Participating in discussions of classroom video can support teachers to attend to student thinking. Central to the success of these discussions is how teachers interpret the activity they are engaged in—how teachers frame what they are doing. In asynchronous online environments, negotiating framing poses challenges, given that interactions are not in real time and often require written text. We present findings from an online course designed to support teachers to frame video discussions as making sense of student thinking. In an engineering pedagogy course designed to emphasize responsiveness to students’ thinking, we documented shifts in teachers’ framing, with teachers more frequently making sense of, rather than evaluating, student thinking later in the course. These findings show that it is possible to design an asynchronous online course to productively engage teachers in video discussions and inform theory development in online teacher education.
BangM.BrownB.Calabrese BartonA.RoseberyA. S.WarrenB. (2017). Toward more equitable learning in science: Expanding relationships among students, teachers, and science practices. In SchwarzC. V.PassmoreC.ReiserB. J. (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 33–58). NSTA Press.
2.
BatesonG. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Balentine Books.
3.
BorkoH.JacobsJ.EiteljorgE.PittmanM. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.012
4.
BorkoH.JacobsJ.SeagoN.MangramC. (2014). Facilitating video-based professional development: Planning and orchestrating productive discussions. In LiY.SilverE. A.LiS. (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction (pp. 259–281). Springer.
5.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2012). Thematic analysis. In CooperH.CamicP. M.LongD. L.PanterA. T.RindskopfD.SherK. J. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.
6.
ChoppinJ.AmadorJ. M.CallardC.CarsonC.GillespieR. (2020). Synchronous online model for mathematics teachers’ professional development. In WachiraP.KeengweJ. (Eds.), Handbook of research on online pedagogical models for mathematics teacher education (pp. 176–202). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1476-4.ch011
7.
CoffeyJ. E.EdwardsA. R. (2015). The role subject matter plays in prospective teachers’ responsive teaching practices in elementary math and science. In RobertsonA. D.ScherrR. E.HammerD. (Eds.), Responsive teaching in science and mathematics (pp. 145–161). Routledge.
8.
CoffeyJ. E.HammerD.LevinD. M.GrantT. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109–1136.
DedeC.EisenkraftA.FruminK.HartleyA. (2016). Teacher learning in the digital age: Online professional development in STEM education. Harvard Education Press.
11.
DedeC.KetelhutD. J.WhitehouseP.BreitL.McCloskeyE. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108327554
12.
EricksonF. (2011). On noticing teacher noticing. In SherinM. G.JacobsV. R.PhilippR. A. (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing (pp. 47–64). Routledge.
13.
FishmanB.KonstantopoulosS.KubitskeyB. W.VathR.ParkG.JohnsonH.EdelsonD. C. (2013). Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professional development in the context of curriculum implementation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 426–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113494413
14.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
15.
GaudinC.ChalièsS. (2015). Video viewing in teacher education and professional development: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 16, 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.06.001
16.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
17.
GresalfiM.MartinT.HandV.GreenoJ. (2009). Constructing competence: An analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9141-5
18.
HammerD.van ZeeE. (2006). Seeing the science in children’s thinking: Case studies of student inquiry in physical science. Heinemann.
19.
HaverlyC.Calabrese BartonA.SchwarzC. V.BraatenM. (2020). “Making space”: How novice teachers create opportunities for equitable sense–making in elementary science. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118800706
20.
KangH.AndersonC. W. (2015). Supporting preservice science teachers’ ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design. Science Education, 99(5), 863–895. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21182
21.
KärkkäinenE. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on “I think.”John Benjamins.
22.
KazemiE.FrankeM. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 203–235.
23.
KocY.PekerD.OsmanogluA. (2009). Supporting teacher professional development through online video case study discussions: An assemblage of preservice and inservice teachers and the case teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1158–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.020
24.
LauM. (2010). Understanding the dynamics of teacher attention: Case studies of how high school physics and physical science teachers attend to student ideas. University of Maryland.
25.
LevinD. M.HammerD.CoffeyJ. E. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108330245
26.
LlinaresS.VallsJ. (2009). The building of pre-service primary teachers’ knowledge of mathematics teaching: Interaction and online video case studies. Instructional Science, 37, 247–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9043-4
LunaM. J.SherinM. G. (2017). Using a video club design to promote teacher attention to students’ ideas in science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.019
29.
