research using the videotape recorder in teacher education · research using the videotape recorder...

6
RESEARCH IN REVIEW Edited by the ASCD Research Council Frederick A. Rodgers, Chairman Research Using the Videotape Recorder in Teacher Education ROBERT E. ROUSH " N T H E d e c a d e s i n c e 1 9 6 0 , t h e u s e o f t h e v i d e o t a p e r e c o r d e r i nt e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n h a s b e c o m e a l m o s t a s c o m m o n p l a c e a st h e u s e o f s o m e o f t h e e a r l i e r o b s e r v a t i o n a n d f e e d b a c k t e c h n i q u e s a u - d i o t a p e r e c o r d i n g s , 3 5 m m t i m e - l a p s e p h o t o g r a p h s , k i n e s c o p e s , a n d m o t i o n p i c t u r e f i l m s . H o w e v e r , a p e r u s a l o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e g e r m a n e t o r e s e a r c h o n v i d e o t a p e f e e d b a c k i n p r e s e r v i c e a n d i n - s e r v i c e t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s w i l l r e v e a l v e r y l i t t l e i n t h e w a y o f e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h c o m p a r e d t o t h e v o l u m i n o u s c i t a t i o n s o fw h a t t h i s a u t h o r c a l l s " t e s t i m o n i a l r e p o r t s " ( 7 , 9 , a n d 1 1 ) . C i t i n g t h e s e a r t i c l e s a s t o w h a t o t h e r s a r e d o i n g a t " J o n e s C o l l e g e " i si m p o r t a n t , b e c a u s e m o s t o f o u r r e s e a r c h e m a n a t e s f r o m c u r r e n t o r p l a n n e d p r a c t i c e s a n d t h e n e e d t oe v a l u a t e t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s , r a t h e r t h a n t h e m o r e e f f i c a c i o u s u s e o f r e s e a r c h a n d d e v e l o p m e n t m o d e l s . A d e s c r i p t i v e j o u r n a l a r t i c l e b y C y p h e r ! a n d A n d r e w s d e f i n i t i v e l y a n a l y z e s t h e u s e s o f v i d e o t a p e i nt e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n , a n d i s u s e d h e r e b e c a u s e m o s t o f t h e r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d t o d a t e a n d t h o s e r e v i e w e d i n t h i s a r t i c l e a r e r e l a t e d t o o n e o r m o r e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g u s e s w h i c h t h e a u t h o r s p o s i t . T h e a r t i c l e d e s c r i b e s t h e u s e o f v i d e o r e c o r d i n g s t op r o v i d e : ( a ) o b s e r v a t i o n m a t e r i a l f o r a c l a s s o r a n i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t ; ( b ) i m m e d a t e p r i v a t e f e e d b a c k f o r a s t u d e n t t e a c h e o r c o u n s e l o r t r a i n e e c o n c e r n i n g h i s p e r f o m a n c e ; ( c ) e v a l u a t i o n o f p e r f o r m a n b y a s u p e r v i s o r a n d a t r a i n e e ; ( d ) s p e c i f i c p r e p l a n n e d r e c o r d e d l e s s o n s a s a b a s i s f o r m e t h o d s c o u r s e i n s t r u c t i o n ; ( e ) s i t u a t i m a t e r i a l s t o b e u s e d w i t h s i m u l a t i o p r o c e d u r e s o r c a s e s t u d y a n a l y s i s ; ( f ) f e e d b a a n d s u p e r v i s o r y a n a l y s i s p r i o r t o i m m e d i r e p l i c a t i o n o f p e r f o r m a n c e ; ( g ) b o t h d e m o n s t r a t i o n a n d f e e d b a c k i n d e v e l o p i n g s p e c i f t e a c h i n g b e h a v i o r s ; ( h ) e v a l u a t i o n o f t e a c h i p e r f o r m a n c e o n a b e f o r e - a n d - a t i m e l a p s e b a s i s ; ( i ) r e s e a r c h a n a l y s i s o f t e a c h e r b e h a v i o r , p u p i l b e h a v i o r , o r t e a c h e r - p u i n t e r a c t i o n ; a n d ( j ) i n s t r u c t o r - p r m a t e r i f o r u s e w i t h c l o s e d - c i r c u i t t e l e v i s i o n d i a l a c c e s s , o r f i l m l o o p i n d e p e n d e n t s t u d y a c t i v t i e s ( 6 ) . M u c h o f t h e e a r l y r e s e a r c h u t i l i z i n t h e v i d e o r e c o r d e r w a s a s p i n - o f f f r o m S t a n f o m i c r o t e a c h i n g p r o j e c t , f r o m w h i c h A l i e n a n d F o r t u n e r e p o r t e d t h a t i n a T V f e e d b a c k v e r s u s n o f e e d b a c k d e s i g n , t h e t r a i n e e s i n t h e T V g r o u p h a d b e h a v i o r a l c h a n g e s s i g n i f i a t t h e f i v e p e r c e n t l e v e l ( 2 ) . T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f T e x a s ' R e s e a r c h a n d D e v e l o p m e n t C e n t e r i n T e a c h e r E d u c a t c o n d u c t e d r e s e a r c h o n s t u d e n t s ' o p e n n e s t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l f e e d b a c k , w i t h o p e n n e s b e - May 1971 849

