Introduction

Teacher educators have used video as a learning tool for several decades. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the primary uses of video related to remote student teaching supervision (Olivero 1965) and studies on microteaching (e.g., Acheson and Zigler 1971; Allen and Clark 1967; Limbacher 1971). The use of video has grown rapidly in teacher education and professional development because of its unique ability to capture the richness and complexity of classrooms. Sherin (2004) in a review of the role of video in teacher education notes that the utilization of video has changed not only with technological advances but also with changes in theoretical frameworks guiding educational research from behaviorist views evident in the early microteaching video research to more cognitive views of teaching. However, in spite of the valued and dominant position of video in teacher education, relatively little systematic research has been conducted on the feasibility and effectiveness of the use of video in teacher education (Brophy 2003; Sherin 2004).

Video has a long history in teacher education for examining and reflecting on one’s own teaching practices (Grossman 2005). Indeed, the development of teachers as reflective practitioners is a central concept in national guidelines for teacher preparation and induction [National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) 2008; Teacher Education Accreditation Council 2008]. NCATE explicitly links the development of reflective practice to field experiences in teacher preparation as they “allow candidates to apply and reflect on their content, professional, and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions in a variety of settings with students and adults.” Recent developments in video annotation tools have expanded the power of video used to examine and reflect on classroom practice (Rich and Hannafin 2009). However, as video annotation tools are an emerging technology, the research base on such tools in teacher preparation and professional development is limited. Recently, guidelines for consideration in using video annotation software have emerged (Rich and Trip 2011), and research on the use of video in the critical induction period to develop beginning teachers’ reflective and reform-based practices is just now beginning to emerge (Martin and Siry 2012) Additionally, Blomberg et al. (2013) in a review of the literature urge researchers to “systematically test for advantages and disadvantages of using video in pre-service teacher education” (p. 106).

This study explores the use of video annotation in an online induction program designed to provide support to beginning secondary science teachers. A primary goal of the online induction program is to better develop reflective practices of secondary science teachers. In this paper, we will develop the need for induction support for beginning secondary science teachers, briefly describe the structure of the online Teacher Induction Network (TIN), and discuss the role of video annotation in the development of beginning science teachers’ reflective practices based on data collected from 3 years of video annotation work within TIN. Our exploration of the use of video annotation tools was guided by the following research question:

What is the nature of beginning teachers’ reflective practices using a video annotation tool as revealed in their initial annotations?

Supporting Literature

Induction Programs

Concerns about science teacher shortages have been prevalent in educational discussions for the past 30 years (National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983). Several factors are related to teacher supply and demand. For example, in addition to teacher retirements due to aging of the baby boomer generation of teachers, the past three decades have seen increases in science graduation requirements, thus increasing the number of students taking science and the demand for science teachers (Ingersoll and Merrill 2010). Researchers have argued that the supply of new science teachers has kept up with this increased demand and that the critical factor behind teacher shortages is preretirement teacher turnover (Ingersoll and Merrill 2010; Ingersoll 2012). Indeed, it is reported that up to 50 % of teachers leave the teaching profession within the first 5 years (Smith and Ingersoll 2004). This revolving door of beginning teachers has created a situation today where approximately one-quarter of the teaching force has 5 or less years of experience (Ingersoll and Perda 2006).

Induction programs have been promoted as a mechanism to reduce teacher attrition and over 90 % of new teachers now receive some form of induction support (Ingersoll 2012; Smith and Ingersoll 2004). However, induction programs vary significantly in quality and the forms of support (Ingersoll 2001), and the quality of the induction support dramatically changes the intended impact on teacher retention (Smith and Ingersoll 2004). Research has tended to focus on retention issues, yet teacher induction programs should also have the goal of providing ongoing professional development to improve beginning teachers’ instructional practices, and thus student learning (Feiman-Nemser 2001). Recent research has shown that participation in a comprehensive induction program has a positive effect on classroom practices (Ingersoll and Strong 2011) and when specifically considering science teaching practices, induction programs should be science-specific (Luft et al. 2011). Indeed, with participation in comprehensive science-specific induction programs, beginning science teachers “experienced fewer constraints, and were more likely to implement inquiry-based instruction in their classrooms than did secondary science teachers receiving general induction support or no formal induction support” (Luft et al. 2003, p.78).

