Teaching is a complex, demanding, multifaceted profession (Cochran-Smith, 2003). Professional learning can serve as a support for helping teachers to understand more clearly instructional practices that support student learning and development (Darling-Hammond et el., 2009). Professional learning can also provide space for teachers to reflect on their own teaching and practice skills to improve their teaching (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995).
Due to the complexity of teaching, this is a process of continuous improvement. Yet, asking teachers to implement instructional strategies that are new to them presents numerous challenges. Barriers to change relate to teacher knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Guskey, 2002), as well as external factors such as school scheduling, curriculum pacing, and planning time (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Bullard & Bahar, 2023).
Integrating a new instructional practice that also involves understanding new content or considering instructional practices new to the field requires teachers to expand their pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986). One promising practice to support teachers seeking to shift to a new instructional practice is the use of video in professional development, either by using video cases as a professional learning activity or by structuring the professional learning as a video club (Chen et al., 2020). Video cases include the use of pre-selected, edited videos of teachers other than those in the professional development session (Arya et al., 2014) versus video clubs which consist of teachers recording their own classrooms and meeting with peers to review and reflect on these videos (Luna & Sherin, 2017).
The use of videos, those of teachers’ own classrooms or videos of other teachers teaching, to support in-service teachers in professional development has existed for decades (e.g., Borko et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2020; Sherin & Han, 2004; van Es & Sherin, 2010). Prior studies have shown the ability of video to be used in professional learning to support teacher noticing, discussing and analyzing student thinking and improved teacher flexibility in response to noticing students’ thinking (Sherin & Han, 2004; Walkoe et al., 2020).
Researchers and scholars have argued that video allows teachers to explore the intricacies of teaching and learning in classrooms in a manner more deliberate than observing a live classroom, as videos can be stopped, slowed down, and rewatched (Brophy, 2004; Sherin, 2004). Yet, video as a means of professional development is not used as much as it could be, given the challenges with timing, teacher focus when watching videos, and selecting which parts of videos to analyze (Blomberg et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2020; Erickson, 2007).
Past systematic reviews of the literature have suggested the widespread exploration of video to support preservice teacher training and in-service teacher professional development. For example, Gaudin and Chaliès (2015) analyzed the use of video in preservice or in-service teacher training in publications (i.e., articles, chapters, and conference proceedings) between 2003 and 2013. They found most studies focused on in-service or preservice teacher training demonstrated positive effects of engaging with video. The researchers supported video as a means of teacher training but cautioned that to enact a change in teaching practice one needed to consider how to structure the viewing of the video and the activities surrounding the video viewing.
Marsh and Mitchell (2014) conducted a systematic review across 20-plus years focused on the use of video specifically for in-service teacher professional development. They suggested that the existing literature on video use in teacher professional development supports video use as a means for teachers to observe the complexity of teaching and classrooms. Marsh and Mitchell also argued for videos over written cases because videos provide more realistic scenarios that prevent ambiguous presentations and interpretations. While highlighting the positive literature on video use in teacher professional development, Marsh and Mitchell noted its limitations over actual classroom observations, including the single view videos capture versus classroom observations where the viewer can choose to watch the teacher or the students.
Finally, Major and Watson (2018) conducted a scoping review investigating video to support in-service teacher professional development from 2005 to 2015. They found that many of the studies exploring video use in teacher professional development involved teachers collectively watching videos, often referred to as video clubs. Video clubs are a specific approach to professional learning during which groups of teachers collectively watch, analyze, and discuss videos of teaching or classrooms (Sherin & Han, 2004). While the videos are often of the teachers’ own classrooms, it is not always essential (Arya et al., 2014).
Researchers have suggested that video clubs support professional development as they facilitate community among teachers, promote reflection and inquiry, and encourage teachers to engage with each other about pedagogy and practice (Sherin & Han, 2004; Wilson & Berne, 1999; Wineburg & Grossman, 1998). Major and Watson (2018) also articulated the need for stronger quality or rigor within the research base of video and in-service teacher professional development, in that only about a quarter of their studies examined the efficacy of the video for professional development. They noted a strong focus on mathematics or multiple subjects within the existing literature, but overall supported that their findings were consistent with prior reviews regarding videos as a professional development option.
