2020; Johnson & Mawyer, 2019; Santagata, 2009; van Es & Sherin, 2008). The affordances of video analysis—being able to pause, slow down, and reflect on moments of interactions (Grossman, 2009)—can help TCs notice moments and contributions that might otherwise be overlooked. Despite these affordances, what TCs notice during video analysis is influenced by how the activity is framed (Kang & van Es, 2019). In the context of science and mathematics teacher education, studies have explored a variety of approaches for focusing noticing on students’ strengths, including facilitator prompts (Barnhart & van Es, 2020), tools like graphic organizers (Johnson & Maywer, 2019), and discussion protocols (Jilk et al., 2016). Guiding Question: While structured approaches may scaffold TCs’ noticing, they may also limit learning by constraining discourse. To explore these tradeoffs, we compare two approaches for supporting TCs’ noticing of students’ strengths during video analysis. We analyze data from undergraduate elementary teacher candidates during and after their science methods course. From this data set, we compare two cases of video analysis: one with an open-ended, facilitator-mediated structure, and one that used a discussion protocol (adapted from Jilk et al., 2016). We ask: how did the two structures for video analysis (and the framing they provided) support TCs in noticing students’ strengths?Outcomes: W present two cases that illustrate how facilitation strategies influenced framing and discourse in video analysis. The first case describes facilitation with an open-ended protocol. The second case describes facilitation with a structured protocol adapted from Jilk et al. (2016). We will demonstrate how, in both cases, video analysis helped participants notice students’ strengths. However, the open-ended protocol, which was intended to promote agency for TCs, instead led to more facilitator intervention and discordant discourse. Instead, the structured protocol supported the TCs to focus on students’ resources and to question their own assumptions about students, science, and interactions, leading to collaborative discourse. Broader Impacts: We demonstrate the potential of structured protocols for supporting TCs in noticing student strengths. Even with such support, our data still include dominant narratives about teaching and learning, including an emphasis on teacher actions over student actions and an evaluative stance toward students. Still, our data also include examples of TCs shifting their attention toward students’ contributions and framing them as creative, generative, and “genius.” Such stances show the promise and potential for rearticulating dominant narratives.
Coauthors
Ashlyn Pierson, Ohio State; Sophia Jeong, Ohio State; Heather Johnson, Vanderbilt; Andrea Henrie, Vanderbilt
