Video viewing in teacher education and professional development: a literature review

Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Educational Research Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/edurev

Review

Video viewing in teacher education and professionaldevelopment: A literature review

Cyrille Gaudin*, S�ebastien Chali�esHigh School of Teaching and Education e University of Toulouse Jean Jaur�es, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31078 Toulouse, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 20 August 2014Received in revised form 29 May 2015Accepted 26 June 2015Available online 2 July 2015

Keywords:Video viewingTeacher educationProfessional developmentPreservice teacherInservice teacherLiterature review

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.06.0011747-938X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

This article reviews the international literature on video viewing in teacher education andprofessional development. Two hundred and fifty-five articles were collected, summarizedand categorized using a conceptualization that includes four aspects: teachers' activity asthey view a classroom video, the objectives of video viewing, the types of videos viewed,and the effects of video viewing on teacher education and professional development. Thefindings in each of these aspects suggested three main questions that may profitably guidefuture research: How can teaching teachers to identify and interpret relevant classroomevents on video clips improve their capacity to perform the same activities in the class-room? How can we best articulate the diverse objectives of video viewing and the diversetypes of videos in teacher education and professional development programs? How canwecreate a “continuum” between teacher education programs and professional developmentprograms in such a way that video viewing becomes a routine, familiar professionalpractice able to produce the desired effects over the course of an entire teaching career?

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2.1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432.2. Strategy for the literature search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432.3. Data coding and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3. The nature of teachers’ activity as they view a classroom video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453.1. Video viewing and selective attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463.2. Video viewing and knowledge-based reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4. Objectives of video viewing in teacher education and professional development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474.1. Video viewing to build knowledge on “how to interpret and reflect” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474.2. Video viewing to build knowledge on “what to do” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494.3. Hybrid objective of video viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494.4. Choose the objectives of video viewing based on the learning goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5. The nature of classroom videos viewed in teacher education and professional development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505.1. Viewing videos of unknown teacher activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505.2. Viewing videos of peer activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

. Gaudin), [email protected] (S. Chali�es).

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6742

5.3. Viewing videos of one's own professional practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515.4. Selecting and organizing videos to view in line with learning goals and contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

6. The effects of video viewing on teacher education and professional development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536.1. Video viewing and teacher motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536.2. Video viewing and teacher cognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536.3. Video viewing and teacher classroom practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546.4. Recommendations for effective video viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

7. Prospects for research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

1. Introduction

This review of the research literature reveals that video viewing has been increasingly employed over the past 10 years inthe education of preservice teachers (PTs) and the professional development of inservice teachers (ITs), in all subject areas, atall grade levels, and all over the world. Video viewing to train PTs and ITs has become a significant part of teacher educationand professional development programs on nearly every continent (Table 1). Videos have been used to train PTs and ITs in awide range of subject areas (Table 2). Moreover, video viewing is used today to prepare both primary (e.g., Llinares & Valls,2010) and secondary school teachers (e.g., Santagata, 2009).

The literature presents three main reasons for the growing reliance on videos in teacher education and professionaldevelopment. First, videos give PTs and ITs greater access to classroom events than classic observation (Ball & Cohen, 1999;Welsch & Devlin, 2006) without sacrificing “authenticity” (Lemke, 2007; Roche & Gal-Petitfaux, 2014; Sherin, 2004; Spiro,Collins, & Ramchandran, 2007). This method thus constitutes a choice “artifact of practice” (Borko, Jacobs, Eiteljorg, &Pittman, 2008; Llinares & Valls, 2009) that creates a link between the traditional theoretical education at the universityand classroom practice (Cannings & Talley, 2003; Karsenti & Collin, 2011; Richardson & Kile, 1999; Wang, 2013). Second,technical progress has greatly facilitated video viewing (Calandra & Rich, 2014; Sherin, 2004). Digitalization, vastly improvedstorage capacities, and sophisticated software have all contributed to the development of video in the framework of pro-fessional practice analysis (Brunvand, 2010; Goldman, 2007). Last, video viewing is increasingly used as a means to facilitatethe implementation of institutional reforms (Wang & Hartley, 2003). In the United States, for example, studies about videoviewing have contributed to the analysis of certain classroom events targeted by reforms and, in this sense, have lent these

Table 1Examples of studies on video viewing in teacher education and professional development by continent and country.

Continents Countries Examples of studies

Asia China Wang, 2013Hong Kong Yung, Wong, Cheng, Hui, & Hodson, 2007Republic of Korea Siry & Martin, 2014Republic of Singapore Fang, 2010Taiwan Liu, 2012The United Arab Emirates Alsawaie & Alghazo, 2010Turkey Koc, 2011

Europe Belgium Vifquin, 2014Czech republic Janík et al., 2009Denmark Davidsen & Vanderlinde, 2014Finland Kumpulainen, Toom, & Saalasti, 2012France Leblanc & Ria, 2014Germany Seidel & Stürmer, 2014Ireland Harford, MacRuairc, & McCartan, 2010Israel Michalsky, 2014Italy Santagata & Angelici, 2010Luxembourg Martin & Siry, 2012Norway Dalehefte & Rieck, 2014Spain Masats & Dooly, 2011Sweden Harlin, 2014Switzerland Lussi Borer & Muller, 2014The Netherlands Brouwer, 2011aThe UK Marsh, Mitchell, & Adamczyk, 2009

Oceania Australia Newhouse, Lane, & Brown, 2007North America Canada Meyer, Lampron, & Gaz�e, 2014

The United States Zhang, Lundeberg, Koehler, & Eberhardt, 2011

Table 3Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

a. Must have classroom viewing in the context of teacher education or professional devel-opment as the main objective

a. Video used outside of teacher education

b. Must examine the learners' activity related to viewing b. Video used to teach teachers the techniques of videouse

c. Must comprise training activities related to viewing c. Video used to show teachers how to use video to teachtheir students

d. Must include the identification of teachers' experience (PT or IT). All levels acceptede. Must be a journal article, a book chapter or a conference paperf. Must have been published after January 2003

Table 2Examples of studies on video viewing in teacher education and professional development by subject.

Subjects Examples of studies

Classroom management and learning support van den Bogert, van Bruggen, Kostons, & Jochems, 2014Cross-disciplinary training Leblanc & Ria, 2014Educational psychology Brown & Kennedy, 2011General science and biology Tan, Tan, & Wettasinghe, 2011Language Brouwer & Robijns, 2014Literacy Shanahan & Tochelli, 2014Mathematics Sherin, Jacobs, & Philipp, 2011Music West, 2012Pedagogical education Gr€oschner, Seidel, Kiemer, & Pehmer, 2014Physical education Calandra, Gurvitch, & Lund, 2008Physical sciences Seidel, Stürmer, Blomberg, Kobarg, & Schwindt, 2011Science Siry & Martin, 2014Social sciences/humanities Blomberg, Stürmer, & Seidel, 2011Special education Yadav, Bouck, Da Fonte, & Patton, 2009Vocational technical education Koc, 2011

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 43

reforms greater legitimacy (e.g., mathematics teaching in the USA, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM],2000). In this regard, van Es and Sherin (2008) specified that the “mathematics education reform calls on teachers to basetheir instruction on the lesson as it unfolds in the classroom, paying particular attention to the ideas that students raise” (p.244). In Europe as well, video viewing serves an institutional purpose by inviting teacher educators to “bring to life” theprinciple of alternation between sequences of coursework and sequences of classroom practice (e.g., teacher education inFrance, Minist�ere de l'Education Nationale [MEN], 20091). As Gaudin and Chali�es (2012) note “video thus appears to be aprivileged means to encourage this alternation because of its unique capacity to capture the richness and complexity ofclassroom activity” (p. 115).

Given the rise in video viewing in teacher education and professional development, we conducted a literature review inorder to (a) determine the most vital and productive approaches or paradigms within the international community, (b)summarize the main results of studies conducted within the framework of these approaches, and (c) identify the questionsthat will need to be investigated in the coming years.

2. Methods

This literature review was carried out in three successive steps: definition of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, datacollection, and data analysis.

2.1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria

To be included in this review, each study had to meet the criteria indicated in Table 3.

2.2. Strategy for the literature search

We first conducted a manual electronic search of several databases [ERIC, Science Direct OnSite (SDOS), SAGE JournalOnline, ProQuest, Wiley Inter-Science, ACM Digital Library, and AACE Digital Library/EdITLib] using the following key words:

1 This reform is in line with the recommendations of the Commission of the European Communities, which notes that “Higher Education institutionshave an important role to play in developing effective partnerships with schools and other stakeholders to ensure that their Teacher Education courses arebased upon solid evidence and good classroom practice” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007: COM 392 final, Bruxelles, 3/08/2007, p. 15).

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6744

“video,” “video technology,” “video viewing,” “teacher education,” and “teacher professional development.” We identified855 studies (see Table 4) and removed 286 doubles. Two researchers then independently confirmed the inclusion/exclusioncriteria for each study. The intercoder agreement rate for coding was 95.29%. Disagreements between the two coders wereresolved through discussion and further review of the disputed studies. In total, 193 studies met the inclusion criteria andwere used in the analyses. We next examined the references of these retained studies and identified 62 additional studies,whichdalthough older, not found in any of the databases, or not in Englishdwere considered as potentially significant in thisfield of research. In addition, we retained theoretical or institutional references from these studies whenwe judged that theycontained elements of information important to understanding the studies themselves. In all, 255 studies were included forcoding and analysis.

2.3. Data coding and analysis

The retained studies were first coded based on a certain conceptualization of how video viewing is used in teacher ed-ucation and professional development (Fig. 1). These concepts originated from the collaborative research that we haveconducted for several years with researchers and teachers who use video viewing in initial and continuing teacher education.This conceptualization comprises four aspects, which are represented by the following questions: (a) What is the nature ofteachers’ activity as they view classroom videos? (b) What are the objectives of video viewing in teacher education andprofessional development? (c) What type of video is viewed in teacher education and professional development? (d) Whatare the effects of video viewing on teacher education and professional development? These four aspects, in turn, correspondto the categories that we used for coding the studies analyzed. Each category was then broken down into subcategories usingan iterative process for qualitative research analysis (Strauss& Corbin, 1990). This in-depth analysis helped us to structure thecategories into subcategories on the basis of description, rather than interpretation, to reflect the results of all the studiesincluded in our review (Table 5). Ultimately, these four categories and their subcategories were used to structure the differentsections of this study.

Other conceptualizations of video viewing in teacher education and professional development have recently beenmobilized for studying this subject (e.g., Blomberg, Renkl, Sherin, Borko, & Seidel, 2013; Brouwer, 2011a; Santagata, 2014a,2014b; Yung, Yip, Lai, & Lo, 2010). Santagata (2014a, 2014b) suggests a model comprised of four components representedby the following questions: (a)What is the teacher learning purpose of using video? (b)What types of videowill work for that

Table 4Results of the search for data on video viewing in teacher education and professional development.

Initial search (database) Number of studies Complementary searchStudy references

Number of studies

ACM 9 Studies not found in the databases 33EdITLib 63 Studies not in English 17ERIC 475 Studies published before January 2003 12ProQuest 23 Theoretical references 60SAGE 19 Institutional references 4SDOL 182Wiley 84

Fig. 1. Conceptualization of the use of video viewing in teacher education and professional development.

Table 5Results of the data analysis for video viewing in teacher education and professional development.

Categories and subcategories Number of studies

The nature of teachers' activity as they view a classroom video 58 (12)Video viewing and selective attention 28Video viewing and knowledge-based reasoning 18

Objectives of video viewing in teacher education and professional development 141 (69)Video viewing to build knowledge on “how to interpret and reflect” 45Video viewing to build knowledge on “what to do” 12Hybrid objective of video viewing 7Choose the objectives of video viewing based on the learning goals 8

The nature of classroom videos viewed in teacher education and professional development 109 (21)Viewing videos of unknown teacher activity 19Viewing videos of peer activity 11Viewing videos of one's own professional practice 38Selecting and organizing videos to view in line with learning goals and contexts 20

The effects of video viewing on teacher education and professional development 175 (10)Video viewing and teacher motivation 9Video viewing and teacher cognition 37Video viewing and teacher classroom practice 32Recommendations for effective video viewing 87

Note. The numbers in parentheses refer to studies used in the introduction and the conclusion of each category.

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 45

purpose? (c)What viewingmodality will best serve that purpose? (d) How canwe assess that we have achieved our purpose?As for Blomberg et al. (2013a), they draw on five research-based heuristics concerning how to think about and use video inorder to create well-conceptualized learning environments: (a) identify learning goals, (b) choose instructional approaches,(c) choose video material, (d) address limitations, and (e) align assessment to instruction/goals. Derived from a literaturereview, Brouwer (2011a) designed the Visual Teacher Learning model (VTL) as a conceptual map to serve theorizing andresearch about teachers' learning with video. This model represents the possible relationships between nine factors: (a)teachers’ personal characteristics, biography and learning goals, (b) the change environment in which they work on theirprofessional development, (c) the learning activities they undertake for this purpose in cooperation with colleagues, (d) theperceptual processes involved in these activities, (e) the kind(s) of feedback they receive, (f) how they interpret this feedback,(g) the reflection processes involved in the foregoing, (h) consequences for professional action, and (i) their personaldevelopment in the teaching profession. Finally, Yung et al. (2010) offer an emerging model to outline the learning outcomesthat teacher education programmes using video should consider. Besides cognitive and psychomotor learning, the affectiveand social needs of teachers are also highlighted in the model to inform the development of video-mediated teacher pro-fessional activities. Three broad strategies are identified in the model for bringing forth the learning outcomes, namely,critical reflection, meaningful comparison and productive discussion. These interact to shape the landscape of teacher pro-fessional learning. The model also identifies the key role of facilitators and the importance of video selection in enhancingteacher learning via video-mediated activities.

3. The nature of teachers’ activity as they view a classroom video

The first aspect in our conceptualization refers to the nature of teachers' activity as they view a classroom video. Un-derstanding the nature of this activity appears to us a pre-requisite for using video viewing in teacher education and pro-fessional development. This understanding renders possible choosing the objectives of video viewing depending on thelearning goals in a more appropriate manner. Second, such an understanding then enables more effective elaboration andsupport of a teacher education or professional development course using video viewing. The following questions, hence, needto be considered: What is the nature of teachers’ activity as they view classroom videos? Does this activity differ fromclassroom observation? Is it the same for PTs and ITs? What are the factors that influence this activity?

