{"id":8921,"date":"2019-09-18T21:02:27","date_gmt":"2019-09-18T21:02:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2020-02-24T16:21:21","modified_gmt":"2020-02-24T16:21:21","slug":"the-use-and-utility-of-video-representations-in-early-social-studies-field-experiences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-19\/issue-4-19\/social-studies\/the-use-and-utility-of-video-representations-in-early-social-studies-field-experiences","title":{"rendered":"The Use and Utility of Video Representations in Early Social Studies Field Experiences"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Major reform efforts in teacher\neducation over the last decade have focused on improving the quality of field\nexperiences (American Association of Colleges for Teacher\nEducation, 2018; National\nCouncil for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010; National Research Council, 2010). In many cases,\nreform agendas featured attempts to increase the quantity of time candidates\nspent in classrooms (Darling-Hammond, 2014). Merely accumulating more hours in\nthe field, however, does not automatically result in high-quality learning-to-teach\nexperiences. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Field experiences are complex ecosystems that require intentional and skilled navigation by teacher candidates and program personnel (Cuenca & Benko, 2017; Valencia, Martin, Place, & Grossman, 2009). Consequently, a more productive reform route for teacher education might focus on surfacing the features of field experiences that yield greater opportunities to learn to teach. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper focuses on the aspects\nof field experiences that contribute to teacher learning. More specifically, we\ndescribe the perspectives of preservice teachers during an early field\nexperience semester in a secondary social studies teacher education program.\nOstensibly, as an introduction to teaching and learning, early field\nexperiences have an important place within the curriculum of teacher education.\nYet, research is sparse on how candidates\u2019 experiences in early field\nexperiences promote (or fail to promote) learning to teach (Clift & Brady,\n2005). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study described here focused\non the use of video representations as a tool to promote learning about\nteaching during an early field experience. We engaged in our inquiry by asking\nthe following research question: How does the analysis of videos of exemplary\nteachers influence preservice social studies teachers\u2019 observations of social\nstudies classrooms during early field experiences? This study not only provided\ninsight into the operation of an early field experience but also, and perhaps\nmore importantly, how a social studies teacher education program leveraged\nearly field experiences to prepare teachers to observe and recognize how\nstudents learn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Early Field Experiences\nand Video Representations in Teacher Education <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We relied on two distinct but\noverlapping bodies of literature to shape our inquiry: early field experiences\nand video representations in teacher education. Within the broad landscape of\nresearch on field experiences in teacher education, a persistent obstacle to teacher\nlearning has been the bifurcation of the teacher education curriculum. In\nshort, the design of most teacher education programs compartmentalizes\n\u201clearning to think like a teacher\u201d to university coursework and \u201clearning to\nact like a teacher\u201d to field experiences (Feiman-Nemser, 2008; Zeichner, 2010).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In many cases, these two learning\nexperiences have different expectations for success and can provide preservice\nteachers with conflicting messages about professionalism, pedagogy, and\nrelationships between knowledge and practice (Smagorinsky, Cook, Moore,\nJackson, & Fry, 2004). The fundamental flaw in the common design of the\nteacher education curriculum is that the connections between university and\nschool-based learning are perceived as self-evident. Because teaching is a\ncomplex act, teacher education programs must be intentional, not haphazard,\nabout cultivating preservice teachers\u2019 understandings of the connections\nbetween teacher thinking and teacher actions (Korthagen, 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, the most successful preservice\npreparation programs leverage field experiences to help candidates situate\ntheoretical learning in practice (Darling-Hammond, 2005). As Feiman-Nemser\n(2001) noted, purposeful and integrated field experiences are carefully\nsequenced placements \u201cthat make it possible for teacher candidates to see and\npractice the kind of teaching they are learning about in their courses as they\nmove from observation to limited participation to full responsibility with\nappropriate modeling and supervision\u201d (p. 1024). In particular, the early field\nexperience within a teacher education program ideally serves as an opportunity\nto approach the classroom as an emerging professional, identify the\nprofessional intentions behind enactments of practices and routines, and engage\nin experiences that ground the discourse of teacher preparation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although research on early field\nexperiences is scant (Clift & Brady, 2005), studies have revealed a variety\nof approaches. In some cases, early field experiences are designed to provide preservice\nteachers with opportunities to engage in smaller scale pedagogical experiences,\nsuch as tutoring or working with small groups. Preservice teachers in these\nstudies are allowed to \u201ctry on the role of teacher\u201d (Catapano & Thompson,\n2013; Washburn-Moses, Kopp, & Hettersimer, 2012) before taking on greater\nclassroom responsibilities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other studies reveal that early\nfield experiences are structured similarly to the student teaching experience\nbut feature more support from the university or school faculty (Capraro,\nCapraro, & Helfeldt, 2010; Watson, Miller, & Patty, 2011). Yet, another\ncategory of studies reveals that early field experiences are used to cultivate\nthe reflective and self-evaluative capacities of preservice teachers through scaffolding\ntechniques such as reflection assignments (Welsh & Schaffer, 2017),\npeer-evaluation (Anderson, Barksdale, & Hite, 2005), or self-analysis\n(Baecher, Kung, Jewkes, & Rosalia, 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this study, we recognized the\ncritical role of early field experiences in learning to teach and the need for\nteacher education experiences to be intentional in cultivating preservice\nteachers\u2019 understandings of the connections between teacher thinking and\nteacher actions. However, we also realized that without\npreparation to observe classroom settings, preservice teachers tend to \u201cfocus\non superficial matters such as teacher and student characteristics, fleeting\nclassroom management issues and global judgments of lesson effectiveness\u201d\n(Castro, Clark, Jacobs, & Givvin, 2005, p. 11). Accordingly, we explored how a social studies\nteacher education program leveraged video analysis during early field\nexperience to help preservice teachers explore the nuance, complexity, and\ninterconnectedness of classroom practice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although video representations are\ncommon in teacher education programs (Grossman, 2005), we examined the unique\ncontributions of video representations of exemplary teachers in broadening preservice\nteachers\u2019 perspectives during live observations of classroom teachers. The research literature on the uses of video representations in teacher\neducation demonstrates an array of benefits. Grossman et al. (2009) acknowledged that providing preservice\nteachers with opportunities to analyze videos of exemplary classroom practice\nhelped them identify the visible and invisible facets of practice; learn to\ninvestigate practice; and reflect on their emerging identities as educators. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other\nstudies have illustrated how the analysis of video representations provide preservice\nteachers with greater access to a wider range of classroom experiences than\ntraditional observations (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Bayram, 2012; Welsch &\nDevlin, 2006). For example, analysis of video representations helps preservice\nteachers slow down the teaching process (Santagata, Zannoni, & Stigler,\n2007), allowing for more opportunities to unpack the interactive nature of\npractice (Cuthrell, Steadman, Stapleton, & Hodge, 2016). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Viewing\nvideo representations of teaching can also result in more in-depth observations.\nAs Seidel, St\u00fcrmer, Blomberg, Kobarg, and Schwindt (2011) recognized, \u201cHaving\nteachers watch videotaped examples of classroom situations provides an\nopportunity to investigate the points at which teachers pause and comment and\nthe aspects that attract their attention\u201d (p. 260). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other\nstudies have documented additional positive attributes of video representations,\nsuch as serving as a bridge between theory and practice (Abell & Cennamo,\n2004; Gomez, Sherin, Griesdorn, & Finn, 2008; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999;\nLlinares & Valls, 2009; Moreno & Ortegano-Layne, 2008), eliciting\nknowledge-based activation and reasoning (Santagata & Angelici, 2010; van\nEs & Sherin, 2002), and promoting a professional vision based on noticing\nand selective attention (Borko, Jacobs, Eiteljorg, & Pittman, 2008; Castro\net al., 2005;). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because\nvideo representations of exemplary teachers allow prospective teachers to learn\nabout classroom dynamics without having to learn to process these dynamics in\nreal time, video analysis can play an important role in shaping the\nopportunities to learn during early field experiences. Helping preservice\nteachers intentionally think about and notice the complexities of classroom\nlife is important to cultivate critically minded educators capable of analyzing\nand reflecting upon teaching and learning. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given\nour focus on the early field experience, however, this study contributes to the\nbroad teacher education literature some insights into the utility of video\nrepresentations for preservice teachers at the beginning of their learning\ntrajectory. Ideally, understanding how video representations of practice serves\npreservice teacher learning during early field experiences can also lead to\nother inquiries about ways to further learning through video in other\ncurricular and field experiences within the teacher education curriculum. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research Methodology,\nContext, and Methods<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This\nresearch was informed by the theoretical perspective that teacher learning is\nshaped by the social and cultural influences constantly negotiated through\nsocial interaction. Sociocultural theory in teacher education research suggests\nthat \u201clearning to teach takes place in various \u2018activity settings\u2019 that contain\ntools, artifacts, and message systems\u201d (Rosaen & Florio-Ruane, 2008, p.\n709). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

From this perspective, knowing and doing are reciprocal, as knowledge is situated in the physical and social contexts in which an activity takes place (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Putnam & Borko, 2000). Thus, focusing on the settings in which teacher education takes place, such as the early field experience, reveals \u201cthe kinds of social structures that promote the appropriation of pedagogical and conceptual tools that, in turn, result in particular kinds of teaching\u201d (Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999, p. 24). Moreover, because the early field experience in this sociocultural study asked students to move between university and school sites, it examined the conditions under which successful participation in activity in one type of situation facilitated successful participation in other types of similar situations (Peressini, Borko, Romagnano, Knuth, & Willis, 2004). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The course that served as the\nfocus of our study was EDU 303: Early Field Experience in Social Studies\nEducation, the first field experience in a three-semester sequence of a\nsecondary social studies teacher education program at a large public university\nin the Midwestern United States. The course was offered during the spring\nsemester and was designed to be taken in conjunction with the social studies\nfoundations course. The following fall semester, students partook in a second,\nmore intensive field experience along with a social studies methods course. The\nsequence then concluded with a semester-long student teaching experience. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

EDU 303 required students to spend\ntwo class periods in social studies classrooms each week throughout the\nsemester. Because it was the first sustained field experience in a social\nstudies classroom, the first 8 weeks of the experience were focused on\npreparing students to observe the intricacies, idiosyncrasies, and nuances of\nteaching and learning in a social studies classroom. The remaining 7 weeks were\nfocused on learning to design and execute classroom instruction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each of the first 8 weeks,\nstudents were given one observation protocol (see Figure 1 for \u201cuse of\nclassroom space\u201d protocol), and reflective assignments that focused them on one\nparticular aspect of teaching and\/or learning during the early field\nexperience: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Use of classroom space; <\/li>
  2. Teacher\/student interactions; <\/li>
  3. Learner interactions; <\/li>
  4. Planning lessons; <\/li>
  5. Classroom learning; <\/li>
  6. Using prior knowledge; <\/li>
  7. Assessment practices; and <\/li>
  8. Adaption of practice. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    \"Figure
    Figure 1<\/strong>. Sample observation protocol questions: Observing classroom space <\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The observation protocols were developed by Conklin (2015) and adapted by the Cuenca, the instructor of the course, to help preservice teachers focus on specific dimensions of practice. To practice their observation skills, preservice teachers also participated in a weekly seminar where they watched and discussed a video representation of exemplary practice using the same protocol used during their field observations. After watching the videos, preservice teachers engaged in small group and whole class discussions of the video representations using the protocol questions as prompts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The video representations were selected from the Accomplished Teaching, Learning, and Schools (ATLAS) library of cases of accomplished teaching (https:\/\/www.nbpts.org\/atlas<\/a>). <\/strong>Each case features a 15-minute unedited video clip of a nationally certified teacher delivering a classroom lesson; commentary by the teacher that addresses the context, planning, and an analysis of the teaching; and the instructional materials used during the lesson. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Because\nthe ATLAS library features videos of educators who have passed a rigorous\nstandards-based certification process, the recorded lessons are typically good\nexamples of powerful instruction that demonstrate active student engagement and\nworthwhile learning. Each week, the instructor viewed several ATLAS middle or\nsecondary social studies lessons and determined which video case study would\nbest position preservice teachers to analyze, unpack, and discuss the nuances\nof the weekly topic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    To study how the analysis of\nvideos of exemplary teachers influenced preservice teacher learning, we\ndesigned an intrinsic case study (Stake, 1995). At the beginning of the spring\n2018 semester, we purposefully recruited (Patton, 2014) four preservice\nteachers enrolled in EDU 303 \u2014 Carl, Ralph, Andrew, and Felicity \u2014 to serve as\nthe \u201canchor points\u201d (Dyson & Genishi, 2005) for our study. Because the\nsocial studies teacher education program was designed as a cohort, all\nparticipants were second-semester juniors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    First author Cuenca was the instructor of EDU 303, but Zaker, the co-author of this study, was not affiliated with the course. In order to ensure the confidentiality of participants\u2019 experiences and perceptions of the course, and the trustworthiness of the data collected, Zaker recruited participants, conducted interviews, captured field notes, and organized the collection of course documents for data analysis. Other than the participants\u2019 assignments, none of the data collected were shared with Cuenca, nor did we begin the analysis process until after grades were submitted at the conclusion of the semester. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Table 1<\/strong>