While many systematic reviews exist exploring video for teacher learning, including in-service teacher development, they often focus on video generally (Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015; Major & Watson, 2018; Marsh & Mitchell, 2014). The analysis reported in this article examined video cases and video clubs specifically as the means for providing in-service teacher development within the last 11 years, as we focused on the more recent research, given that multiple reviews or syntheses exist that capture earlier work. This systematic review sought to answer the following research question: What is the state of the literature on the use of video in professional in-service teacher learning?
Method
We reviewed existing literature studies published between 2014 and 2025 relative to video cases and clubs and in-service teachers. We sought to include studies in published outlets that focused on the use of video clubs and cases as a professional development tool with in-service teachers. Included studies were empirical works investigating the role of classroom instruction videos as a part of professional development for in-service teachers. They excluded nonempirical research studies (e.g., reviews, commentary, conceptual, or practitioner articles). Articles involving fictional video cases were also excluded as we sought to investigate the use of authentic classroom instruction. We also excluded published studies that asked teachers to review video for purposes other than professional learning or that did not include in-service teachers as the main population studied. Finally, we excluded studies not published in peer-reviewed outlets, including dissertations and proceedings.
Article Selection
We employed multiple methods to search and select articles, following standard systematic review methods as documented in Figure 1 (Page et al., 2021). First, we conducted database keyword searches, searching Sage, EBSCO, ERIC, and PsychInfo databases. We employed Boolean search term combinations of video club(s) and video case(s) in our searches (see Table 1 for a complete list of search terms). We also searched specific journals, Teaching and Teacher Education and Journal of Teacher Education, using the same term combinations. These journals were selected because they focus on teacher growth and professional development.
Figure 1
PRISMA for Video Clubs or Cases for Inservice Teachers
Table 1
Search Term Combinations
| Category | Search term |
|---|---|
| “video club” | “video club” + “inservice teachers” “video club” + “inservice teacher” “video club” + “in-service teachers” “video club” + “in-service teacher,” |
| “video clubs” | “video clubs” + “inservice teachers” “video clubs” + “inservice teacher” “video clubs” + “in-service teachers” “video clubs” + “in-service teacher” |
| “video case” | “video case” + “inservice teachers” “video case” + “inservice teacher” “video case” + “in-service teachers” “video case” + “in-service teacher” |
| “video cases” | “video cases” + “inservice teachers” “video cases” + “inservice teacher “video cases” + “in-service teachers” “video cases” + “in-service teacher” |
| “videocase” | “videocase” + “inservice teachers” “videocase” + “inservice teacher” “videocase” + “in-service teacher” “videocase” + “in-service teachers” |
| “videocases” | “videocases” + “inservice teachers” “videocases” + “inservice teacher” “videocases” + “in-service teacher” “videocases” + “in-service teachers” |
For articles located via either the keyword database or keyword journal search, we initially screened the title and abstract to apply the first level inclusion criteria. As noted, we only included empirical research, articles involving footage from actual classrooms (not fictional videos), and in-service teachers as the study’s participants, as well as articles that were published in the English language. We excluded any duplicates found across the different searches. Articles excluded in the initial screening were not further evaluated or put forth for a full article review. During the full article review phase, we read the whole article and applied the aforementioned inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any articles that met these criteria were put forth for a full review.
After the full article screening phase, we engaged in an ancestral search (McKenna, 2024), in which we examined the reference list for all of the included articles to determine if any should be screened for inclusion. We also conducted a forward search (Foo et al., 2021), in which we found any articles that cited the articles kept for inclusion and examined if these articles should be screened for inclusion. Any articles located in the ancestral or forward searches were examined in a similar fashion — with the initial screening and full screening, as appropriate.
Article Quality
As part of the full review of identified articles, we conducted a quality review of each study, employing the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, Hong et al., 2018). Using this technique, we evaluated each study to determine if it met the following five criteria:
- Stated research questions or purpose,
- Clear reporting of methods,
- Clear reporting of findings,
- Alignment between research question(s) and study design, and
- Description of participants.
We concluded that the 17 selected articles met these five criteria.
Article Coding
We coded each article for nine factors (Table 2). The first author Dunbar first independently coded each article. Author Bouck and Coenraad reviewed 18.75% (n = 3) of the article coding. Any disagreement about coding was resolved through discussion. While the three codes related to research design were determined a priori, the remaining six codes were identified inductively after selection of the included studies.