Upload: trinhkhanh

Post on 06-Apr-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

RESEARCH IN REVIEW

Edited by the ASCD Research Council Frederick A. Rodgers, Chairman

Research Using the Videotape Recorder in Teacher Education

ROBERT E. ROUSH

• N THE decade since 1960, the use of the videotape recorder in teacher education has become almost as common place as the use of some of the earlier observation and feedback techniques—au- diotape recordings, 35mm time-lapse photo graphs, kinescopes, and motion picture films.

However, a perusal of the literature germane to research on videotape feedback in preservice and in-service teacher educa tion programs will reveal very little in the way of empirical research compared to the voluminous citations of what this author calls "testimonial reports" (7, 9, and 11). Citing these articles as to what others are doing at "Jones College" is important, be cause most of our research emanates from current or planned practices and the need to evaluate their effectiveness, rather than the more efficacious use of research and de velopment models.

A descriptive journal article by Cypher! and Andrews definitively analyzes the uses of videotape in teacher education, and is used here because most of the research find ings reported to date and those reviewed in this article are related to one or more of the following uses which the authors posit. The article describes the use of video recordings to provide: (a) observation material for a

class or an individual student; (b) immedi ate private feedback for a student teacher or counselor trainee concerning his perfor mance; (c) evaluation of performance by a supervisor and a trainee; (d) specific pre planned recorded lessons as a basis for meth ods course instruction; (e) situational materials to be used with simulation pro cedures or case study analysis; (f) feedback and supervisory analysis prior to immediate replication of performance; (g) both demon stration and feedback in developing specific teaching behaviors; (h) evaluation of teaching performance on a before-and-after time lapse basis; (i) research analysis of teacher be havior, pupil behavior, or teacher-pupil inter action; and (j) instructor-prepared materials for use with closed-circuit television, dial ac cess, or film loop independent study activi ties (6).

Much of the early research utilizing the video recorder was a spin-off from Stanford's microteaching project, from which Alien and Fortune reported that in a TV feedback ver sus no feedback design, the trainees in the TV group had behavioral changes significant at the five percent level (2).

The University of Texas' Research and Development Center in Teacher Education conducted research on students' openness to environmental feedback, with openness be-

May 1971 849

a child dies of hunger a man faces the death sentence u.s. bullets kill a vietn amese child a doctor must choose be tween the life of a mother and her un bom child...