Online Induction Programs

Online induction programs have the potential of making subject-specific support a financially viable option for districts that may only have one new science teacher at any given time (Gentry et al. 2008). There have been notable efforts to develop subject-specific online induction programs, for example, the National Science Teachers Association eMSS (eMentoring for Student Success) (Jaffe et al. 2006) and the TIN (Roehrig 2012). However, research suggests that there are challenges involved in developing and sustaining online professional development environments (Barab et al. 2003; Donna 2009) and online induction program design needs to carefully consider the technical, educational, and social affordances of online environments (Roehrig et al., in review).

Norman (1988) coined the term affordance and suggested affordances refer to “opportunities for actions; the perceived and actual fundamental properties of technologies that determine the usefulness and the ways they could possibly be used” (p. 9). Kirschner et al. (2004) further differentiated this design feature of virtual learning spaces into three categories: technological, social, and educational. Technical affordances are the technologies that “mediate the social and educational contexts such that their properties induce and invite specific learning behaviors” (Kirschner et al. 2004, p. 50). In other words, learning is directly impacted by the usability of the designed environment. Educational affordances refer to the relationships between the learner and the environment that mitigate whether and how the intended learning will take place. Social affordances within an online environment allow for and encourage interaction, collaborative learning, and reflection. It is the interaction of these three types of affordances that will impact the nature of the actions and subsequent learning of the teachers as they interact in an online environment.

Prior to recent technological advancements, online programs were limited in their ability to provide beginning teachers with direct feedback on their instructional practices (Roehrig 2012) and relied on lesson plans and written teacher reflections as proxies for direct observations of classroom practice (Wopereis et al. 2010). Only with the recent development of video annotation tools have online professional development and induction programs been able to meaningfully use video to examine and reflect on classroom practice in an online environment (Rich and Hannafin 2009; Martin and Siry 2012). Video annotation allows teachers to both observe and analyze classroom practice, supporting reflective practices as teachers’ reflections are linked directly to evidence through video as documentation (Bryan and Recesso 2006; Rich and Hannafin 2008; Sherin and van Es 2005).

Reviews of the use of video in teacher education argue that the technical affordances of video annotation tools have not only changed the ways video are used, but also the frameworks that guide the utilization of video to more cognitive view of teaching (Sherin 2004). For example, a common use of video in teacher education is video cases of expert teachers. However, such videos only provide novice teachers with the experts’ tacit knowledge, rather than allowing novices to develop reflective and analytical skills and/or the skills of knowing what to attend to during instruction for themselves (van Es and Sherin 2002). The development of reflective practice requires the analysis of one’s own teaching, and video provides the opportunity for teachers to remove themselves from the demands of the classroom and to step back and examine classroom events (van Es and Sherin 2008). Other research in this area has focused on the affordances offered by video to scaffold and transition teachers into a position where they can take on a more autonomous role in their development through enhanced reflection opportunities (McCullagh 2012; Tripp and Rich 2013).

However, while there are various approaches and several video annotation tools available to support reflective practices, the research related to the use of video annotation software has not kept pace with these technological advancements (Rich and Hannafin 2009). The limited existing research on the impact of video annotation of reflective practices has primarily been conducted in face-to-face settings. van Es and Sherin (2002) investigated video annotation as a tool to develop reflective practices and found that treatment teachers who used video annotation showed more improvement on their reflective abilities than those in the control group who did not have access to video annotation tools. In a later study, Sherin and van Es (2005, 2009) investigated the use of video annotation as part of a video club for mathematics teachers and reported on changes in teachers’ ability to interpret student thinking as a result of their video club participation.

There is an urgent need to investigate the impact of video annotation in online environments as a tool to promote reflective practices for beginning science teachers. The current study explores the educational and technological affordances of a video annotation tool in developing reflective practices. The social affordances of peer interactions using video annotation as a collaborative group will be discussed in subsequent analyses of the TIN data.