Watching a video “involves perceptual processes, it is not passive, and along with all perceptual processes, professionalvision2 is characterized by bottom-up as well as topedown processes.” This quote from Sherin (2007, p. 384) describes themajority view expressed in the literature about to the nature of PTs' and ITs’ activity as they watch a classroom video. The keyfeature is their engagement in a perceptual process with two main components: selective attention and knowledge-basedreasoning (van Es & Sherin, 2008). These two interrelated and “dynamic” processes (Sherin & van Es, 2009) are best un-derstood as being in “circular interplay” (Blomberg et al., 2011). Several authors in fact agree that one of the most importantcomponent of teaching expertise is the ability to identify and interpret relevant classroom events and make instructional

2 Sherin (2001) borrowed the concept of “professional vision” from the linguistic anthropologist Goodwin (1994) for research on teacher professionaldevelopment and suggested that teachers need to develop the capacity to notice and interpret the key aspects of classroom interactions. This initial idea ofprofessional vision was since been discussed and refined by others (Blomberg et al., 2011; Lefstein & Snell, 2011; McDonald & Rook, 2014; Michalsky, 2014;Seidel & Stürmer, 2014; Steffensky, Gold, Holdynski, & M€oller, 2015).

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6746

decisions based on those interpretations (Borko, Koellner, Jacobs, & Seago, 2011; Jacobs, Lamb, & Philipp, 2010; Kersting,Givvin, Thompson, Santagata, & Stigler, 2012; van Es & Sherin, 2008).

3.1. Video viewing and selective attention

Although it is generally acknowledged that viewing a classroom video engages PTs and ITs in a complex activity that elicitscognitive, emotional, and motivational processes (Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013; Koehler, Yadav, Phillips, & Cavazos-Kottke,2005; Seidel et al., 2011; Yadav et al., 2011), many authors maintain that the main process is selective attention (Fadde &Sullivan, 2013; Kersting, 2008; Miller & Zhou, 2007; Sherin & van Es, 2009). Whether the term used for this cognitive pro-cess is “call out” (Frederiksen, 1992), “stopping point” (Jacobs & Morita, 2002), “check point” (Leinhardt, Putnam, Stein, &Baxter, 1991), “foci” and “threshold” (Fadde & Sullivan, 2013) or “noticing” (van Es & Sherin, 2008), selective attention isalways associated with PTs' and ITs’ ability to identify certain classroom events, despite their multiplicity, simultaneity andcomplexity. For example, Seidel and Stürmer (2014) conceptualized this cognitive process (“noticing”) by focusing on thethree components, goal clarity and orientation, teacher support, and learning climate, stemming from themodel of Seidel andShavelson (2007).

Most authors agree that enriching selective attention should be an objective of both teacher education and professionaldevelopment. Indeed, both PTs and ITs suffer from an inability to identify relevant classroom events without training andfocus. Concerning PTs, studies indicate that they have a hard time identifying relevant events in classroom videos (Calandraet al., 2008; Erickson, 2007; van den Bogert et al., 2014), evenwhen they are watching their own classroom practices (Prusak,Dye, Graham, & Graser, 2010). Without preparation, PTs tend “to focus on superficial matters such as teacher and studentcharacteristics, fleeting classroommanagement issues and global judgments of lesson effectiveness” (Castro, Clarke, Jacobs,&Givvin, 2005, p. 11). One of the main hypotheses to explain these difficulties is that, although the videos in most teachereducation programs are designed to encourage professional development, PTs are limited in their capacity to identify relevantclassroom events by their actual level of professional development. Thus, according to many authors, PTs are unable toselectively attend to the most relevant events in the classroom video because they lack sufficient knowledge about theteaching profession and specific subject areas to identify these events (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002; Sherin & van Es,2005; Stürmer, K€onings, & Seidel, 2014; van den Berg, 2001). The study of Blomberg et al. (2011) presents a good example ofhow PTs' generic and subject-based knowledge, learned in methodological courses, plays a key role in the process of selectiveattention: when PTs lack the necessary knowledge, they simply fail to identify the most relevant events in the videos. Ac-cording to these authors, selective attention should thus be seen as a “process of subject-specific socialization in teachereducation programs that involves the acquisition of knowledge (generic and subject-specific) and specific norms and beliefsabout teaching a subject matter” (p. 1139). More generally, the studies also point out that the cognitive process of selectiveattention is dependent on not only what PTs know, but also their preoccupations at the time of their education, their pastexperiences (Yost, Sentner,& Forlenza-Bailey, 2000), and their beliefs (Llinares& Valls, 2010; Yadav& Koehler, 2007). In short,Fadde and Sullivan (2013) suggest that “an appropriate early step in developing classroom noticing, then, is developing se-lective attentiondlearningwhat is worth attending to andwhat is notworth attending towithin the classroom environment”(p. 161). Concerning ITs, the studies emphasize that they tend to focus more on their own activities than their students’activities (Colestock& Sherin, 2009; Santagata, 2009; Sherin& van Es, 2009; van Es& Sherin, 2008). Nevertheless, ITs processvisual information faster, and consistently check up on students more regularly than PTs (van den Bogert et al., 2014). UnlikePTs, they are also able to distribute their attention evenly across the classroom (Cortina, Miller, McKenzie,& Epstein, 2015; vanden Bogert et al., 2014).

3.2. Video viewing and knowledge-based reasoning

As noted by Lefstein and Snell (2011, p. 513), watching a classroom video engages “social practices of seeing” by eliciting“dispositions to notice” and “capacities to reason.” In their literature review, Seidel et al. (2011) point out that this reasoningprocesshas threemaincharacteristics. First, PTsandITs shouldhave theability todescribewhat theyhave identifiedwhenviewingthe video. Second, they should have the ability to interpret what they have identified by seeking, for example, to associate ajudgment and the justification for it. Third, they should have the ability to imagine the consequences, and even rectifications, ofwhat they have identified (Berliner, 1986; Jacobs et al., 2010; Santagata, Zannoni, & Stigler, 2007; van Es & Sherin, 2008). Forexample, Sherin and van Es (2002) recorded PTs discussing videotaped classroom situations over the course of their video clubinterventionsandcoded their statementsaccording to threequalitativelydifferent aspects: (a)describe, (b)explain, and (c)predictclassroom situations. These aspects are conceptualized as distinct but highly interrelated (van Es & Sherin, 2002).

Some studies have specifically examined the nature of PTs' and ITs' activity as they engage in a process of reasoning(Colestock & Sherin, 2009; Goeze, Zottmann, Schrader, & Fischer, 2010; Santagata & Guarino, 2011; Sherin & van Es, 2009).The main finding is that the nature of this activity depends in great part on the level of professional development (Putnam &Borko, 2000; Schwindt, 2008; Seidel & Prenzel, 2007). From a theoretical framework based on the theory of inquiry (Dewey,1927, 1938), Lussi Borer and Muller (2014) recently identified two levels of reasoning activity in PTs as they viewed videos ofother unknown PTs. They engaged in a “first level” of reasoning activity directly related to the observed events. This activitycan be a simple reaction such as nodding or smiling. It can also be a description, interpretation, explanation or evenassessment of what has just been identified. The PTs also displayed a “second level” of reasoning activity enabling them to

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 47

compare the visualized events with previous events encountered in their education courses and/or their own classroomsituations. Through this activity of comparing observed and/or experienced events, PTs ultimately manage to better describe,interpret and evaluate what they are able to identify when watching videos. When PTs have access to the classroom expe-rience of unknown PTs, they engage in the “second level” of reasoning. This reasoning results from the tension created bycomparing an unknown PT's filmed activity and the same PT's comments on it during an interview3 (Leblanc & S�eve, 2012).Concerning ITs, Colestock and Sherin (2009) investigated the nature of their activity during the reasoning process. They showthat ITs engage in five more or less cumulative sense-making strategies: comparison, generalization, perspective taking,reflective thinking, and problem solving. In addition, van Es and Sherin (2008) observed that these sense-making strategiesare more or less well-articulated, depending on the IT. They thus differentiate ITs engaged on a “direct path” (a particularstrategy for video viewing chosen and used holistically), a “cyclical path” (characterized by a teacher cycling between broadand narrow perspectives over time), or an “incremental path” (these teachers appear to develop their ability to noticegradually). Sherin and Russ (2014) recently introduced “interpretive frames” to further specify the relationship between thesub-processes involved in ITs noticing. The authors note that “they are structures that describe the ways in which a teacher’sselective attention both grows out of and informs his or her knowledge-based reasoning, and vice versa. That is, the ‘cyclic’and ‘intergrated’ nature of the sub-processes of selective attention and knowledge-based reasoning are formalized by, evidentin, and defined by the interpretive frame” (p. 5). In their study, they identified a stable set of thirtheen strategiesdorinterpretive framesdthat ITs used during the video-based noticing interviews to make sense of classroom interactions (e.g.,affective, alternatives, storytelling, metaphor, evaluation, anomaly).

When PTs and ITs talk about what they identify in classroom videos, they do not simply provide a list of items or eventsthat were identified. Instead, they describe their reasoning about what they identify. Furthermore, theses descriptions areusually embedded within an extended story or an explanation or hypothesis about what is going on (Leblanc & S�eve, 2012;Lussi Borer & Muller, 2014; Sherin & Russ, 2014).

4. Objectives of video viewing in teacher education and professional development

The second aspect of our conceptualization points to objectives of video viewing in teacher education and professionaldevelopment. These objectives are defined from learning goals. In other words, the question is not how to use video viewingin teacher education and professional development but the ways inwhich video viewing can contribute to achieving learninggoals, and do so in a way that is specificdbut not systemicdand/or integrated with other programs. The following questionsmust be addressed: What are the objectives of video viewing in teacher education and professional development? What arethe foundations of these objectives? Is it possible to conjugate different objectives in the same teacher education or pro-fessional development course?

Although institutional or technological constraints to using videos exist, the objectives of video viewing generally dependon the theoretical foundations onwhich teacher education and professional development courses are built (Gaudin& Chali�es,2012; Leblanc & Veyrunes, 2011; Meloth, Good, & Sugar, 2008). Studies that examine video viewing in teacher education andprofessional development draw on a broad range of theoretical frameworks (Table 6). These theoretical frameworks firstguide the selection of the objectives for video viewing and overall the manner in which teacher education or professionaldevelopment programs are designed, and data collected and analyzed. Nevertheless, some studies are not clear as to howtheir framework informed the teacher education or professional development experiences they designed and how theirframework guided the collection and analysis of their data (e.g., Abell & Cennamo, 2004).

The literature distinguishes six objectives of video viewing in teacher education and professional development: (a) showexamples of good teaching practices, (b) show characteristic professional situations, (c) analyze the diversity of classroompractices from different perspectives, (d) stimulate personal reflection, (e) guide/coach teaching, and (f) evaluate compe-tencies (Fadde & Rich, 2010; Janík et al., 2009; Martin & Siry, 2012; Masats, Sormunen, Hacklin, & Ducos, 2007; Wang &Hartley, 2003). With the exception of evaluation as an objective (see for example, Admiraal, Hoeksma, van de Kamp, &van Duin, 2011; Wiens, Hessberg, LoCasale-Crouch, & DeCoster, 2013), the literature thus reveals two main objectives ofvideo viewing to help PTs to learn to teach and ITs to improve their professional practice. The first is designed from a“developmentalist” perspective and the objective is thus building knowledge on “how to interpret and reflect on classroompractices” (Sherin, 2004, p. 14). The second objective is designed from a “normative” perspective, with the objective being theconstruction of “what to do” in the classroom (Fuller & Manning, 1973; Lampert & Ball, 1998).

4.1. Video viewing to build knowledge on “how to interpret and reflect”

According to most studies, video viewing is used to expose PTs and ITs to a wide variety of professional practices and tostimulate their professional reflection (Brophy, 2004; Merseth, 1994; Meyer, David, Cantin, & Aub�e, 2005; Sherin & van Es,2002). This objective of video viewing targets both teacher education and professional development. The objective is not

3 This interview is like a self-confrontation interview of an unknown PT about his or her classroom activity. In this study, with the support of a teachereducator, the PTs viewed the videos of the classroom situation and the interview on a web platform: N�eopass@ction. - http://neo.ens-lyon.fr/neo (anEnglish interface is available. To obtain access, please contact. [email protected])

Table 6Examples of theoretical frameworks used by studies on video viewing in teacher education and professional development.

Examples of theoretical frameworks Studies

An activity-centred approach to work analysis (Durand & Poizat, 2014)Enaction theory (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991), Course-of-action theory (Theureau, 2003)

Leblanc & Ria, 2014

Cognitive Development Process Model (Chan & Harris, 2005) Brouwer & Robijns, 2014Cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1992) Yadav & Koehler, 2007Constructivist perspective (Prosser & Trigwell, 1998) Yung et al., 2007Culturalist anthropology based on the analytical philosophy of Wittgenstein (1996) Gaudin, Flandin, Ria, & Chali�es, 2014Enaction theory (Varela et al. 1991) Coles, 2013Generative theory (Wittrock, 1974) e generative theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 1997) Calandra & Brantley-Dias, 2010Inquiry theory (Dewey, 1927, 1938) Lussi & Muller, 2014Learning and Teaching Geometry model (LTG)Teaching and learning perspective (Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003)

Seago, Driscoll, & Jacobs, 2010

Learning to Notice Framework (LNF)Linguistic anthropology e Professional vision (Goodwin, 1994)Situative perspective e Situated cognition (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), expertise (Lesgold et al., 1988),teaching-incontext theory (Schoenfeld, 1998)

van Es & Sherin, 2008

Lesson Analysis Framework (LAF)Experiment model for teaching (Hiebert, Morris, & Glass, 2003), lesson study (Lewis & Tsuchida, 1998)

Santagata et al., 2007

Levels in Learning framework (Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1995) Calandra, Sun, & Puvirajah, 2014Multi-theory and practice based approachDistributed cognition (Perkins, 1992), situated learning (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996), new researchon expertise (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000)

Kale & Whitehouse, 2008

Pragmatic philosophy (Mead, 1982) Harlin, 2014Problem-Based Learning approach (PBL)Ill-structured problems (Hung, 2006), facilitation (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2008), collaborative discussion(Mennin, 2007), and self-directed research (Savery, 2006)

Zhang et al., 2011

Problem-Solving Cycle model (PSC)Situative perspective e communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), situated learning and artifactsof practice (Greeno et al., 1996)

Borko et al., 2008

Reflective practitioner (Sch€on, 1983; Van Manen, 1977) Calandra et al., 2008Social constructivism theory (Vygotsky, 1978) Koc, 2011Sociocultural perspective e Dialogic inquiry (Wells, 2002; Wenger, 1998) Llinares & Valls, 2010Teachers' professional vision: Noticing and knowledge-based reasoning (e.g., Sherin, 2001; Berliner, 1991) Blomberg et al., 2011

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6748

to characterize “good” and “bad” teaching practices; that is, practices to reproduce or reject (Hewitt, Pedretti, Bencze,Vaillancourt, & Yoon, 2003; Santagata & Guarino, 2011). Instead, the aim is to provide PTs and ITs with selected videos of“‘examples’ not ‘exemplars’” that can be used as “springboards for analysis and discussions about teaching and learning”(Borko et al., 2011, p. 184). As an example, viewing a video of another teacher can help PTs to uncover, clarify and refine theirpersonal theories on teaching and learning, challenge these theories, and develop new understandings about teaching andlearning (Abell & Cennamo, 2004).