The development of conscience begins with an awareness of the moral dilemmas and injustices which other human beings suffer. NET Film Service has prepared a film anthology designed to stimulate such empathy and understanding. For more information about these films, write for the booklet entitled "A Matter of Conscience." NET Film Service. Indiana University Audio-Visual Center, Bloomington, Indiana 47401.

ing operationally defined in terms of teacher behaviors such as increases in questioning and decreases in lecturing. Seventy-seven elementary education majors comprised one control group and three experimental groups which were tested and filmed before treat ment (feedback) and again after student teaching 18 months later. Although pre- post change differences between experimen- tals and controls were not significant, the behavior of the total group changed signifi cantly from the first to final filming—they lectured less, accepted pupils' ideas more, corrected more, and asked more questions (8).

Stoller, Lesser, and Freedman postu lated and tested the hypothesis that pre- prepared kinescope recordings provided a more effective medium of observation than closed-circuit TV and that TV observation was in turn more effective than the tradi tional procedure of direct observation in the elementary classroom. Results showed that an objective measure of information about methods of teaching failed to confirm the

850

hypothesis, but an essay examination assess ing ability to evaluate an observed classroom lesson strongly confirmed the hypothesis (17).

Schueler and Gold conducted research at Hunter College on the use of kinescopes for supervising student teachers by using a research design of supervision via personal visitation (O), supervision via the use of kinescopes alone (K), and supervision via a combination of in-person visitation and kinescope recordings (OK). Using the in strument, OScAR, to measure change in teacher behavior, Schueler and Gold found no significant differences between the control group O and the experimental groups K and OK. They did report small differences favor ing K over groups O and OK (16).

At Stanford, Aubertine's research led him to conclude that some type of feedback was necessary in order to change the be havior of teacher trainees. Findings were that trainees who were provided video feed back and an opportunity to practice correct ing their "mistakes" from previous teaching

Educational Leadership

.icts performed better at the one percent level of confidence on subsequent demonstrations than a control group which received neither feedback nor the opportunity to practice (3).

Brooks tested the basic proposition that teachers who appraised their classroom inter action as viewed on videotape recordings would evidence greater growth in classroom behavior than would teachers who did not see themselves on videotape. Changes in teacher behavior were determined by analyz ing three 20-minute tapes of each teacher recorded before and after the in-service pro gram, using an instrument which measured cognitive and affective teacher objectives, closed and open teacher methods, and verbal and nonverbal teacher expressions. Brooks' data analysis led to a rejection of the hy pothesis that teachers who viewed videotapes of their own teaching would experience greater growth than teachers who did not view their own tapes (5).

Woolman investigated the effectiveness of videotaped demonstrations by assessing changes in instructional practices and view points of teachers, by analyzing the results of the videotapes with and without certain supervisory and counseling procedures, and by relating the amount of change as seen by trained observers to the amount of change as revealed by an inventory of teacher opin ion and understanding. The in-service pro gram participants viewed five 30-minute videotapes which were prepared in advance. Observers visited and measured all of the teachers before and after the five tapes had been viewed. Woolman accepted the null hypothesis that there was no significant dif ference between the three groups that could be attributed to the treatments imposed (18).

Milieu attempted to answer the ques tion, "Could videotapes produced for training purposes which displayed both selected pupil cognitive behaviors desired in secondary school social studies and also developmen- tally related teacher behaviors affect the teaching behavior of social studies intern- teachers?" Forty-three intern-teachers re ceived identical classroom materials to use in an experimental lesson and random as signment to one of four groups. Two groups

served as quasi-control groups (did not view videotapes), while the other two groups did view the videotapes on how to use teacher translation tactics. Interns teaching an ex perimental lesson generated the data for measuring purposes. The statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the two groups which saw the videotapes and the two groups which did not (12).