The Study

This study employed the convergent parallel design of mixed methods (Creswell and Clark 2010) to investigate the reflective practices on beginning secondary science teachers. The quantitative component of the study was designed to understand the types and frequency of different reflective stances employed by beginning teachers in an online video annotation environment. This form of content analysis is a common research method for studying recorded human communication in varying forms, including text-based entries in electronic textual databases. Researchers code and summarize the target communication, carefully calculate the frequencies and percentages of items of communication in terms of specified characteristics, systematically conduct comparisons of the items, and discuss typical entries of the communication items (De Wever et al. 2006; Strijbos et al. 2006). The qualitative analysis looks more deeply at the nature of the reflective annotations and the individual’s levels of reflective practice. Both the quantitative and qualitative components of the study draw from the Learning to Notice theoretical framework (van Es and Sherin 2002) to elucidate teachers’ reflective practices facilitated through video annotation.

Theoretical Framework

In this study, we draw on the framework of reflection-for-action as a reflective process that occurs in three stages: description, analysis, and action (Dewey 1933) and the Learning to Notice Framework of van Es and Sherin (2002). Dewey suggested reflection that “does not lead to action falls short of being responsible” (Rodgers 2002, p. 885). Other researchers argue for a more interpretive stance to teachers’ reflective analytical practices as opposed to a critical or action-oriented stance (Hammer 2000; Putnam and Borko 2000). The Learning to Notice Framework highlights the importance of interpretation to allow teachers to make informed pedagogical decisions resulting in action intended to improve their practice.

van Es and Sherin (2002, 2008) proposed that the skill of noticing for teaching consists of two phases (describing and analyzing) that encompasses three stances: describing, evaluating, and interpreting. The describing phase or stance involves teachers being willing and able to accurately describe a classroom event. The use of video enhances a teacher’s ability to recall what occurred during a classroom event; however, even with the benefit of video, teaching is still a complex event and not all events can be attended to. In the Learning to Notice Framework, the first characteristic of noticing is “learning to identify what is noteworthy about a particular situation” (van Es and Sherin 2002, p.573).

In the analysis phase, teachers are expected to make connections between the specific event and broader principles and theories of teaching and learning. Beginning teachers are pushed to move beyond a literal description of the event to thinking about why an event occurred. During the evaluating stance, teachers should use “using what one knows about the context to reason about a situation” (van Es and Sherin 2008, p. 245) and determine what worked or could have been done differently. van Es and Sherin (2002) note the importance of providing evidence to support claims about the effectiveness of an event. During the third and final stance, interpreting, van Es and Sherin (2002) call for teachers to use their knowledge of content, pedagogy, and context to reason about the event. In other words, teachers should begin to make inferences and draw “connections between specific events and broader principles of teaching and learning” (van Es and Sherin 2008, p. 245).

Context

The TIN is an online induction program for beginning secondary science and mathematics teachers. The program is in its seventh year of operation and has served 153 teachers over this time period. TIN is part of the post-baccalaureate teacher preparation program at the University of Minnesota. The post-baccalaureate nature of the program ensures that candidates have a bachelor’s degree in the content area in which licensure is sought. Admission requirements include content coursework equivalent to an undergraduate major as well as coursework in the history and philosophy of science and a required science research experience. The program includes two components: initial licensure and completion of the M.Ed. degree. Students enter the 15-month initial licensure program as a cohort, completing coursework including a three-course science methods sequence with extensive, supervised practicum and student teaching experiences. An additional 12-credits are required post-licensure to complete the M.Ed. degree; TIN is offered as a three-credit online course as part of this 12-credit requirement.

Through ongoing assessment of participants’ interactions and feedback, we have continually modified TIN to best support teachers’ professional growth and develop reflective, reform-based practices (Roehrig et al., in review). The four primary components of TIN are reflective journals, topical response forums, venture-vexation discussion and professional development inquiries. These four components are described in detail in Roehrig et al. (in review) Video annotation is embedded into the professional development inquiries which are described here in detail.