Table 2
Categories and Codes Used in Analysis
| Category | Code |
|---|---|
| Source of the video used in the video interactions | participants’ classrooms classrooms external to the participants |
| Who selected the video | facilitators participants |
| Format of video interaction | group discussion led by a facilitator group discussion led by participants individual reflection led by a facilitator individual reflection done independently |
| Cadence of video interactions | once weekly monthly intermittently |
| Focus of the video | teachers students |
| Goal of video interaction | teacher knowledge/readiness teacher noticing and meaning making instructional change |
| Outcome | coded to specific outcomes in each study |
| Research design | quantitative qualitative mixed methods |
| Participants | grade subject area sample size |
| Study setting | research study college course professional learning across schools professional learning within a school |
Codes related to research design included the setting for the study (research study, college course, professional learning across schools, and professional learning within a school), research methods (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods), and participants (grade, subject area, and sample size). Codes related to the design of the video interactions included the source of the videos used in the video discussions(teacher’s classrooms external or internal to the group), who selected the videos (facilitators or participants), the format of video interaction (group discussion led by a facilitator, group discussion led by participants, individual reflection led by a facilitator, or individual reflection done independently), and the cadence of video discussions (once, weekly, monthly, or intermittently). The focus of videos (teachers and students) and goal of video discussion (teacher knowledge/readiness, teacher noticing and meaning making, and instructional change) were also coded for each study. Additionally, we identified specific outcomes reported in each study.
Results
We accepted 17 articles for inclusion in this systematic literature review (appendix). All 17 of the identified studies met the MMAT criteria for quality. Of the 17 studies, 12 were conducted in the United States (Alonzo & Kim, 2018; Arya et al., 2014; Bates et al., 2016; Ellis et al., 2015; Gonzalez et al., 2016; Kerkhoff, 2020; Kim et al., 2020; Luna & Sherin, 2017; Van Es et al., 2014; Walsh et al., 2020), one in Belgium (Bouten et al., 2023), two in China (Chen et al., 2020; Lin, 2025), one in Germany (Reuker, 2017), and one in Turkey (Güler & Celik, 2022). Across the 17 studies, over 389 teachers participated, although one study failed to report the total number of participants in one portion of their study (Van Es, 2014). The studies included a range of content (e.g., math, science, and literacy), age groups (e.g., K-12, secondary, and elementary), as well as settings (e.g., college course and professional development).
The frequency of the group discussion varied, including weekly, biweekly, monthly, and single sessions. The videos selected in the 17 studies included ones from the participants’ classrooms, as well as classrooms external to the participants. In six of the studies, group discussion of the video was led by a facilitator, in four studies group discussion was led by participants, in three studies participants reflected individually with the assistance of a facilitator, and in four studies video viewers reflected on the video individually.
The Use of Scaffolds to Support Discussion and Reflection on Videos
In this literature review, we identified that six studies that examined the kinds of observations and reflections teachers made when discussing and reflecting on videos of classrooms. The researchers of these studies found that without specific guidance or scaffolds, teachers mainly provided positive comments focused on teacher actions. For instance, Ellis et al. (2015) noticed that in an online teacher induction program, secondary math and science teachers’ annotations of videos of their peer’s classrooms mainly offered praise or agreement. Of the 167 annotations analyzed in this study, 98 annotations were coded as “praise/agreement.” Participants left comments such as “Good movement around the room. You make sure to see everyone in the classroom.”
In McFadden et al.’s (2014) study of beginning science teachers participating in an online teacher induction program, teachers recorded videos of themselves teaching and then annotated the video. The instructions were to annotate a moment of teaching connected to their goals and make a comment “focus[ed] on instruction” and make “other teaching practices they noticed” (p. 462). Without more scaffolded instructions, the researchers found participants primarily made annotations related to describing and explaining their actions in the video with a subset of teachers taking a more reflective stance with annotations that included interpretation and evaluation.
Similarly, in the Bates et al. (2016) study, participants independently reviewed and reflected upon classroom videos from an online library of classroom videos involving elementary mathematics. When not prompted to focus on student thinking, participants’ evaluation of the selected videos was mainly positive and descriptive. However, when provided prompts related to student thinking (such as “What did you notice about students’ mathematical thinking?” and “What did you notice about how the teacher supported students’ mathematical thinking?”), participants offered reflective, evaluative comments related to pedagogy.