At Temple University, Kriebs compared the effectiveness of the two types of video taped instruction by determining if pre-. service teachers who observed videotapes of elementary school children using scientific methods performed significantly better as science teachers than did preservice teachers who observed videotapes of the traditional lecture-demonstration type. Pre- and post- videotape checklists and pre- and post-tests of science knowledge yielded data which were analyzed to determine the relative effectiveness of the two techniques for teach ing science methods to prospective elemen tary school teachers. The null hypothesis was accepted; however, those who observed the experimental videotapes tended to increase their rating from their initial status to their final status more than those who observed the control videotape (10).

Barron attempted to ascertain whether or not significant gains in openness would be evident in a selected group of teacher trainees who received elementary language arts methods instruction supplemented by microteaching and videotape techniques over a group supplementing instruction by class room observation and over a group not sup plementing instruction at all. Barron con cluded from his statistical analysis that Group One evidenced a positive and signifi cant gain in openness as measured by a Teacher Problems Q-Sort. Groups Two and Three did not experience a significant gain (4).

An Ohio State University study by Reynolds compared the change in role con cepts of a group of science student teachers supervised in the usual manner with that of a group supervised with video tape recordings. Using Corwin's Profes sional-Employee Orientation Role Concept

May 1971 851

For m ore information write to Dept.ELJ Reader's Digest Services. Inc.. Pleasantville. NY 10570

Scale before and after student teaching, Reynolds concluded that there were no sig nificant differences between the experimental group and the control group. However, 10 of the 18 behavior areas tested were signifi cant for those who received videotape feed back (14).

Young's research at Stanford attempted to determine the effectiveness of dubbing a supervisor's comments onto a videotape of a teacher's performance. All subjects in the experiment prepared five-minute lectures which served as a pretest. The subjects then viewed symbolic model teachers on video tape. Each subject retaught his first lesson two more times, with the last episode serving as a post-test. The results of the study indi cated that a model with a contingent focus ("supervisory comments dubbed onto the tape) did not produce significantly greater differ ences in teacher behavior than did a model with a non-contingent focus (19).

Acheson tested the effects on selected behaviors of teachers in training who ob

served their own teaching via videotape dur ing supervisory conferences. The study was a TV feedback versus no TV feedback design for three groups which received indirect supervision, direct supervision, and no super vision. The two criterion measurements were teacher monologue in terms of percent of time and the frequency of teacher-pupil in teraction episodes. Television feedback com bined with supervisory conferences, either direct or indirect, produced significantly greater changes in the selected behaviors than supervisory conferences without tele vision (1).

A study that this author conducted with the University of Houston's Teacher Corps project used five five-member groups, each of which was videotaped three times. The control group's members did not receive any feedback, while the members of the four experimental groups differed in the amount and kind of videotape feedback given. Each tape was coded with the Flanders Verbal In teraction Analysis System, using I/D Ratio as the quantitative criterion for behavioral changes. Although the means for Experi mental Group Four were significantly higher than the other groups, an F test that failed to exceed the five percent level of confidence led to the acceptance of the null hypothe ses (15).

One of the first studies in this area was done by Olivero, whose research answered the following questions: (a) Does feedback from supervisors who observe television re cordings produce more change in trainees' behavior than feedback from supervisors who observe the lesson taught in the classroom?(b) Do trainees need to have feedback from supervisors in order to change behavior? and(c) Does verbal and videotape feedback from supervisors produce more change in trainees' behavior than just verbal feedback from supervisors? Using the Stanford Micro- Teaching Appraisal Guide to quantify changes in behavior, Olivero reported that the answer to question one was no, answers to questions two and three were yes ( 13).

One generalization might be drawn from these reviews: a lot of people are using

852 Educational Leadership

the video recorder, and there has been at least a minimal degree of success. Where there have been less than desirable results, the contributing factors are more likely to lie not with the equipment used, but with inadequate research designs, a lack of crea tivity on the part of the researchers, or the constraining limitations of measuring instru ments. Whatever the conclusions, they should be put into the perspective of the

"early days" of experimentation on the use of the video recorder in teacher education. Also implicit in the readers' conclusions should be the idea that if teacher educators are going to continue to invest time and money in acquiring media accouterments for learning laboratories, it is incumbent upon them to continue research in this area and, to go one step further, to put the research into practice.