Professional Development Inquiries (PDIs)

Beginning teachers enrolled in TIN participate in two PDIs throughout the year. These PDIs allow teachers to investigate an area of their teaching that they would like to improve. Prior to starting each PDI, instructors of the course, prompt teachers complete a self-assessment using Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (2007). Many of the area schools use Danielson’s framework, and thus it helps teachers to navigate between the language, evaluation, and expectations of both their schools and TIN. Specifically, teachers were asked by instructors to self-evaluate and identify areas for growth related to the five components of Danielson’s instructional domain: communicating clearly and accurately; using questioning and discussion techniques; engaging students in learning; providing feedback to students; and demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness The PDIs are designed to help new teachers critically examine their own teaching and develop the skills of data collection, analysis, and reflection. Each PDI is approximately 8 weeks long and follows a learning cycle in which the participants plan for action, implement, and reflect on their actions all while being monitored by the course instructor. During the PDI, teachers develop lesson plans and assessments to meet their PDI goal with the culminating assignment being video-based reflection on the classroom implementation of the PDI lesson.

Video Annotation

The video annotation software—VideoANT—was designed to provide teachers the ability to add time-marked text annotations to their classroom video (Hosack 2010). As the user views the video, they simply pause the action at the point they wish to annotate, click “Add a marker to the timeline” and enter their annotation including a subject line in the text box (see Fig. 1). Each annotation is marked on the timeline on the bottom of the screen, and as the video is played, the annotations are highlighted at the time point they were noted by the user. In Fig. 1, the teacher is reflecting on his PDI plan to improve real-world connections to learning goals in his classroom. Multiple users are able to annotate the same video, allowing the PDI facilitator or peers to view the video and provide their feedback on the lesson. The ability to allow multiple users to annotate a teaching segment is illustrative of VideoANT’s full capabilities. However, for the purpose of this study as described in this paper, as described in the paper, only initial annotations by the teacher in the video are included.

Fig. 1
figure 1

A beginning teacher’s VideoANT reflections on real-world connections

Full size image

Participants

This study considers beginning teachers enrolled in TIN over the past 3 years, from 2009 to 2011. Thirty-three secondary science teachers have enrolled in TIN over this time period. The criteria for participant selection included: (1) a complete PDI including access to the beginning teachers’ video and (2) having extractable annotations from the video to allow for coding and analysis. A total of 16 teachers in their first or second year of teaching had fully accessible video and extractable data and were included in the study. See Table 1 for further information regarding these teachers.

Table 1 Information for 16 teachers and details of their PDI
Full size table

Data Collection

Data sources included all documents and video related to the spring PDI in which teachers were asked to identify a goal for improvement using Danielson’s (2007) third domain of teaching “Instruction” (see Table 1). Teachers developed an instructional plan to improve their teaching within their chosen instructional sub-domain. Teachers then recorded the implementation of their plan and were asked to select approximately 30 min of classroom instruction as evidence for progress toward their goal. This video was annotated to explore growth, followed by a final reflection paper.

The primary data source was the initial video annotations. Annotations from the beginning teachers were to total at a minimum 11. This was set as a safeguard to ensure adequate participation. We note that in most cases, this minimum number of annotations requirement was surpassed (9 of the 17 teachers). The teachers were prompted by instructor-generated prompts located within the course management system to annotate the video(s) at moments that they believed represented the manifestation of specific efforts related to their goal(s). The first annotation was to restate the goal, while the next five were to focus on instruction. The last five annotations were to be remark(s) about other aspects of their teaching practice that they noticed. While reflective partners were asked to annotate responses to what their partner had or had not annotated, we have not included these partner annotations in our initial analysis as the focus is on what the beginning teacher themselves notice in the teaching video.

Data Analysis

Cases files were created for each teacher that included all of the documents and video annotations from the PDI. The video annotations were coded using a modified version of Sherin and van Es’s (2005) Learning to Notice Framework. A small number of annotations were not included as they included superfluous social commentary or administrative information unrelated to this analysis. In total, 229 annotations from the 16 teachers were coded. Annotations were coded for four dimensions: annotation topic, actor, annotation stance, and PDI focus.

Annotation Topic

Annotations were first coded by the topic being reflected on, these codes included Pedagogy, Classroom Management, Student Behavior, and Communication. Pedagogy encompassed description and reflections on the strategies used by the teacher to address their PDI or other instructional goals. For example, one teacher described how he chose to start his lesson,

My question is “How can I keep my students engaged while they are doing practice problems”. I have just started class by putting four molecules on the board for the students to name, they know that I will call on four students to each put a name on the board.