The use of a lesson analysis framework was supportive for novice mathematics teachers to elaborate and use evidence in their video analysis discussions (Güler & Celik, 2022). The lesson analysis framework asks participants to consider four aspects while reflecting on the classroom video: (a) identify lesson learning goals, (b) analyze student learning and thinking (c) use analysis to propose improvements to teaching, and (d) construct hypotheses about the effects on students’ learning. Using this framework, participants’ comments moved from abstract commentary to specific statements based on evidence in the videos.
Role of Facilitators in Video Discussion and Reflection
The role of the facilitator in professional learning that uses classroom video was the focus of five studies in this literature review. Van Es et al. (2014) reviewed discussion of classroom video in two different professional learning settings with mathematics teachers. By analyzing when in the discussion the facilitator used specific prompts or questions and how those prompts or questions led to more evaluative and reflective discussion, the authors identified four facilitator moves: (a) orienting the group to the video analysis task, (b) sustaining an inquiry stance, (c) maintaining a focus on the video and the mathematics, and (d) supporting group collaboration.
In their study with science teachers, Alonzo and Kim (2018) concluded that group discussion is important to support teachers with weak content knowledge or who need support with a more nuanced interpretation of student thinking. The elaborated focus question framework in which teachers were asked to reflect on these questions included, “What did you notice about student thinking expressed in the video?” and “How might you respond to the student thinking expressed in the video?” along with multiple subquestions. Alonzo and Kim determined this elaborated focus question framework approach was beneficial to draw teachers’ attention to student science thinking and making connections between student thinking and instructional practices seeing significant improvement in supporting evidence of student thinking.
Kim et al. (2020) also used the TRU framework, which centers on student mathematical thinking, to support group participant video discussions. Use of the TRU framework in this study supported teacher talk related to student thinking. In two different studies (Arya et al., 2014; Gonzalez et al., 2016), researchers found that when facilitators took a scaffolded approach to discussion, beginning with recall questions and following with evaluative questions, teacher discussion stayed focused on noticing and meaning making.
The Use of Goal Setting in Reflection on Videos
Two of the studies in this literature review sought to understand the role of teacher goal setting in the depth of video discussion and reflection. In Ceven McNally’s (2016) study of early career science teachers, teachers set a goal prior to collecting video from their classroom. The postlesson discussion centered on this goal, with the video serving as evidence for the discussion. Ceven McNally found that having the selected goal along with evidence in the form of video resulted in discussions that involved how teachers’ actions influenced students’ science thinking.
Walsh et al. (2020) determined that selecting foci for videos led teachers to concentrate increasingly on the relationship between teacher prompts and student thinking. Quantitative analysis of the qualitative data collected from the teacher-facilitator discussions from the first video discussion to the third video discussion revealed teachers provided more elaborated, evidence-based responses during discussions over time.
The Role of Video Collection and Reporting Tools
The manner in which video was collected, annotated and visualized was the subject of five studies in this literature review. In Luna and Sherin’s (2017) study of science teachers noticing student thinking, the researchers selected a point-of-view camera that teachers wore, creating videos that were student facing. The use of videos recording student responses facilitated teachers focusing on students thinking during their video discussions, which was sustained throughout the multiple meetings of the video club and supported by facilitators’ comments related to student thinking. Similarly, Reuker (2017) found by selecting videos that were student facing video discussion was primarily about student actions with fewer observations about teacher actions.
In studies where the intention of the professional development was on teacher knowledge and readiness, video that focused on the teacher was well-aligned with the goal of the professional learning. In video discussion related to teacher’s global competence, Kerkhoff (2020) described how the use of a shared online graphic organizer designed by the facilitator paired with videos of teachers teaching global competence lessons allowed participants to reflect on video case studies of teachers implementing global competency standards. Participants shared in interviews that reviewing the video case was the most helpful part of the course for increasing their confidence in enacting global competency standards. Bouten et al. (2023) explored a video annotation tool that supported teacher self-reflection on their motivating style in physical education. They concluded that while physical education teachers reported the video annotation tool was easy to use and helpful for their self-reflection about motivation, the teachers reported that recording and uploading their own video was difficult and time consuming.