    Participants\u2019 Observation Site <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Pseudonym <\/strong> <\/td>Observation Site<\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
    Carl <\/td>10th-grade, Military History 10th grade, Economics <\/td><\/tr>
    Ralph <\/td>8th-grade, US History <\/td><\/tr>
    Andrew <\/td>8th-grade, US History <\/td><\/tr>
    Felicity <\/td>8th-grade, US History <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Three semistructured interviews were conducted by Zaker with each participant at the beginning, midpoint, and end of the early field experience. Each interview lasted approximately 1 hour. The interviews served to gauge participants\u2019 reflections of the impact of the video representations on their observations in the field. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The first set of questions focused\nmostly on what the preservice teachers expected to learn from both the video\nrepresentations and weekly sessions, as well as their early field placement. The\nsecond interview was designed more to examine the preservice teachers\u2019\nperceptions of the video representations and analysis sessions, as well as\ntheir understandings of teaching and learning thus far in the field. The final\ninterview was meant to gain an overall sense of their learning during the\nmorning video analysis sessions and how this translated to their experiences in\nlive social studies classrooms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    During each of the eight field experience seminar sessions, Zaker engaged in direct observations of the session, writing field notes, with an emphasis on the four focal preservice teachers (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995). Finally, we collected all assignments related to the early field experience seminar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The data analyzed and presented in\nthis study relied exclusively on the interviews, although we utilized the other\ncollected data to corroborate, verify, and substantiate claims made in the\ninterviews. Data analysis was guided by an inductive approach following\nCreswell\u2019s (2007) \u201cdata analysis spiral\u201d (p. 150), which consisted of organizing,\nreading, reflecting, and comparing the data we collected. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the organization phase of the\ncycle, we grouped the data we collected by participant. We then openly coded\nthe transcripts and compared and contrasted our codes. In total, we generated\n21 initial codes that referenced 201 interview text segments. As each initial\ncode was inductively generated, we maintained a codebook with descriptions of\neach code, thus helping us apply the codes consistently across the transcripts\n(see Table 2). These initial codes covered a range of perspectives found in the\ndata, such as how participants were utilizing the video (e.g. \u201cvideo prompts\nconscious thinking\u201d; \u201cvideo analysis as trial run\u201d), how participants were\nlearning to observe the classroom (e.g., \u201cintrospective observations\u201d;\n\u201cobservation as stepping stone\u201d), and beliefs about practice in general (e.g.,\n\u201cteacher as caring\u201d; \u201ccountering negative social studies experiences\u201d). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We then collapsed these initial\ncodes into themes that would help us express a coherent narrative and answer\nour research question. The section that follows includes the findings from this\nanalysis process. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Table 2<\/strong>
    Sample Initial Codes and Descriptions <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Initial Code <\/strong><\/td> Description <\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
    lack of control while viewing <\/td>Participant expresses that he\/she does not have control of what he\/she is observing while watching the video segments; he\/she sees the video as limiting what he\/she can observe. <\/td><\/tr>
    observing teacher as passionate <\/td>Participant expresses an appreciation of past teachers\u2019 passion. Participant sees passion as an integral and necessary requirement of teaching. <\/td><\/tr>
    video prompting conscious thinking <\/td>Participant sees the video analysis portion as providing him\/her an opportunity build a deeper understanding. It allows him\/her to make more conscious observations in the field. <\/td><\/tr>
    observations stepping stones <\/td>Participant views the observations and\/or associated assignment as just something he\/she must complete; it is something that must be checked off before the participant can complete or engage in activities they more prefer doing.  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Findings <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Our\nanalysis of the data revealed three distinct findings about the influence of\nanalyzing the video representations of exemplary teachers on observing live\nsocial studies classrooms for preservice teachers in an early field experience.\nFirst, the videos helped isolate elements of teaching and learning that occur\nalmost simultaneously within a live classroom setting. The video analysis\nprocess helped preservice teachers elucidate the unique significance of these\nelements of teaching and learning; created opportunities for reflection; and\nhelped candidates reflect on the interconnectedness between the multitude of\nformal and informal decisions that teachers make on a daily basis. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The\nvideo analysis also created opportunities for preservice teachers to contrast\nclassroom practice with their own experiences as social studies students and\nbetween the field experience and recorded classrooms. Finally, the video\nanalysis primed the situational and pedagogical imaginations of candidates who\nhad little experience in live classroom settings. Taken together, these\nfindings illustrate the prospective power of analyzing video representations of\nsocial studies practice prior to observing classrooms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Isolated Elements\nWithin A Complex Classroom Ecology<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    One of the major contributions\nof the analysis of video representations during the early field experience was\nthe opportunity to isolate specific elements about teaching and learning within\nthe broader classroom ecology. All formal classrooms operate as educational\nenvironments that feature relationships between and among participants,\nprocesses, structures, and artifacts (van Lier, 2004). The contingent nature\nbetween these elements and the complexity of the classroom environment is\ntypically difficult to discern for preservice teachers, because the teacher\neducation curriculum often fails to provide intentional opportunities in\nclassrooms for prospective teachers to deconstruct the elements of practice\nthat lead to effective or ineffective learning. Prior to EDU 303, the preservice\nteachers in this study had limited experiences that focused on the ecosystem of\nclassroom life. In these initial experiences, preservice teachers were either\n\u201chelpers\u201d or were using the classroom as a source to complete a course\nassignment. Ralph described his only previous experience in a school:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I just had to go in and sit there and help the teacher whenever they needed something, which wasn\u2019t too often. So that was kind of just it. Not even a learning experience; I was just kind of there in the classroom. (Interview 3)  <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Andrew recalled a\nservice learning assignment in a prior course where he helped the teacher\nduring lessons, but \u201cwas focused on what I was doing specifically, rather than\nwhat the teacher was doing\u201d (Interview 1). These initial experiences provided\nlittle framing for preservice teachers to understand the dynamic elements\nassociated with teaching and learning in a classroom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In EDU 303, participants first analyzed videos of exemplary teachers using the same protocol that they were going to use later that day to observe a live social studies classroom. Accordingly, analyzing videos for certain elements of classroom practice helped participants learn how to isolate and target how teachers\u2019 decisions influenced student learning. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Carl said that\nlearning to observe classrooms by first examining videos and then turning those\nobservational skills toward a live classroom provided him with an opportunity\nto consider the series of actions and reactions between students and teachers\nthat regularly occur in the classroom. It helped him \u201cgo deeper than I ever\nwould into one aspect of the classroom, because I was usually just looking at\nthe bigger picture\u201d (Interview 1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For\nsome participants, isolating elements through video analysis created space for\nnew lines of vision to consider the relationship between teaching and learning.\nRalph noted that the analysis of video representations helped most \u201cwhen we\nwere observing [in the field] …. It helped me look at the class and\nunderstand where the learning was happening … and to see which students were\nmore likely to answer questions\u201d (Interview 3). Ralph also said that, after\ncarefully analyzing a video for student-teacher interactions, he was able to\nnotice how the teacher he was observing responded to her students:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The impact that has on learning, I didn\u2019t necessarily think about that beforehand. How she very cautiously has to step around certain topics and how she responds to students and how they are reacting to her, like the back and forth. I\u2019m much more aware of how she interacts with students now. (Interview 2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Likewise, Felicity\nrecalled that one of the earliest video analysis sessions focused on teachers\u2019\nuse of classroom space, admitting she \u201chad no concept of that.\u201d She credited\nthe video analysis with focusing her on an aspect of classroom life that she\npreviously did not consider. Felicity said, \u201cWhile I was in the classroom, I\nwas drawing a classroom map and thinking about what we learned in the video\nabout how the teacher was able to make certain kinds of teaching possible\u201d\n(Interview 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Isolating\nelements of the classroom ecology also created opportunities for reflection\nabout teacher decision-making. Carl discussed how the video analysis of\nclassroom space prompted a series of questions about his cooperating teacher:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I guess I want to be able to figure out, based on the style of my teacher, what are the most effective methods? You know, are you going to be able to use a poster? I\u2019m sure there will be some teachers who are just as effective as [the teacher in the video] was, but don\u2019t use all of the materials in their room like that. (Interview 1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Andrew also credited\nthe video analysis with helping him focus more specifically on \u201ccertain moves\u201d\nhis teacher made \u201cwithin the classroom.\u201d He said that the video analysis often\nled to conversations with his classroom observation partner about \u201chow our\ncooperating teacher is teaching, why he\u2019s doing certain things, and even maybe\nthings that we think he could be doing better\u201d (Interview 2). By locating\nspecific aspects of practice in videos, the participants in this study became\nmore attuned during their early field experiences to the possible motives\nbehind a teacher\u2019s action or inaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The\nparticipants in this study also shared how isolating aspects of practice in a\nvideo of exemplary teaching prior to a live observation influenced their\nunderstanding of the interconnectedness of a social studies classroom\necosystem. By focusing on discrete elements, such as the use of students\u2019 prior\nknowledge or the power dynamics between students, the preservice teachers in\nthis study were not only able to see individual elements more clearly, but also\nthe relationship between those elements. Ralph acknowledged that the videos<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    actively showed us what social studies is about …. The videos showed us how kids react to prompts and questions … and across the semester, I just started thinking more about the social implications of history and how kids might not understand the importance of these questions in history, but it affects so much today. (Interview 2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    For Ralph,\ninstructional interactions between students and teachers led to related\nquestions during his school-based observations about educators\u2019 purposes and\nrationales for teaching and the utility of social studies as a contemporary\nschool subject. Carl noted that analyzing the instruction of the teacher in the\nvideos helped highlight the importance of engaging in multiple instructional\nmodes. However, despite these powerful engaging instructional techniques, he\nrecognized the power that circulated between the teacher and student:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Sometimes students aren\u2019t going to care about the things you want them to care about, regardless of the variation…. Sometimes they\u2019re just not going to want to be involved in that discussion. So that was hard for me to come to terms with, especially because I think of how important social studies is. (Interview 2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    The video analysis\nhelped both Carl and Ralph isolate important elements of practice, such as the\nrelevance of social studies education. When that same isolated observational\ngaze was brought into the live classroom, the interconnectedness between the\nelements of instruction, curriculum, purpose, and student agency were also\nraised.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Created Opportunities\nfor Contrasts<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Like\nmost preservice teachers, the participants in this study entered their\npreparation programs with thousands of hours of exposure to teachers and\nteaching (Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). This apprenticeship of observation\n(Lortie, 1975) provided a sense of familiarity with the traditional routines\nand overall grammar of the social studies classroom (Evans, 2004). However, the\nopportunity to analyze videos of exemplary teaching prior to observing a live\nsocial studies classroom created important contrasts and influenced what\nparticipants understood from the live classroom observation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    One\nkind of contrast the video analysis created was between the preservice\nteachers\u2019 own implicit understandings of social studies education and the kinds\nof practices they observed in the video and, subsequently, at the school site.\nAll of the candidates referred to their experiences as students in the social\nstudies classroom and used these apprenticeship-based experiences as an initial\nlens to observe the video representations of practice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Felicity\nreferred multiple times to her experiences with terrible social studies\nteachers; Carl relied on his experiences of a strict classroom to make sense of\nteacher-student dynamics. Ralph anchored many of his initial thoughts about\nteaching and learning on his personal experiences, and Andrew often raised his\nrecollections of his high school classroom to make sense of practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Felicity, for\nexample, stated explicitly that she wanted to be a social studies teacher who\nwas the inverse of her own social studies experience. She did not want to\nengage in the kinds of traditional practices that she experienced, such as\nstraight rows in classrooms, pictures of presidents on the wall, and daily\nlectures (Interview 1). However, even though Felicity recognized her own\nproblematic experiences with traditional social studies, those experiences also\nserved to arrest her expectations. She noted that \u201cin the typical social\nstudies classroom in my head, I expect to see lectures\u201d and believed that,\nwhile it was great for teachers to \u201ctry and teach critical thinking,\u201d lecture\nwas the only way to deploy knowledge (Interview 1). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The video analysis of\nexemplary social studies teachers opened up possibilities for Felicity, who\nrecognized as the semester progressed \u201cthat there are some really good models of\nsocial studies teaching out there\u201d (Interview 2). By interrupting the\napprenticeship understandings of social studies education, the video analysis,\nas an anticipatory step to observing a classroom, created an important contrast\nthat opened up new possibilities for teaching and learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ralph\nalso had some deeply rooted apprenticeship expectations of social studies\nteaching and learning that the video analysis helped contrast. Ralph said in\nhis second interview that he knew \u201cfrom personal experience and just from\ngeneral knowledge that social studies teachers just sit behind a desk and talk\nabout history and not let students talk at all\u201d (Interview 2). However, by the\nend of the semester, it was clear that the video representations provided Ralph\nwith an opportunity to contrast the personal knowledge he held about the\ntypical social studies classroom:  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    If you were paying attention to the videos and how the kids were interacting with one another, the teacher still had to kind of nudge students to be part of the conversation. I remember, specifically, there was one where they were all doing group projects, and there was a kid sitting there not really talking. and the teacher addressed him specifically and asked him a question. So yeah, I\u2019d say that [the video analysis] portion of the class also opened my perspective to how kids can behave\u2026. It\u2019s an insight into how the classroom works. (Ralph, Interview 3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Because of the analysis of video representations, Ralph was then able to see how specific strategies were used in the live classroom he observed, where his teacher was letting students talk and make efforts\nto engage all students in learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Another\nway that video analysis influenced the observation of live classrooms was by\ncreating contrasts between complementary practices that existed in video and\nlive classrooms. For some participants, comparing practice led them to\nrecognize and appreciate themes across examples of good practice. Carl stated\nthat, by watching and analyzing the video representations, \u201cit really sets me\nup to be able to see and compare … two completely different ways to approach\nthings and engage with students\u201d (Interview 2). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Similarly,\nAndrew said that, after watching a video representation of teaching an\nelection, he was able to contrast this lesson with the ways his cooperating\nteacher navigated discussions. He noted, \u201cSeeing a teacher dealing with a very\ncontemporary example of students maybe getting a little bit heated and being\nable to deal with that … it was useful to then see a classroom live that\nyou\u2019re able to think about\u201d (Interview 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For\nother participants, the contrast created by video analysis was between\ndissimilarities that existed in video and live classrooms. After analyzing a\nvideo representation for student-to-student interactions, Felicity recalled\nthat during her observation, she realized how little students were interacting\nin her placement site:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    There was no notetaking going on, even though he was giving them a lot of information, so I was wondering, are they retaining any of this, kind of stuff…. I hadn\u2019t quite thought about before, which was good for me to see and kind of think about how to counteract that. (Interview 3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Describing how she came to understand these dissimilarities, Felicity stated, \u201cAs I\u2019m watching the video, I\u2019m comparing it to my classroom, and I take the classroom I\u2019m observing and compare it to the video\u201d (Interview 3). In addition to complementary contrasts between the sites, Carl was also able to identify dissimilarities. In his second interview, he recalled a video where \u201cthe teacher barely said anything and just reiterated students\u2019 points\u201d (Interview 2). He found this as an important distinction between the two sites, because it was a practice that he looked for, but could\nnot find with his cooperating teacher\u2019s practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In\ncreating contrasts, the video analysis followed by a live observation led to\nmultiple provocations for participants in this study to assess themselves and\nthe practices of the educators they were watching. However, as Felicity\nhighlighted, the process of contrasting was also recursive between the two\nsites. As such, the video representations provided these preservice teachers\nwith a critical tool to help them sharpen their observational skills and\nnormative assessment of classroom practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Primed Imaginations <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The general purpose of early field experiences in teacher education is to provide candidates with an insider\u2019s look at teaching. However, with no previous experience as educators, early field experience students do not possess enough situated knowledge of teaching to help them make sense or theorize observations (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). What the video analysis of exemplary teachers provided preservice teachers was a way to prime their imaginations about the situational possibilities that exist within a social studies classroom. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Participants\nnoted that the structural progression of video analysis then observation of the\nfield site was instructive, as it helped prime their situational imaginations.\nFelicity noted, \u201cI think the fact that we\u2019re having it right before we go into\nthe classroom, and we\u2019re practicing in the classroom what we\u2019re going to be\ndoing in our field placement \u2014 that connection is important\u201d (Interview 1).\nConsequently, she deemed the structure as instructive:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Just learning what\u2019s expected of you so you don\u2019t feel unprepared when you go in. And you\u2019re not spending all your time in field placement reading the questions. You\u2019ve already gone over them, you\u2019ve already talked about them, you\u2019ve already asked the questions about those questions, and clarified any language. (Felicity, Interview 1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Felicity saw the\nvideo analysis sessions as a chance to create a list of possibilities that\nmight occur during a live observation. In fact, Felicity believed that she\nwould not have been prepared to observe if she had not first analyzed the video\nrepresentations. \u201cLook at classroom space. It would not have made as much sense\nwithout an explanation or like a toe-dipping in the morning session\u201d (Felicity,\nInterview 3). Ralph also found the structure instructive, noting that the\nmorning sessions helped him see practice \u201cinstead of just talking about it \u2026 [the\nvideo analysis] helped me understand what was expected and what we were\nsupposed to be looking for\u201d (Interview 3). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The priming of carefully observing video recorded classrooms allowed students to enter the live classroom experience with a recognition of what was possible in the social studies classroom. More specifically, this priming helped build two important repertoires of knowledge for these early field experience teacher candidates. The first repertoire of knowledge was situational. For Ralph, the video analysis helped establish the \u201creal-world\u201d legitimacy of the particular aspect of classroom life being observed that day. As Ralph put it, \u201cI guess just seeing how the topic of the day works in the real world … put certain things into place and really incorporated them into our own knowledge and headspace\u201d (Interview 1). Ralph referred to several aspects of teaching that he felt he was better able to see in his live observations due to the video representations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It helped looking at student-teacher interaction and seeing good examples of that, so to make sure that you\u2019re monitoring \u2014 for the ones where they were doing projects or something like that \u2014 like monitoring students in groups and kind of checking in as you\u2019re going around\u2026 that type of stuff, [the videos] kind of showed us specific examples of what to do. (Interview 3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    The analysis of video\nrepresentations provided Carl this same advantage in seeing certain aspects of\nteaching. He also credited the video analysis for helping him see the\nimportance of \u201cvaried activities,\u201d since he was able to train his gaze on\nstudent learning during the weekly sessions and realize situations and\nscenarios where student learning was not happening. He stated, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Students learn the most when they get to have varied activities. This is something I saw especially in those videos, and partially the observations, too …. You have to change it up a bit, and you have to do lots of different activities to engage students. (Carl, Interview 3) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Carl noted that the\nvideo analysis helped him consider how he might approach situations in general\nor in his observation site. \u201cNow, whenever I see something that\u2019s new or\ndifferent in the classroom, I try to make a mental note or a note if I can: What\u2019s\ngoing on and why are students reacting the way that they are?