This study of action research, authored by three colleagues teaching the same teacher-education methods course but from different content areas, involves teacher-candidates' use of self-recorded limited-access YouTube videos to make their microteachings accessible to the authors, each of whom was teaching candidates of her or his content expertise in an online-only section of the course. Analysis of the candidates' video-recorded microteachings and of their comments in online course postings found that the use of videos were helpful in fostering candidates' readiness for student-centered teaching with effective methods for their respective content areas. The authors/instructors also found that the data from the videos enriched their assessments of such readiness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenD.EveA. W. (1968). Microteaching. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
2.
BellT.UrhahneD.SchanzeS.PloetznerR. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377.
3.
BianchiniJ. (2008). Mary Budd Rowe: A storyteller of science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(4), 799–810.
4.
BulloughR. V.Jr. (2010). Proceed with caution: Interactive rules and teacher work sample scoring strategies, an ethnomethodological study. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 775–810.
5.
CleavelandA. A.CravenJ.DanfelserM. (1979). Universals of culture. Intercom, 92–93, 3–72.
6.
CreswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
FernandezC. (2010). Investigating how and what prospective teachers learn through microteaching lesson study. Teaching & Teacher Education, 26(2), 351–362.
8.
GengarellyL. M.AbramsE. D. (2009). Closing the gap: Inquiry in research and the secondary science classroom. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18(1), 74–84.
9.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
10.
GravesG. H.SulewskiC. A.DyeH. A.DeveansT. M.AgrasN. M.PearsonJ. (2009). How are you doing? Assessing effectiveness in teaching mathematics. PRIMUS, 19(2), 174–193.
11.
KipperH.RütmannT. (2010). Strategies and techniques of questioning effectuating thinking and deep understanding in teaching engineering at Estonian Centre for Engineering Pedagogy. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 19, 1936–1945.
12.
NakhlehM. (2002). Some thoughts about molecular-level representations in conceptual problem solving. 2002. ERIC. Retrieved June 4, 2011 from EBSCOhost
13.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2011). About National Council for the Social Studies. Retrieved June 7, 2011, from www.socialstudies.org/about
14.
National Council of Research (NCR). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
15.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principal and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
16.
National Research Council (NRC). (1998). High school mathematics at work: Essays and examples for the education of all students. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17.
O'ConnorE. (2010). The effect on learning, communication, and assessment when student-created YouTubes of microteaching were used in an online teacher-education course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(2), 135–154.
18.
O'ConnorE. (2011). The effect on learning, communication, and assessment when student-created YouTubes of microteaching were used in an online teacher-education course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 3(2), 120–134.
19.
SomekhB. (2006). Action research: A methodology for change and development. Berkshire, GBR: McGraw-Hill Education.
TreagustD. F.DuitR. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 297–328.
22.
WirthJ. F. (1975, December). The Christmas-present principle. Mathematics Teacher, 68, 636–639.