He went on to further describe and reflect on his pedagogical choices,

Again I am giving the student the opportunity to talk amongst themselves first so that they are better prepared, more confident, and hopefully then more participatory when we come back together as a class. Does it take more class time? In a way, and there is a risk of off task behavior, but it really makes for more meaningful discussions!

Classroom management included annotations that focused on the logistics of managing a classroom. For example, one beginning teacher made the following observation and annotation a few minutes into her lesson,

I noticed here that I need to develop a better system for how to handle students who do not complete homework assignments. I know it would be nearly impossible for me to grade everything on my own, which eliminates the problem of having half my class go out to the hall because they don’t have it completed. However, that simply is unrealistic. I don’t grade everything for accuracy but feel like students should sometimes be held accountable for more than just finishing the assignment. With a stronger homework policy regarding incomplete and late work, I think I could reduce the seemingly “so what” attitude about being sent out to the hall.

Student behavior involved annotations related to how students were behaving in the classroom. For example, one teacher made the following observation and annotation,

By asking the class to help out Rachel with the number of events I am trying to keep the whole class engaged, in case some students know that Rachel is answering the question so they may check out.

Lastly, communication pertained to verbal and non-verbal strategies employed by either teachers or students in the classroom. The following annotation provides an example coded as communication,

One way I provide feedback to the class is to point out specific errors I’ve observed (or know are common errors). While not completely individualized, it is often the most efficient way for me to provide relatively individualized feedback to the class. Providing individual feedback to 30+ students for every in-class problem would take far too long to be of any value.

Actor

Next annotations were coded to clarify the primary actor referred to in the annotation: teacher or student. For example, in the following annotation, while students are implicitly discussed, the primary actor is the teacher,

I would like to stress the thought that went into the structure of the lesson. If I was to get maximum participation in a discussion about a topic as tough as this one I was going to have to make sure everyone understood the reading. Bringing the class together to ask questions to them about what they read provides that opportunity.

Whereas the following example focused specifically on an individual student in the classroom,

Working with this girl has been rewarding this year—I am fairly certain she is homeless and I know she has very little support at home. She has made a ton of progress in science, and has learned that she can overcome her difficulties :)

Annotation Stance

The next set of coding involved the reflective stance teachers took in analyzing their practice. These codes were derived Sherin and van Es (2005) and van Es and Sherin (2002, 2008) and included Describe, Evaluate, and Interpret. A fourth stance of Explain was also added as an extension of Describe. The first three codes come directly from Sherin and van Es (2005) and are defined as follows,

Describe refers to statements that recounted the events that occurred in the clip. Evaluate refers to statements in which the teachers commented on what was good or bad or could or should have been done differently. Interpret refers to statements in which the teachers made inferences about what they noticed. (p. 250).

The fourth code, Explain, was added due to the nature of certain annotations and was attributed to the nature of the online environment. That is, teachers were not co-present with their partners or synchronously viewing the video as was the case with the work of Sherin and van Es, so they often chose to not only describe what was being viewed in the video, but to also provide an explanation about the action and their decisions that was neither entirely evaluative nor interpretive.

A single annotation could be coded as multiple stances; for example, annotations could describe an event while also explaining and/or evaluating an event. For example, in the following annotation, the beginning teacher both describes what students were doing in the video segment and explains his rationale for the pedagogical decision,

Students are balancing an equation to describe the single replacement reaction that occurs when an iron nail is placed in a solution of Copper II Sulfate. We’re going over the balancing of the reaction simply because if we did not do this as a class, many students either will not write out the reaction, or will not understand the reaction.

In other cases, an explanation was provided in isolation from a description, as in the example,

By asking the class to help out Rachel with the number of events I am trying to keep the whole class engaged, in case some students know that Rachel is answering the question so they may check out. Same thing when Alex comes up to answer the question.

Evaluate and interpret move beyond the preliminary stance of describing and explaining a teaching event. For example, this teacher provided an annotation that describes, explains, and evaluates, as he evaluates his decision not to move on as students are doing meaningful work toward generating their own solutions,

Students are starting to finish, this is a place I often struggle with. What do I do when some students are done, but others are still working. I don’t want to move on yet, because it will be more meaningful if most students have found a solution on their own.