“Problem-based learning” has a key role (Maher, Landis, & Palius, 2010; Zhang et al., 2011) in helping PTs and ITs to buildknowledge on “how to interpret and reflect.” Thework of Borko et al. (2008, 2011) is frequently evoked in this regard, as theseauthors proposed groupwork situations for ITs as “problem-solving cycles” (PSC) from a situated perspective (Lave&Wenger,1991). Santagata et al. (2007), Santagata (2009), Santagata and Angelici (2010), Santagata and Guarino (2011), Santagata andYeh (2013) investigated the consequences of a “lesson analysis framework” on the educational decisions made by PTs and ITsto support student learning in mathematics. In the same vein, Lewis (2000) designed a “lesson-study” in which PTs plan alesson together, select a volunteer to teach it, and then watch its video recording focusing on the activities they jointlyplanned and on their impact on student learning. “Video clubs” are yet another means to help ITs build the capacity to noticeand interpret certain classroom events (Sherin & Han, 2004; Sherin & van Es, 2005; Sherin, Russ, Sherin, & Colestock, 2008;Sherin & van Es, 2009; van Es, 2012). Although the succession of these studies indicates that improvements have been made,video clubs are usually regular meetings where ITs with varying degrees of experience can collectively visualize and analyzevideos of their classroom practice. “Microteaching” programs also use video to develop skills in “how to interpret and reflect”in teacher education (Amobi, 2005; Ostrosky, Mouzourou, Danner, & Zaghlawan, 2013; Sen, 2009; Yamamoto& Hicks, 2007).Based on Vygotsky's theory of social constructivism (1978), for example, a recent study by Koc (2011) offers a broad outline forteacher education using videos of PTs who elaborate, carry out, and analyze role plays of classroom situations. Last, “videoannotation” methods have shown great promise for guiding sophisticated analysis of self-video by PTs. For example, teachereducation courses that allow for “critical incident analysis4” (Griffin, 2003; Tripp, 1993) have been studied (Calandra,Brantley-Dias, & Mcneal, 2007, 2008; Calandra, Brantley-Dias, Lee, & Fox, 2009; Calandra & Brantley-Dias, 2010; Calandra& Puvirajah, 2011; Calandra& Rich, 2014; Fadde, Aud,& Gilbert, 2009; Fadde& Rich, 2010; Fadde& Sullivan, 2013; McFadden,

4 By “critical incidents”, Griffin (2003) mean teaching moments participants experienced or observed during the lesson that amused or annoyed, weretypical or atypical, or were something the participants found to be a difficulty or success.

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 49

Ellis, Anwar, & Roehrig, 2014; Rich & Hannafin, 2008, 2009; Rich & Tripp, 2011). PTs are usually asked to (a) videotape theirlessons, (b) watch the video in order to select and edit video clips focused on critical incidents, (c) analyze the clips through awritten reflection, and (d) post the clips on the PTs' electronic portfolio or a learning management system. Video annotationcan also work with peer video (Fadde & Sullivan, 2013) or unknown teacher's video (Kucan, Palincsar, Khasnabis, & Chang,2009). Nevertheless, the comparative study of Fadde and Sullivan (2013) has shown that these sophisticated methods ofvideo annotation seem more beneficial for late-stage PTs than for early-stage PTs. These last benefit more from a simplifiedguided video viewing activity. Moreover, the simplicity of the guided video viewing activitymay help overcome the resistanceof teacher education faculty and cooperating teachers to using video annotation tools for analyzing the teaching practice ofPTs (Shepherd&Hannafin, 2008, 2009). Fadde and Sullivan (2013) thus suggest that “incorporating simpler video observationactivities early in teacher education may lead to greater acceptance of advanced video observations activities later duringstudent-teaching and professional practice” (p. 170). More generally, Scott, Kucan, Correnti, and Miller (2013) emphasize thatvideo viewing needs to be introduced early in teacher education because when video is used as a “mediating tool,” reflectionon instruction and learning can emerge early in PTs' development.

4.2. Video viewing to build knowledge on “what to do”

In some cases, the primary interest of video viewing is not its potential to develop teachers’ reflective practice, but instead topresent the “best practices” in a variety of circumstances in the teaching profession (Andre, Schmidt, Nonis, Buck,& Hall, 2000;Goldman & Barron, 1990; Merseth, 1994). Selected and shown from this perspective, videos show examples of good teachingpractices (Marsh et al., 2009; Seago, 2004) or typical classroom lessons (Clarke et al., 2008; Yung et al., 2007). They thuscontribute to building teaching knowledge about “what to do” (Brouwer, 2011b). This objective of video viewing targets morespecifically teacher education. For example, showing PTs videos of several “best practices” raises their awareness of the di-versity of approaches to teaching and learning (Oonk, Goffree, & Verloop, 2004; Rosaen, Degnan, VanStratt, & Zietlow, 2004)and avoids demotivating them (Wong, Yung, Cheng, Lam, & Hodson, 2006). However, showing PTs and ITs videos of otherteachers and using them to determinewhether they are good practices or not raises ethical issues (Arafeh&McLaughlin, 2002).

Whatever the objective, videos can be viewed using several settings that can sometimes be combined. As an example, avideo can be viewed as a class activity (Koc, 2011; Rosaen et al., 2010a) or as a distance-learning activity (Karsenti & Collin,2011; Krammer et al., 2006), live (Mitchell, Marsh, Hobson, & Sornsen, 2008; Whyte, 2011) or recorded (Kleinknecht &Schneider, 2013; Wang, 2013), as an occasional activity (Calandra et al., 2008; Tripp & Rich, 2012a) or as part of regularactivities (Santagata, 2009; van Es& Sherin, 2008), and alone (Star& Stirkland, 2008; van den Berg, 2001) or in a group (Borkoet al., 2008; van Es, 2012). Video viewing is also sometimes combined with other technologies such as electronic portfolios(Cooper, 2015; Fadde et al., 2009), online discussions (Koc, Peker, & Osmanoglu, 2009; Llinares & Valls, 2009; Yamamoto &Hicks, 2007), video-conferencing (Dyke, Harding, & Liddon, 2008; Marsh et al., 2009; Wiesemes&Wang, 2010), “multimodalresources”: digital pictures and texts (Roche & Gal-Petitfaux, 2015), DVD and CD-ROM (Chan & Harris, 2005; Yung et al.,2007), TV programmes,5 or web platforms6 (Aub�e, David, Cantin, & Meyer, 2003; Baecher & Kung, 2011; Leblanc & Ria,2014). However, the number of tools remains limited due to the high time investment required, particularly for organiza-tion and management (Krammer et al., 2006), and the high cost (Koc, 2011). Studies have also shown the resistance ofuniversity supervisors and cooperating teachers to use video annotation tools for analyzing the teaching practice of PTscompared with the simplicity of the guided video viewing activity (Fadde & Sullivan, 2013; Shepherd & Hannafin, 2008).

4.3. Hybrid objective of video viewing

Although their theoretical bases are difficult to reconcile, many authors recommend incorporating these two objectives(“developmentalist” and “normative”) in the same teacher education or professional development course (Dooly & Masats,2011; Kale & Whitehouse, 2008). From a holistic, socioconstructivist perspective, Masats and Dooly (2011) suggest, forexample, an “integrative model” incorporating periods of video coaching or “zooming in,” in which PTs can review and analyzetheir own classroom practice, and periods of video modeling or “freeze-framing,” inwhich they are presented with examples ofbest practices. In the same vein, the suite of MTP7 (“My Teaching Partner”) professional development supports contains threespecific resources thatmay be used either individually or in tandem (Allen, Pianta, Gregory,Mikami,& Lun, 2011): a video libraryof annotated examples of best practice, a college course and aweb-mediated individualized coaching. The coaching program is apartnership between the IT and a trained consultant that provides relevant, interactive, and ongoing feedback and support froma consultant and online curricula throughout the school year. Every twoweeks, using a simple video camera set up on a tripod intheir classroom, ITs videotape their own instruction and send this footage to their coach. Last, Borko et al. (2011) suggest a“continuum” of objectives that includes the professional development of ITs. At one end of the continuum, the authors proposepositioning a “highly adaptive” objective of video viewing, with goals and resources derived from the local context and facili-tation based on general guidelines. They associate this objective with video clubs (Sherin & Han, 2004) and problem-solving

5 For example, see: https://www.teachingchannel.org.6 For example, see: https://teknoclips.org; http://videomosaic.org; http://www.unterrichtsvideos.ch.7 For more information concerning MTP, see: http://curry.virginia.edu/research/centers/castl/mtp.

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6750

cycles (Borko et al., 2008). At the other end of the continuum, they position a “highly specified” objective of video viewing, withgoals, resources and facilitation materials specified for a particular, predetermined professional development experience. Theyassociate this objective with, for example, programs like “Learning and Teaching Geometry” (Borko et al., 2011).

4.4. Choose the objectives of video viewing based on the learning goals

Many authors think the choice of a video viewing objective should be based on the learning goals of the teacher educationand professional development programs (Blomberg et al., 2013a; Borko et al., 2008; Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, &Terpstra, 2010b; Santagata, 2014b). As noted by LeFevre (2004, p. 235), “video is not a curriculum. Video is rather a me-diumwhich can be developed into a resource and used in specific ways to enhance learning.” The learning goals to be pursuedare in turn chosen in accordance with teachers’ needs (Borko et al., 2008); that is, within the central context of teaching-learning (Borko et al., 2011) and always in relation to the reality of what they experience in their classrooms (Hewitt et al.,2003). For example, according to Seidel, Blomberg, and Renkl (2013), using a video as “an anchor” (example-rule) helpsPTs in planning their lessons, whereas using it as “an illustrative example” (rule-example) promotes the ability to reproducefactual knowledge and evaluate videotaped classroom situations.

5. The nature of classroom videos viewed in teacher education and professional development

The third aspect of our conceptualization relates to the nature of classroom videos viewed in teacher education andprofessional development. Understanding the affordances and challenges related to the viewing of each type of video isimportant for choosing them and using themwell, specifically in terms of the context and the visioning objectives sought. Thefollowing questions need to be considered: What types of video are viewed in teacher education and professional devel-opment?What are the affordances and challenges related to viewing each type of video?What are themost appropriatewaysto view the video, depending on the type of video? How can one choose and associate different types of video? Should thefocus be placed on teachers or students’ activity while viewing videos of classroom interactions?

Three types of videos are used in teacher education and professional development: classrooms videos of unknownteachers (Hatch & Grossman, 2009), classrooms videos of peers (Sherin & Han, 2004), and classroom videos of one's ownactivity (Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008).

5.1. Viewing videos of unknown teacher activity

Themain advantage of this typeof video is that it facilitates the appropriationof amethod for analyzingprofessional practices.PTs and ITs can thenapply thesemethodswhentheyviewtheirownclassroomactivityor thatof theirpeers (Santagata&Guarino,2011;Zhangetal., 2011). Inaddition,PTsand ITs tendtobecomemore involved inpeerdiscussionsandreflectionas theywatchthistype of video than they would be if they were watching their own classroom practice (Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013; Mitchellet al., 2008; Seidel et al., 2011). Although somewhat counterintuitive, ITs' emotional and motivational engagement is higherwhen they view the professional practices of unknownteachers, according to recent studies (e.g., Kleinknecht& Schneider, 2013).However, themajor limitation of this type of video is that the educational contexts are often far removed from PTs' and ITs’ actualclassroom experiences, which ultimately may lessen their utility (Leblanc, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011).

Some studies provide recommendations for using this type of video. These studies emphasize that it is important to firstdescribe the educational context in which the video was made (Brunvand, 2010; Coles, 2013; Leblanc, 2012; Moreno &Abercrombie, 2010; Zhang et al., 2011), particularly those elements (the teacher's educational objectives, lesson plans, stu-dent work, the context of the establishment, etc.) that will inform the PTs and ITs as they watch. For instance, the teachingmethods being used should be explained (Santagata& Angelici, 2010; Borko et al., 2008;Meloth, 2008; Santagata, 2009). Otherstudies underline the importance of enriching the viewing experience by incorporating comments on the teacher's activity overthe course of the video (Brunvand, 2010; Leblanc, 2012; Renkl, Hilbert,& Schworm, 2009; Zhang et al., 2011). These commentshelp PTs and ITs to access implicit elements that are hard to discern, such as the teacher's preoccupations, intentions or emotions(Zhang et al., 2011), and avoid misinterpretations (Koc et al., 2009). Often brought up again during post-practice interviews(Leblanc & Ria, 2014), these comments can be provided on paper or directly integrated into the video as hyperlinks to texts oraudio (Brunvand& Fishman, 2006). Some authors even suggest having the videoed teacher participate in the viewing session inorder to comment on his or her own classroom practice (Marsh et al., 2009). Last, innovative technologies offer the prospect ofassociating the videowith feedback from peers, experienced teachers and researchers via aweb platform (Leblanc& Ria, 2014).

5.2. Viewing videos of peer activity

The main advantage of peer videos is that PTs and ITs are reassured and feel less isolated in their classrooms and schools.They see what their peers are doing in teaching circumstances similar to their own, as if they were “seeing an echo” (Leblanc& S�eve, 2012). Zhang et al. (2011) also note that this type of video provides PTs and ITs with a “window into practice” thatengages them in comparative and critical thinking. Through this “mimetic experience” (Durand, 2008), they are able to “seethe other as oneself” (Leblanc, 2012) and understand that they face similar problems (Borko et al., 2008), which ultimatelymakes it easier to change classroom practices after successfully identifying, interpreting and discussingwith others newways

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 51

of doing things (Baecher & Tuten, 2011; Borko et al., 2008; Harford et al., 2010; van Es & Sherin, 2008). To give an example,Flandin and Ria (2012) show that viewing a peer video can generate dissatisfaction with one's own classroom practice andpush PTs to “move toward” newandmore satisfactoryways of teaching. Themain criticism of this type of video is that PTs andITs are often reluctant to engage in a deep analysis of a peer's professional practice, even though one's preservice peers havemuch about their practice that can be criticized (Leblanc, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011).