\u201d (Interview 2).\nMore specifically, Carl credited the video analysis with priming him to\nrecognize the conditions that lead to student learning and showing him \u201chow\nkids reacted to prompts from the teacher, and the different ways in which\nstudents read and react to prompts they are give\u201d (Interview 3). For both Carl\nand Ralph, the video analysis primed them to move beyond their superficial\nviews of classroom teaching and recognize the situational and circumstantial\nnature of teaching and learning. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The\nsecond repertoire of knowledge that the video analysis helped prime students to\ndevelop was a practical repertoire. In the observation of classroom teachers\n(both live and recorded), the preservice teachers began to develop a store of\nspecific effective strategies or routines. Unlike the situational repertoire\nwhich expanded participants\u2019 imagination about the possible situations in the\nclassroom, the practical repertoire represents how the video analysis prepared\nstudents to pick up the specific practical tools that led to learning.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Felicity\nsaid that a significant value of video analysis prior to the observations was\nlearning how to break down \u201cgeneral teaching habits and techniques\u201d and how\n\u201cdebates or instructional tasks were conducted…. It gives us an extra\nresource of ideas\u201d (Interview 3). Carl saw the value of the video analysis\nprior to observation as helping him better understand the kinds of decisions\nteachers make, \u201chow a teacher constructs their classroom, the delivery of\nmaterial, and how they are differentiating instruction\u201d (Interview 1). He\nrecognized that the priming afforded by the video analysis helped him \u201cbecome\nmore attuned to the strategies a teacher will use specifically to get kids\u2019\nattention\u201d (Interview 2). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For Andrew, analyzing video representations helped contribute to his understanding of certain \u201cteacher moves\u201d (Interview 1). Based on the priming in the video analysis, Andrew said that he enters classes looking for good and bad examples, looking to see for instance, \u201cOk, so they [the teacher] asked this question and that got the students going\u2026. I\u2019m seeing what works with students, what doesn\u2019t work, and sort of what subjects or activities are they doing to really help facilitate that.\u201d This observation then led Andrew to consider, \u201cAll right, so what are the assignments that I can do that can maybe snag a couple extra students into saying, \u2018You know, this history thing is kind of interesting\u2019\u201d (Interview 1). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As\nthe participants demonstrated, seeing the context around the effectiveness of\ninstructional technique helped ground learning to teach in more meaningful\nways. By priming the imaginations of the participants in this study, the video\nanalysis served as a way to learn how to recognize the situational and\npractical realities of the social studies classroom. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Opportunities and Challenges of Video Representations in Early\nField Experiences <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    According to Zeichner (2010), the\nresearch that can advance an understanding of the quality of field experiences\nis attuned to how field experiences operate and the ways in which field\nexperiences relate to the central purpose of teaching \u2014 helping students learn.\nIn this study, we responded to Zeichner\u2019s call by for more research into the\noperation of field experiences by exploring an early field experience course in\na secondary social studies teacher education program. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Our analysis revealed that the use\nof video representations positively influenced the ways in which preservice teachers\napproached their observations of live social studies classrooms and their\nnotions about the dynamics of teaching. By unpacking video representations of\nexemplar teachers, the preservice teachers in this study were able to expand upon their understandings of the various elements of the\ncomplex milieu of a classroom, helping them to see that these elements are\nisolated and <\/em>interconnected. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The\nvideo representations also illuminated the significance of such elements,\nsignifying their importance while conducting live observations. Furthermore,\nthe video representations provided preservice teachers opportunities to\nidentify contrasts between their own understandings of social studies\nclassrooms, the video representations, and actual situated classroom practices.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The\nstructure of the early field experience \u2014 moving from a video analysis session\nstraight into a social studies classroom \u2014 proved to support learning to teach,\nbecause it created for preservice teachers a way to bridge the video analysis\nsessions and their individual analysis of social studies teaching and learning.\nThrough the video representations, the preservice teachers in this study were\nable to build both situational and practical repertoires of knowledge for their\nfuture teaching, demonstrating the impact of using the video representations in\nthe process of learning to teach. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Based\non our analysis, the opportunities for learning to teach within this particular\nearly field experience in social studies education were advanced by the\nconsistency of the observation protocol across settings. Having a similar\nobservation protocol across the video analysis portion and the classroom\nobservation positioned the participants in this study to isolate decisions,\ncontrast practices, and prime imaginations. For teacher education programs\nlooking to enhance opportunities to learn to teach during early field\nexperiences, our study suggests that the consistency of the observation\nprotocol is a critical component in that work (see Figure 2). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"Figure
    Figure 2. <\/strong>Reciprocal relationship between protocol and observation sites . <\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    While our findings demonstrate that the use of video analysis positively influenced preservice teachers, participants also raised some challenges to consider. One challenge is the prospect of preservice teachers\u2019 simply engaging in the mechanics of observation because it is an assignment. EDU 303 was a graded course, and preservice teachers possibly could not fully separate the value of learning to teach in these settings from that of their graded assignments. In other words, the protocols could also serve as just a checklist to complete. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Andrew demonstrated this association in his\nexplanation of how he completed some of his observations. Observing back-to-back\nclass periods, Andrew said he would get the assignment done during his first\nclass period, as \u201cthey [the course instructor] want you to focus on one class\nanyway\u201d and that, \u201conce you\u2019re done doing the assignment … you can go into\nthat second class \u2014 you know sort of what\u2019s being expected of the students and\nwhat you can do and sort of you can implement yourself more and do that\u201d\n(Interview 1). For Andrew, the observation assignment was something that needed\nto be completed before he could really get involved or immerse himself in the\nclassroom. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Another possible challenge raised by our participants was the lack of control they experienced when analyzing the video representations. While Ralph acknowledged that the videos were effective in promoting conscious thinking, he also noted that he could not interact with anyone in the video (Interview 1), which could be seen as a limitation in the learning process. Felicity said that while she saw the videos as beneficial in showing her \u201ca real-time classroom\u201d and what she is \u201cgoing to be seeing as a teacher\u201d (Interview 1), she also believed that it might be easier or more beneficial in person. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The video does not provide a full view of everything happening within the classroom. However, she also acknowledged the importance of including the videos in the early field experience: \u201cIt doesn\u2019t do the job fully, but it gets us closer than just listening to [the instructor] tell us what we\u2019re supposed to be seeing\u201d (Interview 1). Future studies into the use of video representations during early field experiences should account for the ways in which video analysis of practice can be seen as an assignment and has certain limits for preservice teachers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Although our data did not reveal\nsocial studies specific learning outcomes (e.g., recognizing how students\nengage in historical thinking; structuring inquiry into social studies\nphenomenon; or extending learning for civic life) it, nevertheless, revealed\nimportant implications for social studies teacher education programs. Foremost,\nthe early field experience has been generally ignored within the broader social\nstudies teacher education community. Our study attended to the unique\nexperiences of learning to teach in an early social studies education field\nexperience. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Based on this findings in this\nstudy, tailoring an observation protocol to examine the aspects unique to\nsocial studies education classrooms (recorded and live) during an early field\nexperience would likely create the same kinds of learning to teach\nopportunities. In our particular program, the early field experience served as\na scaffold for more intensive and social studies specific field experiences\nlater in the program. However, for programs where the social studies methods\ncourse and field experience are limited to one semester, our study encourages\ntargeting the observation of social studies specific functions of practice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Additionally, our\nstudy addressed the role of early field experiences in social studies teacher\neducation in inoculating prospective teachers from learning to teach in less\nthan ideal placement sites. For the social studies preservice teachers in this\nstudy, pairing video analysis with live observations raised important questions\nabout practice, teacher decision-making, and personal K-12 experiences with\nsocial studies education. As such, even for preservice teachers placed in\nclassrooms with traditional social studies instruction that lacked engaging\ninstruction (Evans, 2004), the analysis of video representations provided a\nmodel of practice that helped sustain the lessons promulgated by the social\nstudies teacher education program. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Certainly, the\nstructure alone of an early field experience is not enough to isolate preservice\nteachers from the persistence of social studies classrooms dominated by teacher\ntalk and textbooks. However, helping preservice teachers isolate elements of\nteaching, contrast practices, and imagine possibilities during an early social\nstudies education field experience should serve formative benefits that will\ncontinue to mature throughout the rest of a coherent teacher education program.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Conclusion <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The findings in this study\nreinforce the consensus in the research literature that the analysis of video\nrepresentations of exemplary practices benefits preservice teacher learning. In\nparticular, this study illustrated how pairing video analysis with observations\nof live social studies classrooms during early field experiences was a positive\nformative learning opportunity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Learning to observe is an\nimportant step in preservice teachers\u2019 development of their practical wisdom\n(Kessels & Korthagen, 1996). Unfortunately, many preservice teachers are\nnot explicitly prepared to notice or perceive classroom events (Orland-Barak\n& Leshem, 2009; Star & Strickland, 2008). Our hope is that these\nfindings will inform the operation of early field experiences and encourage\nother teacher education programs to use video representations of practice as a\npedagogical scaffold for classroom observations.
    \n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    References<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2018). A pivot towards clinical practice, its\nlexicon, and the renewal of teacher preparation<\/em>. Washington, DC: Author.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Anderson, N. A., Barksdale, M. A., & Hite, C. E. (2005). Preservice\nteachers\u2019 observations of cooperating teachers and peers while participating in\nan early field experience. Teacher\nEducation Quarterly, 32<\/em>(4), 87-117. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Abell, S., & Cennamo, K. (2004). Videocases in elementary science teacher preparation. Advances in research on teaching. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education <\/em>(pp. 103-129). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Baecher, L., Kung, S., Jewkes, A. M., & Rosalia, C. (2013). The\nrole of video for self-evaluation in early field experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36<\/em>, 189-197.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing\npractitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G.\nSykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching\nas the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice<\/em> (pp. 3-32). San\nFrancisco, CA: Jossey Bass. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Bayram, L. (2012). Use of online video cases in teacher training. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47<\/em>,\n1007-1011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008).\nVideo as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics\nprofessional development. Teaching and\nTeacher Education, 24<\/em>(2), 417-436.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Capraro, M., Capraro, R., & Helfeldt, J. (2010). Do differing types of field experiences make a difference in teacher candidates’ perceived level of competence? Teacher Education Quarterly, 37<\/em>(1), 131-154. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Castro, A., Clark, K., Jacobs, J., & Givvin, K. B. (2005). Response\nto theory & practice question: Using video to support teacher learning. AMTE Connections, 14<\/em>(3), 8-12. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Catapano, S., & Thompson, C. (2013). Teachers begin developing\nsocio-cultural awareness in early field experiences. Learning Communities, 13<\/em>, 13-27. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education<\/em> (pp. 309-424). New York, NY: Routledge. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Conklin, H. (2015). Preparing novice teacher educators in\nthe pedagogy of teacher education. Action\nin Teacher Education<\/em>, 37<\/em>(4),\n317-333.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches<\/em>. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Cuenca, A., & Benko, S. (2017). Turning teacher education upside-down from the bottom-up (pp. 121-138). In R. Flessner & D. Lecklider (Eds.), The power of clinical preparation in teacher education<\/em>.  New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Cuthrell, K., Steadman, S. C., Stapleton, J., & Hodge, E. (2016).\nDeveloping expertise: Using video to hone teacher candidates\u2019 classroom\nobservation skills. The New Educator, 12<\/em>(1),\n5-27.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). The case for university-based teacher education.\nIn R. Roth (Ed.), The role of the\nuniversity in the preparation of teachers<\/em> (pp. 13-30). New York, NY:\nRoutledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The\nholy grail of teacher education. Peabody\nJournal of Education, 89<\/em>(4), 547-561.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case.<\/em> New York, NY: Teachers College Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes<\/em>. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago\nPress. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Evans, R.W. (2004). The social\nstudies wars: What should we teach the children?