Interpretation represents a reflection that connects the teaching event to educational theory and literature. For example, in the following annotation, a beginning physics teacher connects the use of constraints in an engineering design lesson to the literature on engineering education that calls for authentic activities and draws heavily on the reliance of teamwork in the engineering practice.

The reasoning behind the “costs” was because I wanted it to be similar to a project that they might have to work on for work. There was a limited amount of supplies that they could use, but no budget. It’s also relevant as they had to work in groups, so team work was very important.

PDI Focus

The final round of coding considered whether the annotation related to the PDI goal or whether the video prompted the teacher to notice something else in their teaching. These codes were included to document evidence of VideoANT’s ability to enable reflection toward a self-determined goal. For example, one teacher focused their PDI on “engaging students in learning” and provided the following annotation as evidence related to this goal,

I like how students were able to use the information presented in order to answer this very quick formative assessment over primary succession. One thing I could have done differently here in order to add an additional level of engagement was require students describe the picture on the screen to someone sitting near them. This would force students to phrase the concepts in their own words and it provides the student insight on whether or not they actually grasp the information.

Results

First, preliminary descriptive analyses of the frequency of codes for the four dimensions were performed. In total, 16 teacher candidates generated a total of 229 annotations with dimensions and codes as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Frequency of video annotation codes
Full size table

The annotation topics and PDI focus codes were generally related given the nature of the PDI topics as evidenced in the totals for PDI focus in Table 2. Along similar lines, it is also evident that VideoANT was used as a tool by participants for focused reflection, but was also viewed as being flexible and capable of allowing a wide variety annotation. PDI topics were selected from Danielson’s instructional framework and included the following: questioning and discussion techniques (eight teachers), engaging students in learning (three teachers), demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness (three teachers), and providing feedback to students (two teachers). These topics naturally generated annotations focused on pedagogy and communication, while non-PDI focused annotations tended to invoke reflections on classroom management and student behavior. It is also notable that annotations focused on the teacher (290) were coded more than twice as often as annotations focused on students (128).

Three hundred and fifty-two reflective stances were coded from the 233 annotations; note that a single annotation could be coded as multiple stances. Describe (43 %) and explain (30 %) accounted for the majority of coded stances, describe/explain was also the most commonly multiple-coded stance. It is interesting to note that the percentage of high-level reflective stances (evaluate and interpret) increase across subsequent cohort years (19, 25, and 30 %, respectively). This was attributed to the experiences and knowledge gained by those involved in teaching the course and will be addressed further in the discussion.

We also compared the distribution of annotations to the specific domain area (as defined by Danielson) selected by each beginning teacher (see Fig. 2). Candidates who selected domain 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques had a higher incidence of explain, evaluate, and interpret stances. It is also notable that domain 3b was the only domain in which describe was not the most frequent stance.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Frequency distribution of stances by domain

Full size image

Interestingly, more teachers selected domain 3b as their PDI focus in later cohorts, so it is difficult to isolate an explanation for trends in lower- versus higher-level reflective stances. It is possible that with each subsequent year, the TIN instructors were better able to develop beginning teachers’ reflective practices. It is also possible that the nature of the instructional domain 3b provides a topic that connects more strongly to the teachers’ exposure to theory and teaching philosophies presented in their methods sequence.

Levels of Reflective Practice

Figure 2 also illustrates the decrease in frequency of reflective stance from describe to explain to evaluate and lastly interpret. Analysis of the quantitative data at the group level became evident there existed a spectrum of development related to the reflective practices of the beginning teachers. Teachers could be grouped into three levels of reflective practice: beginning, developing, and developed (see Table 3). Five teachers were categorized as demonstrating beginning reflective practices. These teachers had almost exclusively stances coded as describe and explain. Four teachers were categorized as having developing reflective practices as they had some stances coded as evaluate. The remaining seven teachers were categorized as having developed reflective practices, displaying a balance of describe, explain, evaluate, and interpret stances. It is also noteworthy to mention that teachers in all three levels of reflective practice were more likely to focus their annotations on themselves (i.e., teacher) with half or more of the annotations being coded as such.