5.3. Viewing videos of one's own professional practice8

This is “like having a mirror placed in my face” (Zhang et al., 2011). The main interest of watching videos on one's ownclassroom practice is that it provokes the development of descriptive and critical reflection. Although not systematic(Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013), seeing oneself increases PT and IT activation in terms of immersion, resonance, authenticityand motivation compared with viewing the practice of other teachers (Borko et al., 2008; Brouwer, 2012; Rosaen et al., 2008;Seidel et al., 2011). When they watch their own classroom experience on video, PTs and ITs gain a certain distance (Downey,2008; Shepherd&Hannafin, 2009), which allows them to gradually come to “know and recognize” themselves (Leblanc, 2012),and they learn to spot elements in their teaching practices that bear improvement (Borko et al., 2008). With repeated use ofthese videos, PTs and ITs enhance their cognitive powers of observation, identification and interpretation, as well as theircapacity for classroom action (Coffey, 2014; Krammer et al., 2006; Sherin & van Es, 2009; Star & Stirkland, 2008). PTs and ITsalso learn to seek specific evidence from the video to support claims and to be more cautious in making judgments (Baecher&Kung, 2011). The videos also reveal classroom events they hadmissed during the actual lesson (Borko et al., 2008, 2011; Coffey,2014; Romano & Schwartz, 2005; Zhang et al., 2011). For example, they see more clearly the effects of their interactions withstudents, the activities of student groups that were outside of their range of vision, and their own “mannerisms” (Snoeyink,2010). Similarly, “seeing oneself” can also create dissonance when PTs and ITs perceive a difference between what theyremember of their activity and what they are seeing on video (Baecher & Kung, 2011; Harlin, 2014; Rosaen et al., 2008). Moregenerally, PTs perceive viewing their own classroom teaching as a beneficial experience (Downey, 2008; Snoeyink, 2010;Wu&Kao, 2008). The presence of peers also provides PTs and ITs with a “double mirror,”with observations that they might not havethought of and positive support to counteract the tendency toward harsh self-criticism (van Es, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011).

Although this type of video hasmany advantages, quite a few PTs and ITs are uncomfortable with being filmed or having theresults be viewed by others. They may set up self-defensemechanisms (Eraut, 2000; Krone, Hamborg,& Gediga, 2002) or evenrefuse to participate (Borko et al., 2008; Sherin & Han, 2004). To overcome these difficulties, several studies recommendbuilding a community of support (Borko et al., 2008; Coyle, 2004; Lasagabaster& Sierra, 2011; Sherin& Han, 2004). As pointedout by Borko et al. (2008, p. 422), “to be willing to take such a risk, teachers must feel part of a safe and supportive professionalenvironment. They also should feel confident that showing their videos will provide learning opportunities for themselves andtheir colleagues, and that the atmospherewill be one of productive discourse.” Some studies thus suggest that PTs and ITs needto learn norms for interacting with one another before they can focus on analyzing the events in the video clips (Ostrosky et al.,2013; van Es, 2012). Snoeyink (2010) adds that it is also important to have teacher educators inform the participants that theywill not be evaluated and that the datawill not be sharedwith anyone else. Building an effective support community, however,takes time (Borko et al., 2008; van Es, 2012) because an atmosphere of mutual trust must be created among the PTs and/or ITs,and between them and their teacher educators (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011; Tripp & Rich, 2012a; Zhang et al., 2011). Onesolution to some of the problems of working with PT and IT videos is a better balance between individual and collective ed-ucation efforts. Most studies have focused on sessions in which viewing and analysis were conducted either individually(Rosaen et al., 2008; Yerrick, Ross,&Molebash, 2005) or collectively (Borko et al., 2008; Harford&MacRuairc, 2008). Yet somestudies suggest combining these sequences so that PTs and ITs can enrich their reflective skills of description, comparison, andinterpretation and optimize their own professional practice (Roche & Gal-Petitfaux, 2014; Zhang et al., 2011). Another solutionis to create the conditions that prompt the development of teacher learning communities (Hatch & Grossman, 2009; Sherin,2007; van Es, 2012). For example, van Es (2012) suggests a “framework for the development of a teacher learning community ina video club” based on the three central features of teacher learning communities: collegial and collaborative interactions,participation and discourse norms for productive collaboration, and the focus of activity on teaching and student learning.Teacher educators can use this framework as a guide to design experiences to help ITs to build learning communities, as well asto gauge their progress as they move toward this vision. In addition, recent studies show that teachers' prior knowledgeinfluenced their ability to effectively reflect on video of their own teaching (Calandra et al., 2014; Seidel et al., 2011). Calandraet al. (2014) underline thus the importance to consider carefully teachers’ prior knowledge when making decisions about howmuch guidance to provide during video-aided reflection. More generally, Kleinknecht and Schneider (2013) note that watchingoneself teaching requires more preparation and scaffolding than does watching other teachers.

5.4. Selecting and organizing videos to view in line with learning goals and contexts

Few comparative studies have examined the impact on PTs and ITs of viewing different types of videos (Seidel et al.,2011; Zhang et al., 2011). The conclusions of these studies nonetheless suggest how to most effectively select and

8 For a literature review, see: Tripp and Rich (2012b).

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6752

organize videos in line with learning goals and contexts. First, viewing the videos of unknown teachers seems best adaptedfor use in the context of methodological core courses given by university lecturers (Blomberg et al., 2011; Leblanc, 2012;Zhang et al., 2011) in the context of teacher education. In this context, Zottmann et al. (2013) show that ITs have moredifficulty than PTs in applying knowledge to view videos for three main reasons: they have forgotten knowledge that is littleused, they have never acquired the knowledge, or they refuse to apply empirical research or theory. Moreover, some re-searchers suggest that the videos of unknown teachers be used at the beginning of the course while PTs and ITs are learninga method of analysis (Santagata & Guarino, 2011; Zhang et al., 2011). Leblanc (2012) finds it preferable to choose clips basedon PTs' evolving concerns. According to the author, videos of unknown PTs facing the same “typical” difficulties should beused initially and then, once the PTs feel more confident, they will be ready to have videos of their own practice viewed byothers (Escobar Urmeneta, 2010; Fadde & Sullivan, 2013). Second, viewing videos of peer activity and one's own profes-sional practice is better adapted to learning how to teach in the context of practicum seminars or study groups with afacilitator (Leblanc, 2012; Seidel et al., 2011; van Es & Sherin, 2008). Viewing these two types of vidoes can be adapted forboth teacher education and professional development. Studies have particularly shown that watching their own profes-sional practice facilitates the activation of prior knowledge and experiences about teaching and learning (Faïta, 2007; Siedelet al., 2005, 2011). From this perspective, Faïta (2007) proposes, for example, having PTs use video as an investigative tool inthree stages: (a) “simple”9 self-confrontation of the PT with his or her teaching practice, in the presence of the teachereducator, (b) “crossed”10 self-confrontation of the PT with his or her own teaching practice, in the presence of a peer as well,and (c) video viewing and crossed self-confrontation with a group of PTs. However, the videos viewed in the two contextsneed to show a “family resemblance” (e.g., the educational objectives, student characteristics, obstacles encountered by theteacher) so that PTs and ITs can spot the resemblances and give them meaning (Gaudin & Chali�es, 2011). More generally,Leblanc (2014a) recently proposed a “continuum of teacher professionalization” over the course of several years in teachervideo-enhanced education. With a progressive entry into the profession, this continuum of teacher video-enhanced edu-cation begins with a situation such as an allo-confrontation11 conducted at the university and targeting PTs doing obser-vation and/or teaching with the assistance of a cooperating teacher. Then, this situation is combined with a type of self-confrontation for PTs doing student teaching in their own classes and at the university or the school. Finally, “simple” or“crossed” self-confrontation situations are privileged methods for enriching ITs groups within school institutions. Moreover,“the potential value of using both kinds of video material depends on one's learning goals” (Blomberg et al., 2013a, p. 100).In this sense, Seidel et al. (2011) show that a video of one's own professional practice more effectively promotes ITs'reflection on teaching and learning, whereas a video of other teachers is more useful for developing a critical stance towardinstruction.

Some research also suggests the need to think about the primacy given to videos that focus on the teacher's activity. Thesestudies point out the interest of taking student activity as a starting point for teacher education and professional development(Borko et al., 2008; Kersting et al., 2012; Palius & Maher, 2013; van Es & Sherin, 2008). Ball and Cohen (1999, p. 9) note that“teachers need to learn how to read children to know more about what they are thinking and learning.” Video can show thecomplexity of classroom practice and make student thinking visible (Barnhart & van Es, 2015; Santagata & Yeh, 2013).Santagata and van Es (2010), for example, designed the “Learning to Learn from Teaching” (LLfT) course to developelementary and secondary PTs' skills in three domains: (a) attention to student thinking, (b) interpretation of studentthinking, and (c) planning and enactment of strategies to make student thinking visible. Influenced by research on teachernoticing, lesson analysis, and teacher reflection, this course consists of three main phases. The first phase introduces PTs totheories about analytic and responsive teaching practice. The second phase focuses on providing structured practice usingframeworks such as those proposed by Hiebert, Morris, Berk, and Jansen (2007) and Rodgers (2002) to analyze studentthinking and strategies that teachers in video case studies employed to promote classroom discourse to make studentthinking visible (Hufferd-Ackles, Fuson,& Sherin, 2004; Lemke, 2002; van Zee&Minstrell, 1997). In the final phase, PTs applythese skills to design, video record, and reflect on their own teaching practice. In a recent study examining this course (Sun &van Es, 2015), analysis of secondary mathematics PTs' videos reveals that they engaged in more student-centered practicescompared with a cohort of candidates who did not participate in the course. In the same vein, Santagata and Guarino (2011)show the interest of asking PTs to film and transcribe (including descriptions of the child's non-verbal behavior) an interviewwith a student to “develop PTs' appreciation of the complexity of students' mathematical thinking and ability” (p. 136). Moregenerally, the use of video viewing in teacher education and professional development appears to be an effective way for PTsand ITs to learn to implement innovative instructional strategies (Siry & Martin, 2014; Sun & van Es, 2015). Maher, Palius,Maher, Hmelo-Silver, and Sigley (2014) note that “video can provide opportunities for teacher professional developmentby encouraging teachers to focus on teaching and learning inways that they would not be able during classroom instructionaltime and by providing virtual experiences that allow detailed studies of student thinking” (p. 32).

9 “Simple” self-confrontation (confronting subjects to their own activity) reveals the cognitive processes underlying the activity (Mollo & Falzon, 2004).10 “Crossed” self-confrontation is based on a video clip made by the researcher that presents the notable differences in doing things of two teachers insimilar situations. The researcher encourages comments from the teacher whose activity is not shown. The second teacher, whose activity is shown, listensto these comments. Professional disagreements can then be engaged.11 Allo-confrontation (confronting subjects to an activity they practice but which is performed by someone else, without the latter being present) allowssubjects to develop their knowledge by getting aware of other types of representations (Mollo & Falzon, 2004).

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 53

6. The effects of video viewing on teacher education and professional development

The fourth aspect of our conceptualization relates to the effects of video viewing on teacher education and professionaldevelopment. Awareness of these effects is crucial to assess the potential value of video viewing for teacher education andprofessional development, and, ultimately, to enrich one's understanding of the nature of teachers' activity as they view aclassroom video. The following questions should be raised: What are the effects of video viewing on teacher education andprofessional development? Should these effects be observed in teachers' activity or also that of students? Under whichconditions can video viewing truly generate effects on teacher education and professional development?

Assessing the effects of video use on teacher education and professional development is inherently complex (Brophy,2004; Seidel et al., 2011; Sherin, 2004) particularly because it is often associated with other technology tools in educationprograms (Masats&Dooly, 2011).With few exceptions (e.g., Yadav et al., 2009), most studies nevertheless underline themanybenefits of video viewing (Calandra & Brantley-Dias, 2010; Sherin & van Es, 2009; Tripp & Rich, 2012a; Wang & Hartley,2003). Llinares and Valls (2009) (citing Wells, 2002) note that programs using video encourage “not just the development ofthe learner's meaning potential, conceived as the construction of discipline-based knowledge, but the development of theresources of action, speech, and thinking that enable the learner to participate effectively and creatively in further practical,social and intellectual activity” (p. 268). Among the most significant benefits are heightened motivation, optimized selectiveattention and knowledge-based reasoning, and improved classroom practice.

6.1. Video viewing and teacher motivation

Studies show the effects of video on teacher motivation (Barnett & Tyson, 1999; Lim & Pellett, 2009; Moreno & Valdez,2007; Sherin, 2004). As Sherin (2004) points out, video has demonstrated its attractiveness. It is similar to authentic expe-rience in that it positively affects intrinsic motivation and interest. Studies demonstrate a higher level of satisfaction whenteacher education courses use video rather than textual support or narrations of experience (Barrett& Rasmussen,1996; Choi& Jonson, 2007; Moreno, Abercrombie, & Hushman, 2009; Moreno & Valdez, 2007). The study by Harris, Pinnegar, andTeemant (2005), for example, describes an effort to expand traditional written case study methods to include hypermediavideo ethnography (HVE) cases studies in teacher education. The authors propose a set of design principles that overcome thelimitations of written case studies. These principles are authenticity, problem representation, multiple perspectives, andjuxtaposing theory and practice. These studies also report an impact of increased motivation on teacher cognitive abilities.

6.2. Video viewing and teacher cognition

Numerous studies show that video use enhances selective attention. Using video, teacher educators can develop strategiesto focus attention on the most relevant classroom events (Brunvand, 2010). PTs and ITs thus develop and enhance their ca-pacity to identify pertinent events because, as theywatch the video, they are able to focus not only on the teacher's activity, buton the activities of the students as well (Fox, Brantley-Dias & Calandra, 2007; Sherin & van Es, 2005; van Es & Sherin, 2002;Yerrick et al., 2005). For instance, Snoeyink (2010) shows the effectiveness of video self-analysis to help PTs identify relevantclassroom interactions and, more precisely, to see themselves from the students' perspective and to become better able toidentify how well students have understood. Other studies report that video use also enriches the capacity to interpret theobserved events, and in amore effectivemanner than “traditional” courses (Stürmer, K€onings,& Seidel, 2012). It promotes theshift from partial, more or less detailed, descriptive analysis to more focused, specific, and interpretative analysis, and this inboth ITs (Borko et al., 2008; Santagata, 2009; Tekkumru Kisa & Stein, 2015; van Es & Sherin, 2008) and PTs (Calandra et al.,2008; Rosaen et al., 2008; Sherin & van Es, 2005; Star & Stirkland, 2008). Santagata and Guarino (2011), for example, showthat in training programs that use video, PTs learn to better interpret the reasons for and consequences of the decisions madeby the videoed teacher. Studies also show that video viewing challenges PTs' assumptions and helps them to critically examinetheir beliefs and values about teaching and learning (Abell, Bryan, & Anderson, 1998; Boling, 2007; Scott et al., 2013; Yadav &Koehler, 2007). Last, exploratory studies on the beginning teachers' activity when they view videos of peers' classroompractice and post-practice interview (Leblanc & Ria, 2014; Leblanc & S�eve, 2012; Lussi Borer & Muller, 2014; Ria & Leblanc,2011) have already identified the following effects: (a) reassurance and removal of guilt among beginning teachers thanksto their new awareness of the more or less inevitable passages they must go through to acquire skills in this occupation, (b)spontaneous recall of real experiences favored by video-based classroom situations possessing a “family resemblance” withtheir ownways of exercising the profession, (c) comparison of users' real experienceswith experiences presented in classroompractice and post-practice interview videos allowing them to evaluate their own practices as they see themselves through theeyes of others, and (d) projection into the future leading to the anticipation of as-yet-unknown scenarios, and foreseeing otherpossible ones to be tested in one's own classroom, while drawing from experience acquired by peers.