Chen et al. (2020) developed a video annotation and visualization tool that asked teachers to identify four goals and eight examples of teacher moves that promoted academically productive talk. Teachers in the professional development noted instances of these eight moves using the video annotation tool and reflected on how these moves were used. As a result of using this tool, teachers increased their use of these teacher moves to promote academically productive talk. The authors concluded the use of this video annotation tool with the focus on these specific teacher moves and resulting visualizations supported teachers in increasing their use of these teacher moves.
Discussion
In this literature review, we sought to answer the question, “What is the state of the literature on the use of video in professional in-service teacher learning?” The results of this literature review indicate the use of video cases and clubs continues to be positively framed as a method of professional learning, as established in previous literature reviews about video cases and clubs (Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015; Linden et al., 2022; Major & Watson, 2018). All 17 papers reviewed in this study indicated positive outcomes for teachers’ professional learning, including teachers’ meaning-making of student thinking, teacher knowledge and readiness in topics like global competency, and fostering change in instructional practices. Further, all 17 articles met the MMAT criteria for quality.
We also found that the existing literature on video cases and clubs rarely evaluated the results of the study in terms of efficacy of professional learning, as noted in earlier literature reviews (Major & Watson, 2018). Instead, studies about video cases and clubs between 2014 and 2024 focused on specific aspects of participant discussions, facilitator strategies, and depth of participant reflection. Only two studies addressed the extent to which the professional learning experience led to instructional change (Ceven McNally, 2016; Chen at al., 2020). These findings are consistent with a large amount of educational research that fails to tie professional learning to student outcomes (Ventista & Brown, 2023). While prior literature reviews noted a predominance of video cases and club research related to mathematics (Major & Watson, 2018), the 17 studies included in this review were spread across several content areas. The wider range of content areas included in the study of video cases and clubs represents a shift from prior literature reviews.
Consistent with prior systematic literature reviews on video cases and clubs, in this literature review, we found that videos offer affordances for providing evidence-based means to discuss student thinking and instructional practices (Major & Watson, 2018; Marsh & Mitchell, 2014) In several of the studies in this review, facilitators and teachers found it supportive to refer to the video to explain or justify their thinking (Bouten, 2023; Kim et al., 2020; Luna & Sharin, 2017). Researchers concluded facilitators directed participants to specific parts of the video (Gonzalez et al., 2016), encouraged teachers to refer to the video when making claims (Van Es et al., 2014), or used embedded annotation devices to direct their reflections to specific moments in the videos (Chen et al., 2020; Ellis et al., 2015). These facilitations can lead to more productive discussion of teaching practices as discussion can be grounded in what actually happened, was done or was said, and not the participants’ perception of what happened.
Many studies examined in this systematic literature review investigated the role of the facilitator (Alonzo & Kim, 2018; Bates et al., 2016; Gonzalez et al., 2016; Van Es et al., 2014; Walsh et al., 2020). Findings suggest that facilitators’ familiarity with the videos used for discussion, coupled with their ability to craft meaningful prompts, supports more purposeful and productive discussions. Facilitators can scaffold questions to direct participants’ attention to certain teacher moves or evidence of student thinking (van Es et al., 2014). Facilitators can also develop discussion frameworks and reflection tools to direct discussion and reflection on the stated goal of the video discussion group (Alonzo & Kim, 2018; Güler & Celik, 2022; Kerkhoff 2020;). In addition, facilitators can preview videos and select segments that highlight key moments in the video (van Es et al., 2014).
Implications for Practice and Professional Development
The results of this systematic literature review point to important considerations for designing professional learning opportunities for in-service teachers in terms of the selection of videos, the role of the facilitator, and the structure of independent or group video reflection. First, the studies reviewed indicated the importance of aligning the kind of video used in professional learning to the goal of the professional learning. If the purpose is to identify promising instructional practices, videos that focus on the teachers can support this discussion and reflection on teacher moves. If the purpose of the professional learning is for the participants to consider how students make meaning of content, videos focusing on students, student talk, and student interactions would likely be more beneficial.
While there is increasing interest in teachers leading professional learning, this review suggested a facilitator can be important for the selection of the videos and prompting reflection and discussion among the participants. Facilitators are able to review classroom videos to preselect key moments in the video that will lead to rich discussion. It is time consuming to review videos and select video segments for discussion, time which classroom teachers rarely have. The facilitator can play an important role by reviewing and selecting these passages before professional learning.