MoonJ.PassmoreC.ReiserB. J.MichaelsS. (2013). Beyond comparisons of online versus face-to-face PD: Commentary in response to Fishman et al., “Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professional development in the context of curriculum implementation.”Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 172–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113511497
30.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Cross-Cutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academies Press.
31.
NemirovskyR.GalvisA. (2004). Facilitating grounded online interactions in video-case-based teacher professional development. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019639.06127.67
32.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.YamaguchiR.GallagherL. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308221
33.
PiersonJ. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning. University of Texas.
RobertsonA. D.ScherrR. E.HammerD. (2015). Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. Routledge.
36.
RoseberyA. S.WarrenB.Tucker-RaymondE. (2016). Developing interpretive power in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1571–1600. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21267
RussR. S. (2018). Characterizing teacher attention to student thinking: A role for epistemological messages. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 94–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21414
39.
RussR. S.LunaM. J. (2013). Inferring teacher epistemological framing from local patterns in teacher noticing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 284–314. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21063
40.
RussR. S.SherinM. G. (2013). Using interviews to explore student ideas in science. Science Scope, 36(5), 19–23.
41.
SandovalW. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3904_3
42.
ScherrR. E.HammerD. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 147–174.
SherinM. G.LinsenmeierK. A.van EsE. A. (2009). Selecting video clips to promote mathematics teachers’ discussion of student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109336967
45.
SherinM. G.RussR. S. (2014). Teacher noticing via video: The role of interpretive frames. In CalandraB.RichP. J. (Eds.), Digital video for teacher education (pp. 11–28). Routledge.
46.
SherinM. G.van EsE. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328155
47.
StarJ. R.StricklandS. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9063-7
48.
SunJ.van EsE. A. (2015). An exploratory study of the influence that analyzing teaching has on preservice teachers’ classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 201–214.
49.
TannenD. (1993). What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In TannenD. (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 14–56). Oxford University Press.
50.
TannenD.WallatC. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In TannenD. (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 57–76). Oxford University Press.
51.
Tekkumru-KisaM.SteinM. K. (2015). Learning to see teaching in new ways: A foundation for maintaining cognitive demand. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 105–136. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549452
52.
Tekkumru-KisaM.SteinM. K. (2017). A framework for planning and facilitating video-based professional development. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(28), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0086-z
53.
ThompsonJ.HagenahS.KangH.StroupeD.BraatenM.ColleyC.WindschitlM. (2016). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 118(1), 1–58.
54.
ValtortaC. G.BerlandL. K. (2015). Math, science, and engineering integration in a high school engineering course: A qualitative study. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1087
55.
van EsE. A. (2009). Participants’ roles in the context of a video club. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 100–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802581668
56.
van EsE. A.HandV.MercadoJ. (2017). Making visible the relationship between teachers’ noticing for equity and equitable teaching practice. In SchackE. O.FisherM. H.WilhelmJ. A. (Eds.), Teacher noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks (pp. 251–270). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46753-5
57.
van EsE. A.SherinM. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.005
58.
van EsE. A.SherinM. G. (2010). The influence of video clubs on teachers’ thinking and practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-009-9130-3
59.
van EsE. A.TunneyJ.GoldsmithL. T.SeagoN. (2014). A framework for the facilitation of teachers’ analysis of video. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 340–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114534266
60.
WalkoeJ. (2015). Exploring teacher noticing of student algebraic thinking in a video club. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(6), 523–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9289-0
61.
WatkinsJ.McCormickM. E.MiltoE.PortsmoreM.SpencerK.WendellK. B.HammerD. (2018). Data-based conjectures for supporting responsive teaching in engineering design with elementary teachers. Science Education, 102(3), 548–570. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21334
62.
WendellK. B.WatkinsJ.JohnsonA. W. (2016). Noticing, assessing, and responding to students’ engineering: Exploring a responsive teaching approach to engineering design [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 123rd American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA, United States.
63.
WendellK. B.WrightC.PaughP. (2017). Engineering design as reflective decision-making: How elementary school students make collaborative planning and redesign choices during formal engineering learning experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 356–397.
64.
WindschitlM.ThompsonJ.BraatenM.StroupeD. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21027
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