A number of recent studies aiming to foster the “professional vision” have promoted the design of instruments for itsassessment (Kersting, 2008; Santagata, 2009; van Es & Sherin, 2008). At least, three instruments have recently beendeveloped and validated to quantify PTs' and ITs' ability to identify and interpret pertinent events portrayed in videos: The“Observer” (Seidel, Schwindt, Stürmer, & Blomberg, 2008; Seidel et al., 2013; Seidel, Blomberg, & Stürmer, 2010; Seidel &Stürmer, 2014), the “Classroom Video Analysis” (CVA) (Kersting, 2008; Kersting, Givvin, Sotelo, & Stigler, 2010; Kerstinget al., 2012; Kersting, Sherin, & Stigler, 2014), and the “Self-Regulated Learning-Professional Vision” (SRL-PV) scheme

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6754

(Michalsky, 2014). For example, this SRL-PV scheme is used for assessing PTs' integration of professional vision considerations(noticing/describing/explaining/predicting) while analyzing two deliverymodes for teaching of self-regulated learning (SRL):direct SRL teaching (explicit/implicit) and indirect SRL teaching (via environment). PTs have to analyze a videotaped lessonusing the three reasoning levels of professional vision to describe, explain, and predict the different SRL delivery modes via anonline platform (Instructions: “Please specify the time stamp in the lesson when you notice that the teacher taught SRL[referring to direct or indirect events]. Describe what was done at each marked time to develop students' SRL. What do youthink were the teachers' considerations? Explain and predict how and why the events you describe will develop students'SRL.”). Also, recent studies show that eye-tracking methodology makes an important addition to a mixed-method study ofPTs' and ITs' identification and interpretation of classroom events portrayed in videos (Cortina et al., 2015; van den Bogertet al., 2014). Theses studies introduce eye-tracking as a means to directly assess PTs and ITs' ability to identify pertinentevents in classroom situations. For example, Cortina et al. (2014) used the “GINI coefficient” as ameasure of the distribution ofvisual fixations on students. van den Bogert et al. (2014) note that “eye-tracking is not an alternative for other methods as theinterpretation of eye-tracking data will almost always require combinations with data from other sources (e.g., verbal reportsor timestamps) that are used to signal when teachers notice particular events” (p. 204). The added value of eye-tracking is thatit can be used to assess aspects of PTs and ITs’ perception and cognition that are not accessible to conscious thought, andtherefore do not show up in verbal reports.

6.3. Video viewing and teacher classroom practice

Paradoxically, little empirical evidence has been presented on how video use benefits actual classroom practice (Christ,Arya, & Chiu, 2014; Seidel et al., 2011; Tripp & Rich, 2012a; Whitehouse, 2010). Some studies have nevertheless shownthat teachers redeploy in the classroom capabilities first developed in video clips viewed in class (Grant & Kline, 2010;Leblanc, 2014b; Prusak et al., 2010; Santagata & Yeh, 2013; Tripp & Rich, 2012a). Most of theses studies have inferred suchrelationship from “indirect” evidences (e.g., questionnaires, written commentaries) and not from “direct” evidence, that is,the analysis of their actual classroom practice (e.g., self-confrontation interviews). For ITs, the results of the study by Sherinand van Es (2009) show, for example, that the “professional vision” developed by ITs during “video club” training is thenreproduced in the classroom. ITs thus rely on similar strategies in the two contexts to notice and interpret student thinking,although the way the strategies are mobilized differs somewhat. According to the authors, “the interaction between selectiveattention and knowledge-based reasoning in the classroom is quite complexdmore so than in the video club and interviewcontexts when ITs were given only a small slice of instruction to consider and extended time to do so” (Sherin& van Es, 2009,p. 33). For PTs, the results of the study by Gaudin et al. (2014) highlight that video viewing influences their classroom practice,provided that: (a) PTs' professional concerns “resonate”with what they are viewing, and (b) PTs adopt, adapt or invent a newway to act fromwhat they viewed. However, PTs' and ITs’ classroom practice is not only influenced by video viewing. In mostcases, their classroom practice is simultaneously influenced by others experiences: training experiences (e.g., the explana-tions of a facilitator, discussions, etc.) and/or past teaching experiences in their own classroom (Gaudin & Chali�es, 2015). Forexample, in the study by Christ et al. (2014), PTs and ITs participated in video-based reflective discussions and documentedtheir learning, sources of knowledge that contributed to their learning, and application of this learning to their teaching intheir practical courses. Results show that PTs and ITs reported applying 40% of their learning; particularly, what they learnedabout methods and materials for instruction, and that they learned from both video and discussion almost equally.

Conversely, other studies suggest that changes in classroom practice are not due to the development of cognitive abilitiesthrough video use. According to these studies, PTs and ITs take ways to doing things directly from the videos and thenreproduce them in the classroom as best they can but without actually being able to justify or explain the reasoning for theiractions (Gaudin et al., 2014; LeFevre, 2004). Still other studies have shown that the main effect of video use is to prepare PTsand ITs emotionally and intellectually for the classroom (Abell, Cennamo, Anderson, & Bryan, 1996; Koc, 2011; Wang, 2013;Zhang et al., 2011) and improve their “withitness” (Snoeyink, 2010). For example, studies have shown the impact of onlineteaching videos on the development of self-efficacy beliefs in PTs (Karsenti & Collin, 2011) and ITs (Meyer, 2012). Moregenerally, video use has been found to help “inspire habits of praxis” (Hewitt et al., 2003, p. 500) in three broad areas: (a)planning and preparation for differentiation, (b) teaching and learning, and (c) classroommanagement (Harford et al., 2010).As such, the formative nature of video for training is also situated at the level of “proofs” that teachers can access in terms of a“change process” in their classroom practices (Harlin, 2014; Tripp & Rich, 2012a). As an example, Brown and Kennedy (2011)report that the discussions between educational psychologists and ITs based on videos of their own classroom teachinghelped the ITs to modify aspects of their interactional styles with disruptive students. They were able to show these changesby comparing the videos of classroom practices at the beginning and the end of the professional development project. In thesame vein, Santagata and Yeh (2013) examined the impact of a video- and practice-based course on prospective teachers’mathematics classroom practices and analysis of their own teaching. Findings reveal that the course assisted participants inmaking student thinking visible and in pursuing it further during instruction and in conducting evidence-based analyses oftheir own teaching.

Last, some authors have suggested tomeasure these effects, not only in terms of PTs' and ITs' activity, but from the analysisof its effectiveness in students' work (Kersting et al., 2012; Santagata, 2014a). For example, the results of the study of Allenet al. (2011) with 78 secondary school ITs and 2237 students show that the programme MTP, “My Teaching Partner”, im-proves teacherestudent interactions, which in turn, increases student learning and development. All three MTP resources (a

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 55

video library of annotated examples of best practice, a college course and a web-mediated individualized coaching) rely on astandardized observational assessment of teacherestudent interactions - the Classroom Assessment Scoring System, orCLASS - as the primary way to observe and define effective practice. Likewise, Kiemer, Gr€oschner, Pehmer, and Seidel (2014)show that the Dialogic Video Cycle12 (DVC) enhances ITs' performance in classroom discourse and affects students’ interest inthe subject, self-efficacy and domain-specific self-concept of ability positively. Thus, the DVC seems a promising tool to fosterteacher learning with an impact on perceived student motivation and learning.

6.4. Recommendations for effective video viewing

The first recommendation relates to the nature of the videos. Studies about video viewing should match PTs’ capacity toidentify and interpret classroom events (Gaudin & Chali�es, 2011; Kersting et al., 2010; Santagata & Guarino, 2011). Santagataand Guarino (2011) thus point out that “the practices portrayed in the videos need to be within the zone of proximaldevelopment of the viewer” (p. 144).

The second recommendation is inferred from the limitations of video viewing in teacher education (Blomberg et al.,2013a; Goldman, 2007). As pointed out by Blomberg et al. (2013a), “when deciding whether or not to use video, oneshould weigh such weaknesses against the perceived strengths of video as a technological tool for teacher education.Furthermore, it is important to consider ways to address these limitations” (p. 102). Three limitations can be identified. First,video frames are so rich in information content that they may overwhelm novice viewers (Erickson, 2007). To reduce thecognitive load on PTs (Feldon, 2007; Sweller, 1994), it is important to plan carefully how the videos will be used (Kirschner,Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Miller & Zhou, 2007; Quintana et al., 2002; Schworm & Renkl, 2007). For example, Brunvand (2010)suggests focusing on short clips with “explicit prompts” embedded in the video (e.g., onscreen text or title overlays). Next,as a video represents only one aspect of classroom reality (Sherin, 2004), having been filmed from a certain angle (Krammeret al., 2006), PTs do not always find it easy to interpret events or they do so erroneously. To compensate for this “keyholeeffect” (van Es & Sherin, 2002), Miller and Zhou (2007) suggest giving them background information on the video and a“particular filter” for viewing. Last, video use should be wisely chosen to produce specific PT effects. In other words, not allteaching skills require video use to be developed, although this tool can sometimes improve skills. For instance, the activityof “seeing the other” can be worked on by observing a peer in the classroom in vivo or by watching a video of his or heractivity (Flandin & Ria, 2012). In the same vein, video clips can be too particular to invite inference for people who teach insettings too different from those in which the video was recorded (Herbst & Chazan, 2006; Smith, McLaughlin, & Brown,2012). Animations13 of nondescript cartoon characters may thus reproduce for these viewers the temporal and tacticaldemands of real classroom interaction, while inviting them to project onto the scenarios the individualities of the settings inwhich and the people with whom they practice (Chazan & Herbst, 2012). As an example, the study of Herbst, Nachlieli, andChazan (2011) shows that experienced ITs of geometry may feel more comfortable criticizing the actions of cartoon teachers(in animation artifacts) than criticizing the actions of human teachers (in video artifacts). Furthermore, studies have shownthat animation helps PTs and ITs learn to identify and interpret relevant classroom events (Chazan, Sela, & Herbst, 2012;Chieu, Herbst, & Weiss, 2011) as effectively as video viewing (Herbst & Kosko, 2014; Smith et al., 2012). Future studiesshould therefore be conducted to examine how video and animation viewing can be combined, especially as computeranimation provides more flexibility than video in terms of variation in the situations depicted and the characterizationsused. Smith et al. (2012) indeed points out that “rapidly advancing animation technology may offer multiple advantages orviable alternatives to staged actors and static content of live-action video in creating dynamic professional learning ex-periences” (p. 41).

The third recommendation relates to the way to film a classroom situation because this influences the PTs' and ITs'possibilities of identifying and interpreting classroom events on video clips with accuracy and pertinence (Borko et al., 2008;Shepherd & Hannafin, 2008; Snoeyink, 2010; van Es & Sherin, 2008). van Es and Sherin (2008) in fact suggest adapting videorecording to the type of classroom interaction. For example, during wholeeclass activities, the video camera is zoomed out inorder to record as many interactions and as much of the discourse taking place as possible. During small-group work, thecamera remains focused on one or two groups of students working together. During individual seat-work, the camera followsthe teacher as he or she moves throughout the classroom. However, given that the camera is generally placed at the back ofclassrooms to capture the central activities of the lesson with as wide an angle as possible, it may be quite difficult to see andhear what all the student groups are doing simultaneously: for example, facial expressions, deskwork, and student comments(Snoeyink, 2010; Zhang et al., 2011). To overcome this limitation, some studies have used two cameras, one focused on theteacher and one on interesting classroom interaction (Borko et al., 2008; Snoeyink, 2010). A 360� camera14 enables also theobserver to pan, tilt and zoom around the classroom during an observation. The observer can pin point different areas within

12 Gr€oschner et al. (2014) built a new and innovative video-based teacher professional development program, the Dialogic Video Cycle (DVC), fostering ITs'skills to provide their students with productive classroom discourse. Productive, in this context means, that ITs verbally engage students in classroomdiscourse (e.g. by activating students' pre-knowledge through open questions) as well as scaffold student learning by giving concrete and learning orientedfeedback.13 For example, see: https://www.lessonsketch.org/login.php.14 For example, see: http://www.irisconnect.co.uk/products/cameras.

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6756

a classroom zoom in and focus upon the activity: this can range fromwhiteboard notes to activities students are undertakingin groups. Other studies have usedmobile eye-trackingmethods (e.g., Cortina et al., 2015) or wearable video cameramountedon a cap worn by the teacher (e.g., Sherin et al., 2008) to study teacher situation awareness in the course of teaching, and tolook at what viewers learn from watching teacher-perspective video as compared to traditional classroom video, whichshows the students’ perspective. In addition, studies have equipped the teacher being filmed with a wireless HF microphone(Borko et al., 2008; Snoeyink, 2010) and/or have distributed several external microphones throughout the classroom in orderto record as much of the classroom talk as possible (Marsh et al., 2009; van Es & Sherin, 2008). In addition, others suggest theneed to help PTs and ITs use the camera effectively, as they have demonstrated for the most part a lack of videotaping skills(van Es, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011). More generally, the presence of cameras does not have a substantial effect on what takesplace in classrooms (Mitchell et al., 2008).