The researchers in these studies also suggest the importance of structuring the reflection and discussion of participants (Arya et al., 2014; Gonzalez et al., 2016; Kerkhoff, 2020; Luna & Sherin, 2017; Van Es et al., 2014). In studies examining asynchronous review of classroom videos that had little structuring of reflection and discussion, participants often posted feedback and comments that were largely positive and related to classroom management observations (Bates et al., 2016; McFadden et al., 2014). In studies where more scaffolded approaches to reflection and discussion were used, reflection and discussion moved past positive observations examining management and deepened into more provocative wonderings and consideration of how teachers were — or were not — advancing student thinking (Arya et al., 2014; Chen et al, 2020; Gonzalez et al., 2016; Güler & Celik, 2022).
For instance, beginning with requesting participants to describe what they say in the video passages and then asking them to consider how the teacher’s instructional moves related to student thinking prompts participants to go beyond only complimenting or noticing classroom management to thinking critically about how a lesson’s design might deepen student thinking. When planning professional learning with videos, creating a process of structured reflection and discussion may lead to more in-depth conversations related to instructional change.
Limitations and Future Directions
This systematic literature review of video cases and clubs has several limitations. First, because the review included only studies that used videos as video cases or clubs, we may have excluded studies that used video as part of professional learning (e.g., the use of explanatory videos). Second, 23 excluded studies related to preservice teachers, which may have resulted in eliminating studies that could have further informed this literature review. We also chose not to include dissertations, theses, or contact authors for unpublished work because they are not peer reviewed.
This review indicates several directions for future research. More research is needed that investigates the impact of professional learning on student outcomes, such as studies that include classroom observation, student assessment data, or student interviews. This line of study could be particularly important in the emerging area of video coaching, in which teachers are setting goals and reviewing videos of their own teaching with an instructional coach. Additionally, as teachers seek professional learning that is just-in-time and not just in formal settings (Copur-Gencturk & Orrill, 2023), more research is needed about how to structure online video libraries in ways that support teacher professional learning in deep and meaningful ways. Studies that consider how teachers search for, access, and reflect on classroom video are needed as video sharing platforms proliferate.
Author Note:
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant 2318167 and Grant 2318168.
References
References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the literature review.
*Alonzo, A. C., & Kim, J. (2018). Affordances of video-based professional development for supporting physics teachers’ judgments about evidence of student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.008
An, Y. J., & Reigeluth, C. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784681
*Arya, P., Christ, T., & Chiu, M. M. (2014). Facilitation and teacher behaviors: An analysis of literacy teachers’ video-case discussions. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113511644
*Bates, M. S., Phalen, L., & Moran, C. G. (2016). If you build it, will they reflect? Examining teachers’ use of an online video-based learning website. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.04.004
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.
Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eitelijorg, E., & Pittman, M. 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
*Bouten, A., Haerens, L., Van Doren, N., Compernolle, S., & De Cocker, K. (2023). An online video annotation tool for optimizing secondary teachers’ motivating style: Acceptability, usability, and feasibility. Teaching and Teacher Education, 134, 104307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104307
Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2004). Using video in teacher education. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bullard, A. J., & Bahar, A. K. (2023). Common barriers in teaching for creativity in K-12 classrooms: A literature review. Journal of Creativity, 33(1), 100045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100045
*Ceven McNally, J. (2016). Learning from one’s own teaching: New science teachers analyzing their practice through classroom observation cycles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 473-501. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21253
Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). The unforgiving complexity of teaching: Avoiding simplicity in the age of accountability. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 3-5.
Copur-Gencturk, Y., & Orrill, C. H. (2023). A promising approach to scaling up professional development: intelligent, interactive, virtual professional development with just-in-time feedback. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, (December) 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-023-09615-1
*Chen, G., Chan, C. K. K., Chan, K. H., Clarke, S. N., & Resnick, L. B. (2020). Efficacy of video-based teacher professional development for increasing classroom discourse and student learning. Journal of Learning Sciences, 29(4-5), 642-680. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1783269
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(02)00053-7
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. National Staff Development Council.
*Ellis, J., McFadden, J., Anwar, T., & Roehrig, G. (2015). Investigating the social interactions of beginning teachers using a video annotation tool. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 404-421. https://citejournal.org/volume-15/issue-3-15/general/investigating-the-social-interactions-of-beginning-teachers-using-a-video-annotation-tool/
Erickson, F. (2007). Ways of seeing video. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 145–155). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fink, A. (2019). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Sage.