Table 3 Frequency of annotation stance by teacher
Full size table

Beginning Reflective Practice

Teachers coded as beginning to develop reflective practice described and explained their instructional steps and decisions but rarely extended their reflection to include evaluating or interpreting. For example, the following annotation from Morris, a physics teacher, illustrates a simple descriptive annotation common of this group of teachers, “Here, instead of showing a graphic showing simple machines I ask the class their recollection and then write them down on the board.” This annotation was similar to his ten other annotations in that each was descriptive of the circumstances unfolding in the video. In two annotations, he also went on to provide an explanation in combination with the description. For example, Morris described and explained his reasoning for modifying a laboratory on simple machines. He annotated, “the original cookbook lab I was working with did not give the equation for converting mass to force so to make this even more ‘cookbooky’ I added a section which walked them through the two step mathematical process.” Annotations of other teachers demonstrating beginning reflective practices were similar in nature to Morris’.

Developing Reflective Practice

The annotations of this group of teachers were most frequently coded as describe and explain, with some annotations moving toward evaluation and an occasional annotation being interpretive. In general, teachers with developing reflective practices were beginning to understand the need to make evaluative choices in their classrooms, and these choices and actions had impacts on the learning that took place with their students. For example, Steve, a chemistry teacher, annotated about working with small groups during a chemistry laboratory activity,

Most of the feedback I am able to provide in a lab involves the ability to answer questions students have as they come up. One of the greatest difficulties I have during labs is cycling to each of the groups, especially when the ones with questions are typically the same groups over and over.

In this annotation, Steve is starting to evaluate his instructional choices related to his PDI goal of providing feedback to students. While he is able to evaluate and identify an area of concern in his teaching, Steve did not include possible solutions that would result in action in his classroom; thus, his reflective practice is denoted as developing. In a later annotation, Steve appeared to address his earlier annotation and he described an in-action response to the issue of repeat questions related to the laboratory activity, “I’m starting to get repeat questions from many students so I’m directing students to the other half of the class where I can address them all simultaneously.” As was common with teachers in the developing group, this annotation includes description and explanation of a decision made in-action during the course of the lesson without any on-action evaluative reflection of the impact of instructional decisions on student learning.

Developed Reflective Practices

Teachers identified as exhibiting developed reflective practices were placed in this group for three distinguishing reasons: (1) annotations included all four reflective stances (though not necessarily in equal proportions), (2) the depth and insightfulness of the annotations, and (3) when applicable, interpretive stances were included which made connections to broader principles of teaching and learning. For example, Ben a physics teacher doing a balloon drop engineering activity provides an annotation in which he described, explained, and interpreted his actions. His annotation includes a conversation he had with a student during the activity,

Mr. M, can we cut off the bottom of our balloon?” “Well, that sounds like an idea.” “But that’s going to be a lot of work…” “Don’t worry, you can come in before or after school, I’ll be here.” That’s right; it’s an ‘idea’, not a good or bad idea, just an idea. It ended-up being the best idea they could have had… but if I would have told them that here, they wouldn’t have thought about the many other possibilities for re-engineering. Giving a student a firm answer, I am learning, is not always the most effective way of teaching. Perhaps, that is why Americans will continue to lead the way in the creativity department: we allow for other possibilities, and accept failure as a boost toward success.

In this annotation, Ben not only evaluates his response to the student in terms of promoting learning and critical thinking, but also takes an interpretive stance connecting this teaching event to broader principles of engineering education (Brophy et al. 2008).

Discussion

Video annotation provides educational affordances that allow for the development of reflective practices in an online induction program. VideoANT provided a mechanism for teachers to reflect directly on their classroom practices and supported reflection-on-action (Schön 1983). This reflection-on-action does not necessarily infer quality teaching, but rather is a practice that can help teachers at all levels develop their practice. Given the design of the class (teachers across various school districts and asynchronous/online), the technology was a vital component that afforded opportunities for growth and development that would not have been possible without it. The advent of this Web 2.0 technology provides a technological affordance that removes the need for expensive in-class observations and in addition allows beginning teachers to view and co-reflect on the classroom practices of their peers.