References

1. Keith Alan Achcson. "The Effects of Feed back From Television Recordings and Three Types of Supervisory Treatment." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1964. p. 1.

2. Dwight W. Alien and Jimmie C. Fortune "An Analysis of Microteaching: A New Procedure in Teacher Education." Paper read at the Micro- teaching Clinic, Stanford University, November 1967. p. 8.

3. Horace E. Aubertine. "An Experiment in Set Induction Process and Its Application in Teach ing." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1964. p. 7.

4. Bennie George Barren. "An Investigation of the Effect of Videotape and Microteaching Tech nique on Openness." Unpublished doctoral dis sertation. University of Southern Mississippi, 1967. p. 3.

5. Elbert Daniel Brooks. "Effect of Alternate Techniques for Modifying Teacher Behavior." Un published doctoral dissertation, Stanford Univer sity, 1967. p. 1.

6. Frederick R. Cyphert and L. O. Andrews. "Using the Videotaper in Teacher Education." Audiovisual Instruction 1 2: 1067-69; December 1967.

7. Michael D. Dunne and Leroy D. Owens. "Videotape: Teacher In-Service Programs." The Instructor 77: 1 40-41; March 1968.

8. Francis F. Fuller, Shirley L. Menaker, Robert F. Peck, and Oliver H. Brown "Influence of Counseling and Film Feedback on Openness to Pupil Feedback in Elementary Teachers' Filmed Behavior." The Proceedings, 75th Annual Conven tion, American Psychological Association, 1 967. p. 359.

9. George E Ingham. "Teacher Preparation Through Multimedia Facilities." A udiovisual In struction 1 2: 1054-56; December 1967.

10. Jean Oak Kriebs. "The Effect of Video taped Elementary School Science Classroom Dem onstrations on Science Teaching." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Temple University, 1967. p. 6.

11. Sister M. Michel. "Teacher Training by

Videotape." Catholic School Journal 65: 30-32; May 1965.

12. Gregg Baldwin Millett. "Comparison of Four Teacher Training Procedures in Achieving Teacher and Pupil 'Translation' Behaviors in Sec ondary School Social Studies." Unpublished doc toral dissertation, Stanford University, 1967. p. 3.

13. James Lee Olivero. "Video Recordings as a Substitute for Live Observations in Teacher Education." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1964. p. 1.

14. George William Reynolds. "The Useful ness of the Portable Video Recorder in Supervising Student Teachers of Science." Unpublished doc toral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1966. p. 6.

15. Robert E. Roush. "Changing Teacher Behavior with Videotape Feedback." SRIS Quarterly 2: 21-24; Summer 1969.

16. Herbert Schueler and Milton J. Gold. 'Video Recordings of Student Teachers —A Report of the Hunter College Research Project Evaluating the Use of Kinescopes in Preparing Student Teach ers." Journal of Teacher Education 1 5: 359; De cember 1964.

17. Nathan Stoller, Gerald S. Lesser, and Philip I. Freedman. "A Comparison of Methods of Observation in Preservice Teacher Training." AV Communication Review 1 2: 177; Summer 1964. ,

18. Lorraine VVoolman. "The Effect of Video- Taped Single Concept Demonstrations in an In- Scrvicc Program for Improving Instruction." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Houston, 1968. p. 9.

19. David Brandon Young. "The Effective ness of Self Instruction in Teacher Education Using Modelling and Video-Tape Feedback." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University. 1967. P. 1

—ROBERT E. ROUSH, Post-Doctoral Fel low, Division of Research in Medical Educa tion, Scliool of Medicine, University of Soutliern California, Los Angeles.

May 1971 853

Copyright © 1971 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.