Foo, Y. Z., O’Dea, R. E., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., & Lagisz, M. (2021). A practical guide to question formation, systematic searching and study screening for literature reviews in ecology and evolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 12(9), 1705-1720.
Gaudin, C., & Chalies, S. (2015). Video viewing in teacher education and professional development: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 16(October 2015), 41-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.06.001
*González, G., Deal, J. T., & Skultety, L. (2016). Facilitating teacher learning when using different representations of practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(5), 447-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116669573
*Güler, M., & Celik, D. (2022). Supporting novice mathematics teachers: The impact of e-mentoring on lesson analysis skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 113, 103658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103658
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381-391.
Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-180221
*Kerkhoff, S. (2020). Collaborative video case studies and online instruments for self-reflection in global teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 341–351. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/216212/
*Kim, Y., Bonaccorso, V. D., Mohamed, M. M., Leonard, H. S., DiNapoli, J., & Murray, E. (2020). Analyzing teacher learning in a community of practice centered on video cases of mathematics teaching. In A. I. Sacristán, J. C. Cortés-Zavala, & P. M. Ruiz-Arias (Eds.), Mathematics education across cultures: Proceedings of the 42nd meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Mexico. Cinvestav / AMIUTEM / PME-NA. https:/doi.org/10.51272/pmena.42.2020
* Lin, Y. (2025). Integrating video analysis to enhance collaborative reflection in lesson study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 165, 105167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105167
*Luna, M. J., & Sherin, M. 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
Marsh, B., & Mitchell, N. (2014). The role of video in teacher professional development. Teacher Development, 18(3), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2014.938106
Marsh, B., Mitchell, N., & Adamczyk, P. (2010). Interactive video technology: Enhancing professional learning in initial teacher education. Computers & Education, 54(3), 742-748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.011
Major, L., & Watson, S. (2018). Using video to support in-service teacher professional development: The state of the field, limitations, and possibilities. Teaching, Pedagogy, and Education, 27(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1361469
*McFadden, J., Ellis, J., Anwar, T., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Beginning science teachers’ use of a digital video annotation tool to promote reflective practices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 458-470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9476-2
McKenna, J. W. (2024). Systematic literature reviews. In B. Hott, F. Brigham, & C. Peltier (Eds.), Research methods in special education (pp. 89-111). Routledge.
Mills, K., Coenraad, M., Ruiz, P., Burke, Q., & Weisgrau, J. (2021). Computational thinking for an inclusive world: a resource for educators to learn and lead [White paper]. Digital Promise. https://doi.org/10.51388/20.500.12265/138
Murray, S., Ma, X., & Mazur, J. (2009). Effects of peer coaching on teachers’ collaborative interactions and students’ mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 102(3), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.3.203-212
Ozogul, G., Olina, Z., & Sullivan, H. (2008). Teacher, self and peer evaluation of lesson plans written by preservice teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9012-7
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., Mulrow, C., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J., Akl, E., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., et al. (2020). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372(71) doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
*Reuker, S. (2017). The noticing of physical education teachers: a comparison of groups with different expertise. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(2), 150-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2016.1157574
Sherin, M. G. (2004). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 1–28). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2004), 163-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.08.001
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860
Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2010). The influence of video clubs on teachers’ thinking and practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(2010), 155-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-009-9130-3
*Van Es, E. A., Tunney, J., Goldsmith, L. T., & Seago, N. (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
Ventista, O. M., & Brown, C. (2023). Teachers’ professional learning and its impact on students’ learning outcomes: Findings from a systematic review. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1), 100565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114534266
Walkoe, J., Sherin, M., & Elby, A. (2020). Video tagging as a window into teacher noticing. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23(4), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09429-0
*Walsh, M., Matsumura, L. C., Zook-Howell, D., Correnti, R., & Bickel, D. D. (2020). Video-based literacy coaching to develop teachers’ professional vision for dialogic classroom text discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89(March), 103001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103001
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In A.I ran-Nejad, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 24, pp. 173–210). American Educational Research Association.
Wineburg, S., & Grossman, P. (1998). Creating a community of learners among high school teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5), 350–353.
Appendix
Video Cases and Clubs Study Characteristics and Coding