The fourth recommendation is related to the need to support PTs and ITs as they view video clips. For many authors, thisactivity should be guided and scaffolded (Baecher& Connor, 2010; Erickson, 2007; Santagata& Angelici, 2010; van Es, Tunney,Goldsmith, & Seago, 2014). The facilitator must therefore adjust the level and/or type of guidance to the needs of participantswhile working through video-aided reflection (Brouwer & Robijns, 2014; Calandra et al., 2014; Crawford & Patterson, 2004;Tripp & Rich, 2012b). For PTs, Dymond and Bentz (2006, p. 99) indeed stipulate that “video instruction must be highlystructured in order to positively affect their views, knowledge, and skills.” Miller (2009) proposes, for example, to guideproblem-based conversations under “Critical Friends Group” protocols. To optimize this assistance and overcome the theory-practice gap, Escobar Urmeneta (2010) underlines that it is important for university tutors and school mentors to investigatequestions of teaching and learning together during video viewing tasks with PTs. For ITs, Coles (2013) suggests, for example,five key aspects or decision points that the discussion facilitator should take into account for group viewing of their ownprofessional activity: (a) selecting the video clip, (b) setting up discussions norms, (c) rewatching the video clip, (d) moving tointerpretation, and (e) metacommenting. He adds that if the training session takes place in their own school, “the role of thefacilitator cannot be separated from a consideration of the historical context in which discussion takes place” (p. 165). Moregenerally, the support while viewing can be human (Sherin & van Es, 2005), technological (Calandra et al., 2007) or both(Fadde et al., 2009). It should be noted that some studies have shown that human support is more effective than videofeedback alone (Cuper, Gong, Farina, & Manning-Osborn, 2007; Halter, 2006; Rich & Hannafin, 2009), even when it takesplace online (Koc et al., 2009). The “facilitator” providing the human support (Le Fevre & Richardson, 2002) may be acooperating teacher (Fox, Brantley-Dias,& Calandra, 2006), a university supervisor (Mitchell et al., 2008), a peer (Arya, Christ,& Chiu, 2014), an experienced peer (Fadde & Sullivan, 2013) or a researcher (Sherin & van Es, 2005). Whatever the status, themain functions are as follows: (a) explaining how to use the tools; (b) selecting or helping PTs and ITs to select the best-suitedvideos, taking into account the learning goals and anticipating the elements that may be identified and their interpretations;(c) structuring a framework for questions (e.g., asking for critical thinking, information, observations, and connections); (d)guiding the analysis and avoiding in particular the pitfall of merely evaluating the teacher who has been filmed; and (e)promoting discussions among PTs and/or ITs (Arya et al., 2014; Borko et al., 2008, 2011; Santagata, 2009; Tripp & Rich, 2012a;van Es & Sherin, 2008). This last point appears to be crucial (Brantlinger, Sherin, & Linsenmeier, 2011; Borko et al., 2008;Rosaen et al., 2010a; van Es, 2012). By stimulating and supporting discussions based on classroom videos, the facilitatorhelps PTs and ITs to maximize their reflective practice (Borko et al., 2008; Rosaen et al., 2008; Sherin & van Es, 2005) byinviting them, for example, to work on their misinterpretations (Zhang et al., 2011) or to build new knowledge and skills(Barab, Hay, & Duffy, 1999; Hughes, Kerr, & Ooms, 2005; Zhang et al., 2011). However, the way the facilitators view teachingand theway the video-based teacher education and professional development is designed shape a unique professional vision,and ultimately the nature of learning by PTs and ITs as they view the videos. Indeed, Lefstein and Snell (2011) argue thatpower relations are necessarily implicated in the development of professional vision as a social activity that involvesprivileging certain practices of seeing or speaking about classroom practice while marginalizing others. As a means of dealingwith these asymmetrical power relations, the authors propose first seeking to level the field by empowering ITs in theconduct of sessions and by giving more space and deference to their professional vision (e.g., greater IT participation inselection of video clips and facilitation of the workshops). Second, the facilitators and ITs should share their professionalvisions honestly because ITs can benefit from elements of facilitators' professional visions, and vice versa. In the same vein,since many studies that use video viewing to support PTs and ITs learning are situated in strongly guided contexts andencourage particular kinds of thinking, very little is known about howmore loosely guided contexts can support PTs and ITs tothink about the dilemmas of practice associated with their own goals by reflecting about video. According to recent studies(Gaudin et al., 2014; Danielowich, 2014), PTs learning can be powerfully supported with loosely guided video-framed con-texts. For instance, the study of Danielowich (2014) explores how video-based and peer-based reflections about one's ownand others' practices both indicate and guide the development of PTs' change-directed thinking when they are sequencedbefore supervisor feedback. While PTs whose reflections were intermediately different from the peer group were bettersupported by it, most teachers found direct support from the self-video and/or peer-video contexts to advance change-directed thinking associated with their own goals for teaching. In sum, the high degree of scaffolding used in manystudies may, however, be prompting PTs and ITs to simply express more of what they perceive are the “right” reform-mindedideas, just as they might do over time in response to classroom observation reports. More loosely guided scaffolds forresponding to video can help diminish this “mimicking” effect by encouraging PTs and ITs to articulate and explore theconceptual frameworks they use to make everyday decisions about instruction and develop change-directed thinking theywill more likely enact in practice.

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 57

The fifth recommendation is related to the person who selects the videos. This is usually the facilitator, who may be aresearcher (Zhang et al., 2011) or a university supervisor (Yadav, 2008), in which case the PTs and ITs benefit most (Sherin &Han, 2004). The selection can also be made in the context of a “triangulation” of perspectives involving the researcher, thesupervisor and the video case teacher (Brunvand& Fishman, 2006). Recent studies generally based on the “generative theoryof multimedia learning” (Mayer, 1997; Wittrock, 1974) have also emphasized the positive impact of involving PTs and ITs inthe selection of videos. When PTs and ITs have a say in choosing them, they (a) are more involved, (b) show a deeper reflectivepractice, (c) interact more easily and freely with the facilitator, (d) become more autonomous in the choice of their researchtopics, and (e) benefit from a formative evaluation (Calandra et al., 2009; Koc, 2011; Rosaen et al., 2010b; Tripp& Rich, 2012a).More so than the person who selects the video clips, the nature of the video content seems to be determinant in helping PTsand ITs to identify and interpret relevant classroom events. The main objective is, in fact, to know how to select video clipswith particular properties to ensure that theywill be productive (Borko et al., 2008; Coles, 2013; Star& Stirkland, 2008; van Es& Sherin, 2008). For example, Sherin, Linsenmeier and van Es (2009) described the characteristics of videos that led ITs toengage in more or less productive discussions. From this perspective, a video that focuses on a teacher's direct instructionseems less likely to promote rich discussion than one that focuses on small-group activities or interaction between theteacher and students. Nevertheless, the studies have shown discrepancies regarding the role of the discussion facilitator.Some authors have suggested that the facilitator has to set the criteria in phase with the needs of the PTs (Star & Stirkland,2008) or ITs (Coles, 2013) without predetermined ideas about the focus of discussion. Others have suggested setting a desiredfocus for the discussion (Borko et al., 2008; van Es & Sherin, 2008).

The sixth recommendation is related to viewing the video. As opposed to classroom observation, the video provides anopportunity for PTs and ITs to observe classroom events in a more or less adapted manner (Calandra, Brantley-Dias, & Dias,2006; Sherin& van Es, 2002). They canwatch the video once or several times, at real speed or in slowmotion, continuously orby pausing on certain images, and individually or collectively (Moreno et al., 2009; Santagata & Guarino, 2011; Tripp & Rich,2012a; Yung et al., 2007). Paradoxically, the full range of possibilities offered by videos is not always exploited. As Sherin(2004, p. 12) notes, the “video was not typically played and replayed” in teacher education and professional developmentcourses, and many authors suggest viewing a video only up to three times to avoid “saturation effects” (Tripp & Rich, 2012b),despite the strong indications that teachers should be able to view videos as many times as they wish (Khan, Richards, &Wu,2010; Sherin, 2004; Yung et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2011). More generally, the studies tend to emphasize the importance ofusing the technological potentials of this tool so that teacher educators and PTs or ITs can (a) focus on the most relevantclassroom events in linewith training objectives, (b) observe these events several times and/or from several perspectives, and(c) engage in collective discussions to interpret these events and then construct viable proposals for a professional response(Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Miller & Zhou, 2007; Zhang et al., 2011). In the same vein, the length of the videos used forviewing activity vary from two-minute clips of a lesson (e.g., Blomberg et al., 2011; Borko et al., 2011; Fadde & Sullivan, 2013)to an entire teaching episode (Schwindt, 2008; Stigler & Staley, 2002; Viiri & Saari, 2006; Yung et al., 2007). Even though thestudies have not systematically specified the length of the videos used (Koc, 2011; Masats & Dooly, 2011; Seidel et al., 2013),most have used video excerpts ranging from two to seven minutes (Calandra et al., 2008; Santagata & Angelici, 2010; Star &Stirkland, 2008; van Es, 2012). It is nevertheless difficult to determinewhether the length of the video has a significant impacton selective attention and knowledge-based reasoning because no study has yet compared the impact of differences in videolength (Tripp & Rich, 2012b).

7. Prospects for research

Several directions for research emerge from this literature review of video viewing in teacher education and professionaldevelopment, and they can be classified according to the four aspects of our conceptualization. The first result provided clearinsight into the nature of PTs' and ITs’ activity as they view a classroom video, as well as how this activity evolves, and suggeststhe first research question: How can teaching PTs and ITs to identify and interpret relevant classroom events on video clipsimprove their capacity to perform the same activities in the classroom? The second and third results helped us to define,respectively, the different objectives of video viewing and the different types of videos viewed. These two results suggest asecond research question: How canwe best articulate the diverse objectives of video viewing and the diverse types of videos inteacher education and professional development programs? The last result helped us identify the effects of video viewing on themotivation, cognition and classroom practices of PTs and ITs and prompted the third research question: How can we create a“continuum” between teacher education programs and professional development programs in such a way that video viewingbecomes a routine, familiar professional practice able to produce the desired effects over the course of an entire teaching career?

First, in coming years it will be important to study the similarities and differences between identifying and interpretingrelevant classroom events on video and performing these same activities in the classroom. In addition, more data is neededon the circumstances that are conducive to taking what has been learned about identifying and interpreting events on videoclips and actually applying it in the classroom. Recent studies have indicated the “bidirectional influences” of situationsusing video viewing and situations of classroom practice (Sherin & van Es, 2009, p. 33). To help PTs to reproduce in theclassroom behaviors learned in video sessions, certain authors suggest, for example, organizing observational workaccording to a “progressive contextualization”: a video is viewed in a teacher education class, which is followed by“passive” observation in one or more classrooms, and finally “active” observation is carried out during classroom teaching

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6758

(Gaudin & Chali�es, 2011; Santagata & Guarino, 2011; Ria, Serres, & Leblanc, 2010). Other studies point out that the bestbalance between video viewing and classroom practice has less to do with the observation mode and far more to do withcontent. They therefore emphasize the need to keep the various situations focused on similar concepts in order to ensurecoherent instruction (Borko et al., 2011; Wiesemes & Wang, 2010). Wiesemes and Wang (2010, p. 28) add that theseconcepts must be essential to the profession; that is, “considered to be vital, as they remain valid throughout teachers’careers” (e.g., improvisation). Researchers have also suggested delineation of these concepts through international ex-changes (Flandin & Ria, 2012; Wiesemes & Wang, 2010). These recent studies point the way to further research in order toclarify the best procedures for drawing connections between video viewing sessions and classroom practice for teachereducation and professional development courses.

More research is also merited to better understand how to use video viewing within the context of an entire teachereducation and professional development program. In other words, how can all the possibilities of video viewing be optimallycombined over a longer time scale? Recent work has been undertaken in this direction (Borko et al., 2011; Kale&Whitehouse,2008; Masats & Dooly, 2011; Sherin & van Es, 2009). In a three-month comparative study of PTs, Blomberg, Sherin, Renkl,Glogger, and Seidel (2013b) show, for example, a relationship between the choice of an objective for video viewing andcourse duration. Specifically, the “situated”method (indirect guidance and social learning) might be better suited for fosteringreflection over a relatively longer term, whereas a “cognitive” objective (more direct guidance initially) might be better suitedwhen expert-like reflections are demanded within a short period of time. In general, these authors suggest that “the learninggoal and purpose at hand should determine which instructional strategy should be employed when embedding classroomvideo into teacher education courses” (p. 1). These results are preliminary and further studies are needed to address theremaining questions. Moreover, it may be worthwhile to examine exactly how video viewing to encourage PT and IT learningis studied. Much of the research studies learning on the basis of an analysis of each teacher's activity when shown videos oftheir own teachings, but a few studies advocate a more sociocultural approach, particularly through “teacher learningcommunities” (Borko et al., 2008; Hatch & Grossman, 2009; van Es, 2012). Further research is needed to compare the resultsobtained with these two approaches and to determinewhether they are in fact complementary (Zhang et al., 2011). Themajorresearch question about video viewing and teacher education and professional development programs was perhaps bestworded in a recent study by Borko et al. (2011, p. 176): “An unanswered question is how teacher education and professionaldevelopment programs can capitalize on the power of video representations of teaching to guide teachers' attention andreflection in an intentional manner.”

Last, video viewing for lifelong learning is a vital direction for research from the perspective of teacher education andprofessional development as a “continuum” over the course of a career. “Viewing teacher development as a continuum” is infact one of the policy directions of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD report, 2005, p. 10).Several assumptions about video viewing for “teacher development as a continuum” can be made, although they will need tobe confirmed by future studies. First, video viewing should be embedded in teacher education courses as early as possible tofamiliarize PTs with observation activities (Fadde & Sullivan, 2013; Mitchell et al., 2008; Scott et al., 2013). Indeed, as Westremarks (2012, p. 14), “through helping students to reflect and examine critically how their actions affect student learning,teacher educators can use video-cases to help educate reflective practitioners who learn and grow throughout their careers,rather than train workers who risk repeating their first year multiple times.” Studies have recently shown that the moreexperience with viewing videos PTs and ITs accumulate, the more they benefit from them (Schwindt, 2008; Seidel & Prenzel,2007; Seidel et al., 2011). Another direction for research concerns how video viewing can be brought to the local schools aspart of IT continuing professional development courses. Some researchers have suggested that ITs be trained as professionaldevelopment facilitators or leaders so that continuing professional development programs can be set up and supervised atthe local school level (Borko et al., 2011; Borko, Virmani, Khachatryan & Mangram, 2014; Coles, 2013; Jacobs, Borko, &Koellner, 2009; van Es, 2009). Recent studies have indeed shown the merit in fostering lifelong learning in schools, under-lining that this approach is successful in the robust enhancement of IT competences and cooperation (Finsterwalda, Wagner,Schober, Lüftenegger, & Spiel, 2013). By the way, video viewing appears as a tool for facilitating communication, reflection,and collaboration in the school setting (Sterrett, Dikkers, & Parker, 2014). For example, Lussi Borer, Ria, Durand, and Muller(2014) have conducted a two-year longitudinal study examining the collective and individual effects of a Collaborative VideoLearning Lab (CVLL) in a French lower-secondary high-poverty school. The CVLL was designed to: (a) determine the learningobjects shared by the ITs based on their actual teaching activities and (b) encourage them to participate in a collaborativeinquiry on their filmed activity regarding the selected shared learning object, with the goal of supporting them as theyappropriate more efficient teaching practices. The participants were beginning teachers and experienced teacher-facilitators.The results reveal that beginning and experienced teachers lived critical experiences in the CVLL regarding the sharedlearning object and show how they transformed their activity as teachers, mentors or facilitators. Others have emphasized theimportance of using video to bring the university and the schools together in a “virtual community” (Laferri�ere, 2010) thatpromotes the continuing education of PTs (Mitchell et al., 2008) and especially ITs over the span of their careers (Cockburn,Yadav, Diamond,& Powell, 2010). Last, from the perspective of lifelong learning, we need to determine how video viewing canbe used to build a genuine “culture of observing” (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2003) because “one important component ofteaching expertise is the ability to observe and interpret classroom events as a lesson unfolds, and to make instructionaldecisions based on those interpretations” (Borko et al., 2011, p. 185). PTs and ITs today have a critical need for such a culture asthey have entered an era of accountability inwhich professional practices will be increasingly observed and evaluated (Rich&Hannafin, 2009).”