Preliminary examination of the teachers’ annotations revealed a predominance of the lower-level reflective stances of describe (43 %) and explain (31 %) with the majority of annotations related to the teacher as the actor (69 %). This is not overly surprising given that the participants are beginning teachers. However, it is critical to note that many teachers were moving beyond the level of simply describing and explaining teaching events as they unfolded and were beginning to evaluate and interpret their practice, considering plans of action for the future grounded in evidence and educational theory (Dewey 1933; Hammer 2000; Putnam and Borko 2000). It is also important to note that quantity does not trump quality in this learning space. The quality of the annotations of the teachers identified as developing and developed reflective practitioners clearly illustrated their movement beyond simply describing teaching events as they unfolded to evaluating and interpreting their practice while considering plans of action. On the other hand, teachers with beginning reflective practices were unable to provide annotations that described what was unfolding in the teaching scenario. In moving beyond describing typical classroom events, a reflective practitioner is able to extrapolate broader issues of teaching and learning and identify specific actions for improvement. We do not argue that these beginning teachers necessarily exhibited expert teaching practices, but instead suggest that they displayed the reflective practice skills of analysis and interpretation necessary for their ongoing development toward becoming expert teachers. This is encouraging and is considered a technological and educational affordance (Kirschner et al. 2004) of VideoANT.

Some prior research has been conducted using video annotation, and while very little of this research focused on beginning teachers, it is still instrumental to consider our data in light of these existing studies. Sherin and van Es (2005, 2009) used video clubs in a series of studies to improve the reflective practices of mathematics teachers in a single school. Using a similar coding scheme, they reported more balanced frequencies of the various stances—describe (31 %), evaluate (38 %), and interpret (31 %). These video clubs occurred face-to-face with small groups viewing a video under the guidance of a facilitator. While a few teachers in the group were beginning teachers, the majority were more experienced teachers. The affordances of face-to-face conversations between teachers in a single school are clearly very different from those in an online induction program where teachers are working at a distance and asynchronously accessing and annotating video. However, we argue that annotating video and “asynchronous video clubs” can be viewed as a tool that induction programs and teacher preparation programs can and should continue to use. The ability to provide virtual spaces for teachers to further develop and reflect upon their practice is a critical step in bringing beginning teachers together to view and reflect upon classroom teaching in action and has been shown to increase the depth of reflective thought related to classroom management and professional knowledge of teaching (Kong 2010).

Implications

The technological affordances provided by the accessibility and usability of annotation tools must be complemented by thoughtfully structured assignments and facilitation within the space itself. While our analysis focused on the video annotations created by teachers, the ability of VideoANT to develop reflective practices is related to the structure of the PDI. The PDI provides a purpose for reflection with carefully structured prompts and scaffolding, providing a critical educational affordance to the development of reflective practitioners. This is further evidenced by the differences seen across cohort years 2009–2012. Through improved use of course prompts related to the PDI and yearly adjustments (e.g., facilitation of online learners toward an identified course objective) made by the instructors who learned year-to-year what was effective and what was not, beginning teachers in later cohort years were more likely to exhibit characteristics of a developing or developed reflective practitioner. Informal conversations and strategic planning sessions among instructors prior to each year may have also been an explanation for this. Courses are not individualistic endeavors in the induction program and cooperation amongst instructors is commonplace and encouraged. This can be attributed to the educational affordances of the content management system (Moodle) and VideoANT, which were used in combination more effectively in later years. For example, a critical improvement was the addition of a teacher self-assessment and Danielson’s (2007) framework for teaching, which provided a clear purpose for annotations related to a specific teaching and/or learning goal. Whereas during the first year of the PDI less structure and purpose was provided, this is visible in the nature of the annotations provided. The instructor provides a critical role in activating and promoting reflective practices; the technology alone would not have afforded the results seen here.

Future Research

This paper did not include direct discussion or analysis of the social affordances of video annotation tools within an online induction program. With the exception of the reflective journal, all of the components of TIN were structured as small group or learning community activities. The video annotation component of the PDI started with individual annotation by the classroom teacher before peers within the small group added their reflections. To conform to journal limitations, we limited our analysis in this study to the initial annotations posted by beginning teachers within their PDI. In future work, we intend to explore the annotations provided by peers in response to shared videos and consider the social affordances provided by these interactions in the use of video to develop reflective practices.