A recent review of the literature has shown that digital video is getting used as a serious component of teacher education and professional development worldwide and across disciplines (Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015). A growing body of scholarly work has indicated that some attributes of digital video could also be particularly well-suited for preservice teachers’ (PSTs’) reflective practice (Brophy, 2004; Calandra & Rich, 2014; Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015).
Digital video provides PSTs with the power to capture, edit, annotate, review, and share evidence of private teaching practice during a tangible and authentic format. In other words, with digital video, a PST can capture the “richness and complexity of classroom activity” (Gaudin & Chalies, 2015, p. 43) then learn from it through analyzing, discussing, deconstructing, and reconstructing the captured events, which is analogous to how reflective teacher learning has been described within the past (Shulman, 1987). The affordances provided by digital video can provide PSTs with opportunities for learning that are situated in practice, something supported in teacher education generally (Putnam & Borko, 2000; Shulman, 1987; Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000), and teacher education more specifically (Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008; Yerrick, Ross, & Molebash, 2005). additionally , many researchers have found digital video to be an efficient tool for helping teachers to find out from and link to their own teaching practice (Calandra, 2014; Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015; Rich, & Hannafin, 2008; Seidel, Blomberg, & Renkel, 2013; Seidel, Sturmer, Blomberg, Kobarg, & Schwindt, 2011; Sun & Van Es, 2015; Van Es & Sherin, 2010).
As a part of this body of labor , some researchers are examining a process of teacher reflection that has editing digital video of one’s own teaching for critical teaching incidents then writing guided reflection papers (Calandra, 2014). In one among these critical incident reflection studies, the researchers compared the standard of guided reflection papers written either with or without video support (Calandra, Brantley-Dias, Lee & Fox, 2009). within the 2009 paper, it had been reported that participants who edited video of their own teaching then later wrote guided reflection papers, wrote longer, more meaningful, and more pedagogically connected papers than did their counterparts who engaged within the same guided reflection, but without capturing or editing video. Although the Calandra et al. (2009) study found evidence that participants were capturing and editing video of their own teaching at some point before writing reflection papers, the PSTs were allowed to write down their reflection papers reception , meaning that there was no reliable evidence of whether or once they mentioned the video clips during their reflective writing.
Less are often found within the academic literature about the utilization of audio recordings for PSTs’ reflective practice. Accordingly, the impact of sound recording “on preservice teachers is comparatively unknown compared to previous studies and extensive applications of video-recording” (Bergman, 2015, p. 129). Audio recordings of both teaching episodes and reflective discussions are utilized successfully in some studies as a way to stimulate PSTs brooding about their instructional strategies and pedagogical content knowledge (Hofer & Grandgenet, 2012; Jong, Van Driel, & Verloop, 2005). One question that’s not addressed in these studies, however, is whether or not and why audio instead of video recordings could also be more or less likely to support PSTs’ reflective practice. this is often a crucial question to ask, because there’s an outsized body of literature that supports the utilization of video for PSTs’ reflective practice, and since digital video is nowadays easier to support in teacher education contexts than within the past (Calandra, 2014).
Bergman (2015) compared how the utilization of audio recordings and video recordings of PST’s own teaching affected their reflective writing. a part of Bergman’s rational for trying audio was that video their own teaching may cause increased participant anxiety, privacy issues, and technical challenges. additionally , Bergman claimed that audio could also be a less demanding and more user-friendly medium for teachers to use while writing reflections or multitasking in other ways. Bergman found that, generally, there was no large difference in reflections across media groups, but the video group paid significantly more attention in written reflections to teacher movement and nonverbal behaviors than the audio group did.
Bergman (2015) also suggested that the few students from the audio group who mentioned movement and gestures within the ir reflections may are doing it from memory instead of from what they heard in the recording; thus, he suggested, “it would be insightful to use an identical study design to find out if preservice teachers using audio-recordings score closer to those using video-recordings or to those basing their reflections on memory alone” (p. 136).
The purpose of the present study was to look at what happened when a gaggle of PSTs used video prompts, audio prompts, or memory alone during a guided reflective writing exercise. This exploratory study used the subsequent research question: Is there a difference within the sort of guided written reflections PSTs produce when immediately prompted by either video recordings of a critical teaching incident, audio recordings of a critical teaching incident, or memory of the critical teaching incident alone?