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 59

8. Discussion

We believe that conceptualization is an essential step in the design and study of video viewing in the context of teachereducation and professional development programs, and this article provides an illustration. The use of video viewing, in ouropinion, should not be based on beliefs or intuitions because this type of activity inevitably raises legal and ethical questions(e.g., about image rights), personal questions (e.g., concerning the emotional impact of viewing one's own professionalpractice), and questions about the curriculum (e.g., about the extent to which video viewing contributes to meeting thetraining objectives). All of these questions must be anticipated and the responses structured in advance, as much as possible.Teacher educators and researchers15 therefore need to understand the affordances and challenges specific to video viewing inorder to build the appropriate scenarios for using it effectively. The dissemination of research findings in this field seems to becrucial and our literature review is an attempt to contribute tomeeting this need. Nevertheless, our conceptualization has twonotable limitations. First, the sociocultural context in which video viewing is being used should be taken into account. In thisregard, our review of the literature clearly revealed that differences in the sociocultural context yielded a broad diversity inthe way video viewing was used. This points to the importance of conceptualizing videos in teacher education and profes-sional development as cultural tools whose use is embedded in the sociocultural contexts of the activity. For example, in-ternational research collaborations have been particularly productive in offering insights into the sociocultural differences inhow video viewing is used in teacher education and professional development and how it is used to stimulate innovation(e.g., The Third International Mathematics and Science Study,16 1999; The First CIDREE International Seminar on ProfessionalVision in Teacher Video-Enhanced Education, 201517). Second, our conceptualization must be capable of evolving in order toremain viable. On an ongoing basis, it must be able to integrate empirical research findings on the video viewing-relatedactivity of trainees and trainers, as well as any sociocultural, technical, and institutional changes.

9. Conclusion

We conducted this literature review to contribute to an emerging body of literature on the use of video viewing in teachereducation and professional development. Our intention was to offer readers an overview of the main findings, rather than acomprehensive examination of every study. Based on a certain conceptualization of how video viewing is used in teachereducation and professional development, this review presents the principal research results, organized around four inter-related aspects: (a) the nature of teachers' activity as they view classroom videos, (b) the objectives of video viewing inteacher education and professional development, (c) the type of video viewed in teacher education and professionaldevelopment, and (d) the effects of video viewing on teacher education and professional development. We also offer pros-pects for research and recommendations on theways that video viewing can be utilized by teacher educators and researchers.The results of our review ultimately show that video viewing is a unique and potentially powerful tool. The findings underlinethat the value of video use by teachers lies principally in the opportunity to raise teachers’ quality of instruction and e

concomitantly e to modernize education (Brouwer, 2011b). However, simply viewing video does not ensure teacher learning.An important issue concerns how to facilitate substantive analysis of teaching practice with video so that it becomes aproductive learning tool for teachers (van Es et al., 2014). In the same vein, the experience lived during these video viewingsessions allows teachers to “approach” the experience of teaching without, however, actually substituting for it (Gaudin &Chali�es, 2015). In addition, the results of this review highlight the potential of video viewing to generate a collaborativespace for teacher education and professional development, a space in which the traditional hierarchies and boundariesbetween actors (trainee, trainer and researchers) and knowledge (academic, professional and practical) are disrupted(Davidsen & Vanderlinde, 2014; Youens, Smethem, & Sullivan, 2014).

Acknowledgements

The preparation of this manuscript was supported by the “Structure F�ed�erative de Recherche sur l'Apprentissage,l'Enseignement et la Formation” (SFR-AEF) [Federal Structure for Research on Learning, Teaching and Education] e “�EcoleSup�erieure du Professorat et de l'�Education” (�ESP�E) [High School of Teaching and Education] e University of Toulouse JeanJaur�es (France). We would like to thank Rossella Santagata, Niels Brouwer, Anthony Clarke, Serge Leblanc, Simon Flandin, andLuc Ria for their advice and support.

15 For example, researchers in the learning sciences have explored the theoretical and methodological issues associated with conducting research usingvideo (Derry et al., 2010; Goldman, Pea, Barron & Derry, 2007).16 The TIMSS video study was a study of eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching in seven countries (Hiebert et al., 2003). The study involvedvideotaping and analyzing teaching practices in more than one thousand classrooms. In conjunction with the International Association of the Evaluation ofEducation Achievement (IEA), the study was conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, under a contract withLessonLab, Inc., of Los Angeles, California. For more information, see http://www.timssvideo.com.17 This seminar (March, 2015) aimed at sharing findings, issues and current studies about teacher video-enhanced education, especially through theconcept of professional vision. It gathered international researchers from 14 countries and included several well-known experts. This seminar took place inLyon (France) and was supported by the Consortium of Institutions for Development and Research in Education in Europe (CIDREE), the French Institute ofEducation (IFE), and the UNESCO Chair of ENS Lyon. For more information, see http://chaire-unesco-formation.ens-lyon.fr/CIDREE-seminar.

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6760

References

Abell, S. K., & Cennamo, K. S. (2004). Videocases in elementary science teacher preparation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 103e130).New York: Elsevier.

Abell, S. K., Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-basedinstruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Science Education, 82(4), 491e510.

Abell, S. K., Cennamo, K. A., Anderson, M. A., & Bryan, L. A. (1996). Integrated media classroom cases in elementary science teacher education. Journal ofComputers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 15(1e2), 137e151.

Admiraal, W., Hoeksma, M., van de Kamp, M.-T., & van Duin, G. (2011). Assessment of teacher competence using video portfolios: reliability, constructvalidity, and consequential validity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1019e1028.

Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Lun, J. (2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and studentachievement. Science, 333, 1034e1037.

Alsawaie, O., & Alghazo, I. (2010). The effect of video-based approach on prospective teachers' ability to analyze mathematics teaching. Journal of Math-ematics Teacher Education, 13(3), 223e241.

Amobi, F. A. (2005). Preservice teachers' reflectivity on the sequence and consequences of teaching action in a microteaching experience. Teacher EducationQuarterly, 32(1), 115e130.

Andre, T., Schmidt, D., Nonis, A., Buck, N., & Hall, S. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's teachers today: using videos of technology-using teachers to enhance pre-service teachers' technology skills. In D. Willis, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference2000 (pp. 1452e1455). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Arafeh, S., & McLaughlin, M. (2002). Legal and ethical issues in the use of video in education research. Working paper series. Working Paper No. 2002-01.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Arya, P., Christ, T., & Chiu, M. M. (2014). Facilitation and teacher behaviors: an analysis of literacy teachers' video-case discussions. Journal of Teacher Ed-ucation, 65(2), 111e127.

Aub�e, M., David, R., Cantin, J., & Meyer, F. (2003). Zoom on teaching expertise. In C. Crawford, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technologyand Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 2307e2309). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Baecher, L., & Connor, D. (2010). “What do you see?” Using video analysis of classroom practice in a preparation program for teachers of students withlearning disabilities. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 7(2), 5e18.

Baecher, L., & Kung, S.-C. (2011). Umpstarting novice teachers' ability to analyze classroom video: affordances of an online workshop. Journal of DigitalLearning in Teacher Education, 28(1), 16e26.

Baecher, L., & Tuten, J. (2011). Directed peer response in differentiated approaches to the video analysis of teaching. Excelsior: Leadership in Learning andTeaching, 5(2), 30e43.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes, & L.Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3e32). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Duffy, T. (1999). Grounded constructions and how technology can help. Tech Trends, 43(2), 15e23.Barnett, C., & Tyson, P. (1999). Case methods and teacher change: shifting authority to build autonomy. In M. Lundeberg, B. Levin, & H. Harrington (Eds.),

Who learns what from cases and how? The research base for teaching and learning with cases (pp. 53e69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. A. (2015). Learning to analyze teaching: developing pre-service science teachers' abilities to notice, analyze and respond to student

thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83e93.Barrett, J. R., & Rasmussen, N. S. (1996). What observation reveals: videotaped cases as windows to preservice teachers' beliefs about music teaching and

learning. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 130, 75e88.Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5e13.Berliner, D. C. (1991). Perceptions of student behavior as a function of expertise. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 26(1), 1e8.Blomberg, G., Renkl, A., Sherin, M. G., Borko, H., & Seidel, T. (2013). Five research based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education. Journal for

Educational Research Online, 5(1), 90e114.Blomberg, G., Sherin, M. G., Renkl, A., Glogger, I., & Seidel, T. (2013). Understanding video as a tool for teacher education: investigating instructional

strategies integrating video to promote reflection. Instructional Science, 41(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9281-6.Blomberg, G., Stürmer, K., & Seidel, T. (2011). How pre-service teachers observe teaching on video: effects of viewers' teaching subjects and the subject of

the video. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1131e1140.Boling, E. C. (2007). Linking technology, learning, and stories: implications from research on hypermedia video-cases. Teaching & Teacher Education: An

International Journal of Research and Studies, 23(2), 189e200.Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417e436.Borko, H., Koellner, K., Jacobs, J., & Seago, N. (2011). Using video representations of teaching in practice-based professional development programs. ZDM

Mathematics Education, 43(1), 175e187.Borko, H., Virmani, R., Khachatryan, E., & Mangram, C. (2014). Video as a tool for professional development and preparing PD leaders. In B. Calandra, & P.

Rich (Eds.), Digital video for teacher education: Research and practice (pp. 89e108). New York: Routledge.Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.Brantlinger, A., Sherin, M. G., & Linsenmeier, K. A. (2011). Discussing discussion: a video club in the service of math teachers' National Board preparation.

Teachers and Teaching: Theorie and Practice, 17(1), 5e33.Brophy, J. (2004). Using video in teacher education. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Brouwer, C. N. (2011a). Imaging teacher learning. A literature review on the use of digital video for preservice teacher education and professional development.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Eudational Research Association, New Orleans. Nijmegen: ILS Graduate School of Education,Radboud University Nijmegen.

Brouwer, C. N. (2011b). Equipping teachers visually. Zoetermeer: Kennisnet.Brouwer, C. N. (2012). Self-viewing with structured video guide. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

Vancouver.Brouwer, C. N., & Robijns, F. (2014). In search of effective guidance for preservice teachers' viewing of classroom video. In B. Calandra, & P. Rich (Eds.), Digital

video for teacher Education: Research and practice (pp. 54e69). New York: Routledge.Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32e42.Brown, K., & Kennedy, H. (2011). Learning through conversation: exploring and extending teacher and children's involvement in classroom talk. School

Psychology International, 32(4), 377e396.Brunvand, S. (2010). Best practices for producing video content for teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2),

247e256.Brunvand, S., & Fishman, B. (2006). Investigating the impact of the availability of scaffolds on preservice teacher noticing and learning from video. Journal of

Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 151e174.Calandra, B., & Brantley-Dias, L. (2010). Using digital video editing to shape novice teachers: a generative process for nurturing professional growth.

Educational Technology, 50(1), 13e17.Calandra, B., Brantley-Dias, L., & Dias, M. (2006). Using digital video for professional development in urban schools: a preservice teacher's experience with

reflection. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(4), 137e145.

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 61

Calandra, B., Brantley-Dias, L., Lee, J. K., & Fox, D. L. (2009). Using video editing to cultivate novice teachers' practice. Journal of Research on Technology inEducation, 42(1), 73e94.

Calandra, B., Brantley-Dias, L., & Mcneal, K. (2007). An electronic system to support novice teachers' reflective lesson design. Multicultural Education andTechnology Journal, 1(2), 100e111.

Calandra, B., Gurvitch, R., & Lund, J. (2008). An exploratory study of digital video editing as a tool for teacher preparation. Journal of Technology and TeacherEducation, 16(2), 137e153.

Calandra, B., & Puvirajah, A. (2011). A framework for facilitating transformation in novice teachers using digital video. Educational Technology, 51(2), 33e36.Calandra, B., & Rich, P. J. (Eds.). (2014). Digital video for teacher education: Research and practice. NY: Routledge.Calandra, B., Sun, Y., & Puvirajah, A. (2014). A new perspective on preservice teachers' video-aided reflection. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education,

30(3), 104e109.Cannings, T., & Talley, S. (2003). Bridging the Gap between theory and practice in preservice education : the use of video case studies. In A. McDougall, J. S.

Murnane, C. Stacey, & C. Dowling (Eds.), Proc. ICT and the Teacher of the Future - Selected Papers from the International Federation for Information ProcessingWorking Groups 3.1 and 3.3 Working Conference, Melbourne, Australia. CRPIT, 23 (pp. 17e20). ACS.

Castro, A., Clark, K., Jacobs, J., & Givvin, K. B. (2005). Response to theory & practice question: using video to support teacher learning. AMTE Connections,14(3), 8e12.

Chan, P. Y. K., & Harris, R. C. (2005). Video ethnography and teachers' cognitive activities. In J. Brophy, & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Advances in research on teaching:11. Learning from research on teaching: Perspective, methodology, and representation (pp. 337e375). Oxford: Elsevier.

Chazan, D., & Herbst, P. (2012). Animations of classroom interaction: expanding the boundaries of video records of practice. Teachers' College Record, 114(3),1e34.

Chazan, D., Sela, H., & Herbst, P. (2012). Has the doing of word problems in school mathematics changed? Initial indications from teacher study groups.Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 1e38.

Chieu, V. M., Herbst, P., & Weiss, M. (2011). Effect of an animated classroom Story embedded in online discussion on helping mathematics teachers learn tonotice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(4), 589e624.

Choi, H., & Jonson, S. (2007). The effect of problem-based video instruction on learner satisfaction, comprehension and retention in college courses. BritishJournal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 885e895.

Christ, T., Arya, P., & Chiu, M. M. (2014). Teachers' reports of learning and application to pedagogy based on engagement in collaborative peer video analysis.Teaching Education, 25(4), 349e374.

Clarke, D. J., Mesiti, C., O'Keefe, C., Xu, L. H., Jablonka, E., Mok, I. A. C., et al. (2008). Addressing the challenge of legitimate international comparisons ofclassroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(5), 280e293.