<\/em> New York, NY: Teachers\nCollege Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a\ncontinuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103<\/em>(6), 1013-1055.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). How do teachers learn to teach? In M.\nCochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education <\/em>(pp.\n687-705). New York, NY: Routledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Gomez, L. M., Sherin, M. G., Griesdorn, J., & Finn, L.-E. (2008).\nCreating social relationships: The role of technology in preservice teacher\npreparation. Journal of Teacher\nEducation, 59<\/em>, 117\u2013131. doi:10.1177\/0022487107314001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Grossman, P. L. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher\neducation. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Review of research in teacher education<\/em>. Washington DC: American\nEducational Research Association.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Grossman, P.,\nHammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re\u2010imagining\nteacher education. Teachers and Teaching:\n<\/em>Theory\nand Practice<\/em>, 15<\/em>(2), 273-289.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Grossman, P. L.,\nSmagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching\nEnglish: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education<\/em>, 108<\/em>(1), 1-29.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Kessels, J.\nP., & Korthagen, F. A. (1996). The relationship between theory and\npractice: Back to the classics. Educational\nResearcher<\/em>, 25<\/em>(3), 17-22.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Korthagen, F. A. J. (2010). How teacher education can make a\ndifference. Journal of Education for\nTeaching, 36<\/em>(4), 407-423. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. (1999). Linking theory and\npractice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28<\/em>(4), 4-17.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation<\/em>. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Llinares, S., & Valls, J. (2009). The building of preservice\nprimary teachers\u2019 knowledge of mathematics teaching: interaction and online\nvideo case studies. Instructional\nScience, 37<\/em>(3), 247-271.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher:\nA sociological study<\/em>. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Moreno, R., & Ortegano-Layne, L. (2008). Do classroom exemplars\npromote the application of principles in teacher education? A comparison of\nvideos, animations, and narratives. Educational\nTechnology Research and Development, 56<\/em>(4), 449-465. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through\nclinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers<\/em>.\nWashington, DC: Author. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    National Research Council. (2010). Preparing\nteachers: Building evidence for sound policy. <\/em>Washington, DC: The National\nAcademies Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Orland-Barak,\nL., & Leshem, S. (2009). Observation in learning to teach: Forms of \u201cseeing.\u201d\nTeacher Education Quarterly<\/em>, 36<\/em>(3), 21-37.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Patton, M.\nQ. (2014). Qualitative research and\nevaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice<\/em>. New York, NY: Sage\nPublications. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Peressini, D.,\nBorko, H., Romagnano, L., Knuth, E., & Willis, C. (2004). A conceptual\nframework for learning to teach secondary mathematics: A situative perspective.\nEducational Studies in Mathematics<\/em>, 56<\/em>(1), 67-96. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher<\/em>, 29<\/em>(1), 4-15.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Rosaen, C., &\nFlorio-Ruane, S. (2008). The metaphors by which we teach: Experience, metaphor,\nand culture in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J.\nMcIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook\nof research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts<\/em>\n(3rd ed., pp. 706-731). New York, NY: Routledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Santagata, R., & Angelici, G. (2010). Studying the impact of the\nlesson analysis framework on preservice teachers\u2019 abilities to reflect on\nvideos of classroom teaching. Journal of\nTeacher Education, 61<\/em>(4), 339. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Santagata, R., Zannoni, C., & Stigler, J. (2007). The role of\nlesson analysis in preservice teacher education: an empirical investigation of\nteacher learning from a virtual video-based field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10<\/em>(2),\n123.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Seidel, T., St\u00fcrmer, K., Blomberg, G., Kobarg, M., & Schwindt, K.\n(2011). Teacher learning from analysis of videotaped classroom situations: Does\nit make a difference whether teachers observe their own teaching or that of\nothers? Teaching and Teacher Education,\n27<\/em>(2), 259-267.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., Moore, C., Jackson, A. Y., & Fry, P.\nG. (2004). Tensions in learning to teach: Accommodation and the development of\na teaching identity. Journal of Teacher\nEducation, 55<\/em>(1), 8-24.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of\ncase study research.<\/em> Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using\nvideo to improve preservice mathematics teachers\u2019 ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education<\/em>,\n11<\/em>(2), 107-125. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Valencia, S. W., Martin, S. D., Place, N. A., & Grossman, P.\n(2009). Complex interactions in student teaching: Lost opportunities for\nlearning. Journal of Teacher Education,\n60<\/em>(3), 304-322.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice:\nScaffolding new teachers\u2019 interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,\n10<\/em>(4), 571-596.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology\nand semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective.<\/em> Boston,\nMA: Kluwer Academic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Washburn-Moses, L., Kopp, T., & Hettersimer, J. (2012). Prospective\nteachers\u2019 perceptions of the value of an early field experience in a laboratory\nsetting. Issues in Teacher Education, 21<\/em>(2),\n7-22. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Watson, S., Miller, T., & Patty, T. (2011). Peer collaboration in\nan early field teaching experience: a replicable procedure for preservice\nteacher trainers. Education, 131<\/em>(4),\n798.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Welsch, R. G., & Devlin, P. A. (2006). Developing preservice\nteachers’ reflection: Examining the use of video. Action in Teacher Education, 28<\/em>(4), 53-61. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Welsh, K. A., & Schaffer, C. (2017, July). Developing the effective\nteaching skills of teacher candidates during early field experiences. The Educational Forum, 81<\/em>(3), 301-321. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses\nand field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 89<\/em>(11),\n89-99. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Zumwalt, K., &\nCraig, E. (2005). Teachers\u2019 characteristics: Research on the demographic\nprofile. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research\nand teacher education<\/em> (pp. 111-156). New\nYork, NY: Routledge.<\/p>\n

    <\/div>

    <\/path><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>

    <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Major reform efforts in teacher education over the last decade have focused on improving the quality of field experiences (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2018; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010; National Research Council, 2010). In many cases, reform agendas featured attempts to increase the quantity of time candidates spent in […]<\/p>\n

    <\/div>\n

    <\/path><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

    <\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":[],"meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"publication":[113,109],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8921"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8921\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8921"},{"taxonomy":"publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication?post=8921"},{"taxonomy":"paper_format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/format?post=8921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}