Cockburn, M., Yadav, A., Diamond, K., & Powell, D. (2010). Effectiveness of a hypermedia video case-based library for inservice teachers' professionaldevelopment. In D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp.3060e3064). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Coffey, A. M. (2014). Using video to develop skills in reflection in teacher education students. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(9), 86e97.Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119e142.Coles, A. (2013). Using video for professional development: the role of the discussion facilitator. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(3),

165e184.Colestock, A., & Sherin, M. G. (2009). Teachers' sense-making strategies while watching video of mathematics instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 17(1), 7e29.Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Improving the quality of teacher education. Communication from the commission to the Council and the

European Parliament. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Cooper, D. G. (2015). The lesson observation on-line (evidence portfolio) platform. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 83e93.Cortina, K. S., Miller, K. F., McKenzie, R., & Epstein, A. (2015). Where low and high inference data converge: validation of class assessment of

mathematics instruction using mobile eye tracking with expert and novice teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,13(2), 389e403.

Coyle, D. (2004). Redefining classroom boundaries: learning to teach using new technologies. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 32, 1e24.Crawford, B. A., & Patterson, B. (2004). Scaffolding videotape reflections to enhance teacher candidates' practice. Paper presented at the International Con-

ference of the Association for Education of Teachers in Science, Nashville, TN.Cuper, P., Gong, Y., Farina, L., & Manning-Osborn, M. (2007). Video analysis as a reflective tool: providing pre-service teachers a gradual-replay lens on their

developing practice. In R. Carlsen, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp.45e48). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Dalehefte, I. M., & Rieck, K. (2014). How do German primary school teachers prepare students for science standards? Findings from a video study of theprofessional development program SINUS for primary Schools. Form@re, 14(2), 7e20.

Danielowich, R. M. (2014). Shifting the reflective focus: encouraging student teacher learning in video-framed and peer-sharing contexts. Teachers andTeaching: Theory and Practice, 20(3), 264e288.

Davidsen, J., & Vanderlinde, R. (2014). Researchers and teachers learning together and from each other using video-based multimodal analysis. BritishJournal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 451e460.

Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J., Sherin, M., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting videoresearch in the learning sciences: guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3e53.

Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Holt & Co.Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt & Co.Dooly, M., & Masats, D. (2011). Closing the loop between theory and praxis: new models in EFL teaching. ELT Journal, 65(1), 42e51.Downey, J. (2008). It's not as easy as it looks: preservice teachers' insights about teaching emerging from an innovative assignment in educational psy-

chology. Teaching Educational Psychology, 3(1), 1e13.Durand, M. (2008). Un programme de recherche technologique en formation des adultes [[A technology research program in adult education]]. Education et

Didactique, 2(2), 69e93.Durand, M., & Poizat, G. (2014). An activity-centred approach to work analysis and the design of vocational training situations. In L. Filliettaz, & S. Billett

(Eds.), Learning through and for practice: Contributions from Francophone perspectives. Heidelberg: Springer.Dyke, M., Harding, A., & Liddon, S. (2008). How can online observation support the assessment and feedback, on classroom performance, to trainee teachers

at a distance and in real time? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(1), 37e46.Dymond, S., & Bentz, J. (2006). Using digital videos to enhance teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(2), 98e112.Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 113e136.Erickson, F. (2007). Ways of seeing video: toward a phenomenology of viewing minimally edited footage. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.),

Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 145e155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.van Es, E. A. (2009). Participants' roles in the context of a video club. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 100e137.van Es, E. A. (2012). Examining the development of a teacher learning community: the case of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 182e192.Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2010). Pre-service CLIL teacher-education in Catalonia: expert and novice practitioners teaching and reflecting together. In D. Lasa-

gabaster, & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 189e218). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: scaffolding new teachers' interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 10(4), 571e596.

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6762

van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers' “learning to notice”in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2),244e276.

van Es, E. A., Tunney, J., Goldsmith, L. T., & Seago, N. (2014). A framework for the facilitation of teachers' analysis of video. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4),340e356.

Fadde, P. J., Aud, S., & Gilbert, S. (2009). Incorporating a video-editing activity in a reflective teaching course for preservice teachers. Action in TeacherEducation, 31(1), 75e86.

Fadde, P. J., & Rich, P. (2010). Guerrilla video: a new protocol for classroom video. Educational Technology, 50(1), 4e8.Fadde, P., & Sullivan, P. (2013). Using interactive video to develop preservice teachers' classroom awareness. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher

Education, 13(2), 156e174.Faïta, D. (2007). L'image anim�ee comme artefact dans le cadre m�ethodologique d'une analyse clinique de l'activit�e [[The animated image as an artifact

within the methodological framework of a clinical analysis of activity]]. @ctivit�es, 4(2), 3e15.Fang, Y. (2010). Bridging mathematical thinking - designing web-based multimedia video cases to build online PLC for Singaporean mathematics teachers.

International Journal of Learning, 17(5), 49e62.Feldon, D. F. (2007). Cognitive load and classroom teaching: the double-edged sword of automaticity. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 123e137.Finsterwalda, M., Wagner, P., Schober, B., Lüftenegger, M., & Spiel, C. (2013). Fostering lifelong learning - evaluation of a teacher education program for

professional teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(1), 144e155.Flandin, S., & Ria, L. (2012). Making dissatisfaction emerge about activity: Video-training for teachers' professionalization. Paper presented at the European

Conference on Educational Research, Cadiz, Spain.Fox, D., Brantley-Dias, L., & Calandra, B. (2006). Promoting preservice teachers' reflective practice through digital video and critical incident analysis in secondary

English education. Paper presented at the 56th National Reading Conference, Los Angeles, California.Fox, D. L., Brantley-Dias, L., Calandra, B., & Calder, R. (2007). Multiliteracies and multimedia narratives: Using digital video as a tool for reflective practice in

secondary English Education. Paper presented at the 57th National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.Frederiksen, J. R. (1992). Learning to “see”: Scoring video portfolios or “beyond the hunter-gatherer in performance assessment. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Fuller, F. F., & Manning, B. A. (1973). Self-confrontation reviewed: a conceptualization for video playback in teacher education. Review of Educational

Research, 43(4), 469e528.Gaudin, C., & Chali�es, S. (2011). Former par l'observation de pratiques professionnelles: pr�ecautions et pistes pour la construction de dispositifs de formation

innovants [Training through the observation of professional practices: Conditions and suggestions to design innovative training programs]. Paper presented atthe OUFOREP (Outils pour la Formation, l'Education et la Pr�evention) conference, Nantes, France.

Gaudin, C., & Chali�es, S. (2012). L'utilisation de la vid�eo dans la formation professionnelle des enseignants novices [video use in beginning teachers'professional development]. Revue Française de P�edagogie, 178(1), 115e130.

Gaudin, C., & Chali�es, S. (2015). Learning ‘Rules’ of practice within the context of a teacher video-enhanced education: Effects on the professional activity of pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the 1st CIDREE International Seminar on Professional vision in teacher video-enhanced education: Aims, means andissues, Lyon, France.

Gaudin, C., Flandin, S., Ria, L., & Chali�es, S. (2014). An exploratory study of the influence of video viewing on preservice teachers' teaching activity: normativeversus developmental approaches. Form@re, 14(2), 21e50.

Goeze, A., Zottmann, J., Schrader, J., & Fischer, F. (2010). Instructional support for case-based learning with digital videos: fostering pre-service teachers'acquisition of the competency to diagnose pedagogical situations. In D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 1098e1104). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Goldman, R. (2007). Video representations and the perspectivity framework: epistemology, ethnography, evaluation, and ethics. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B.Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 3e38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goldman, E. S., & Barron, L. C. (1990). Using hypermedia to improve the preparation of elementary teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 21e31.Goldman, R., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., & Derry, S. J. (2007). Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606e633.Grant, T., & Kline, K. (2010). The impact of video - based lesson analysis on teachers' thinking and practice. Teacher Development, 14(1), 69e83.Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cogntion and learning. In D. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York:

Macmillan.Griffin, M. L. (2003). Using critical incidents to promote and assess reflective thinking in preservice teachers. Reflective Practice, 4(2), 207e220.Gr€oschner, A., Seidel, T., Kiemer, K., & Pehmer, A.-K. (2014). Through the lens of teacher professional development components: the “Dialogic Video Cycle” as an

innovative program to foster classroom dialogue. Professional Development in Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.939692 (ver. 08.08.2014).Halter, C. P. (2006). The reflective lens: the effects of video analysis on preservice teacher development. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(03) (UMI No.

3211280).Harford, J., & MacRuairc, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1884e1892.Harford, J., MacRuairc, G., & McCartan, D. (2010). Lights, camera, reflection: using peer video to promote reflective dialogue among student teachers. Teacher

Development, 14(1), 57e68.Harlin, E.-M. (2014). Watching oneself teachelong-term effects of teachers' reflections on their video-recorded teaching. Technology, Pedagogy and Edu-

cation, 23(4), 507e521.Harris, R. C., Pinnegar, S., & Teemant, A. (2005). The case for hypermedia video ethnographies: designing a new class of case studies that challenge teaching

practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 141e161.Hatch, T., & Grossman, P. (2009). Learning to look beyond the boundaries of representation: using technology to examine teaching. Journal of Teacher

Education, 60(1), 70e85.Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2006). Producing a viable story of geometry instruction: what kind of representation calls forth teachers' practical rationality?. In S.

Alatorre, J. L. Cortina, M. S�aiz, & A. M�endez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for thePsychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 213e220) M�erida, M�exico: Universidad Pedag�ogica Nacional.

Herbst, P., & Kosko, K. W. (2014). Using representations of practice to elicit mathematics teachers' tacit knowledge of practice: a comparison of responses toanimations and videos. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(6), 515e537.

Herbst, P., Nachlieli, T., & Chazan, D. (2011). Studying the practical rationality of mathematics teaching: what goes into “installing” a theorem in geometry?Cognition and Instruction, 29(2), 218e255.

Hewitt, J., Pedretti, E., Bencze, L., Vaillancourt, B. D., & Yoon, S. (2003). New applications for multimedia cases: promoting reflective practice in preserviceteacher education. Journal of Technology & Teacher Educationn, 11(4), 483e500.

Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Bogard Givvin, K., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from theTIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. http://research.acer.edu.au/timss_video/5.

Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: what would it look like and how can we get one? EducationalResearcher, 31(5), 3e15.

Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2003). The new heroes of teaching. Education Week, 23(10), 42e56.Hiebert, J., Morris, A., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 47e61.Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., & Glass, B. (2003). Learning to learn to teach: an “experiment” model for teaching and teacher preparation in mathematics. Journal

of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(3), 201e222.Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48e94.

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 63

Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research inMathematics Education, 35(2), 81e116.

Hughes, J. E., Kerr, S. P., & Ooms, A. (2005). Content-focused technology inquiry groups: cases of teacher learning and technology integration. Journal ofEducational Computing Research, 32(4), 367e379.

Hung, W. (2006). The 3C3R model: a conceptual framework for designing problems in PBL. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 55e77.Jacobs, J., Borko, H., & Koellner, K. (2009). The power of video as a tool for professional development and research: examples from the problem-solving

cycle. In T. Janik, & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 259e273). Munster: Wax-mann Publishing.

Jacobs, V., Lamb, L., & Philipp, R. (2010). Professional noticing of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2),169e202.

Jacobs, J. K., & Morita, E. (2002). Japanese and American teachers' evaluations of videotaped mathematics lessons. Journal for Research in MathematicsEducation, 33(3), 154e175.

Janík, T., Janíkov�a, M., Knecht, P., Kubiatko, M., Najvar, P., Najvarov�a, V., et al. (2009). Exploring different ways of using video in teacher education: examplesfrom CPV video web. In Tomas Janík, & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 207e224).Munich, Allemagne: Waxmann Publishing.

Kale, U., & Whitehouse, P. (2008). From watching to learning: a hands-on mentoring model for teacher education and professional development. In Pro-ceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (pp. 1687e1693). Chesapeake, VA: Asso-ciation for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Karsenti, T., & Collin, S. (2011). The impact of online teaching videos on Canadian pre-service teachers. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(3), 195e204.Kersting, N. (2008). Using video clips of mathematics classroom instruction as item prompts to measure teachers' knowledge of teaching mathematics.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(5), 845e861.Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Sotelo, F. L., & Stigler, J. W. (2010). Teachers' analyses of classroom video predict student learning of mathematics: further

explorations of a novel measure of teacher knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1e2), 172e181.Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Thompson, B. J., Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2012). Measuring usable knowledge: teachers' analyses of mathematics classroom

videos predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 568e589.Kersting, N. B., Sherin, B. L., & Stigler, J. W. (2014). Automated scoring of teachers' open-ended responses to video prompts: bringing the classroom-video-

analysis assessment to scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(6), 950e974.Khan, M. L., Richards, K., & Wu, M. L. (2010). Understanding the effectiveness of video-based instruction versus text-based instruction. In Proceedings of

World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010 (pp. 3638e3646). Chesapeake, VA: Association for theAdvancement of Computing in Education.

Kiemer, K., Gr€oschner, A., Pehmer, A.-K., & Seidel, T. (2014). Teacher learning and student outcomes in the context of classroom discourse. Findings from avideo-based teacher professional development programme. Form@re, 14(2), 51e62.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist,discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75e86.

Kleinknecht, M., & Schneider, J. (2013). What do teachers think and feel when analyzing videos of themselves and other teachers teaching? Teaching andTeacher Education, 33(1), 13e23.

Koc, M. (2011). Let's make a movie: investigating pre-service teachers' reflections on using video-recorded role playing cases in Turkey. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 27(2), 95e106.

Koc, Y., Peker, D., & Osmanoglu, A. (2009). Supporting teacher professional development through online video case study discussions: an assemblage ofpreservice and inservice teachers and the case teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1158e1168.

Koehler, M. J., Yadav, A., Phillips, M. M., & Cavazos-Kottke, S. C. (2005). What is video good for? Examining how media and story genre interact. Journal ofEducational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(3), 249e272.

Korthagen, F., & Lagerwerf, B. (1995). Levels in learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(10), 1010e1011.Krammer, K., Ratzka, N., Klieme, E., Lipowsky, F., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2006). Learning with classroom videos: conception and first results of an online

teacher training program. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(5), 422e432.Krone, A., Hamborg, K. C., & Gediga, G. (2002). About error-related emotional reactions in humane-computer interaction. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und

Organisationspsychologie, 46(4), 185e200.Kucan, L., Palincsar, A. S., Khasnabis, D., & Chang, C. (2009). The video viewing task: a source of information for assessing and addressing teacher un-

derstanding of text-based discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 415e423.Kumpulainen, K., Toom, A., & Saalasti, M. (2012). Video as a potential text to be read for agency work in teacher education. In E. Hj€orne, G. de Abreu, & G. van

der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Learning, social interaction and diversity. Amsterdam: EARLI Book Series.Laferri�ere, T. (2010). Teacher development through participation in a virtual community of support and communication. In Dans C. Maddux, et al. (Eds.),

Research highlights in information technology and teacher education 2010. Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education(SITE).

Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigations of real practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.-M. (2011). Classroom observation: desirable conditions established by teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4),

449e463.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Le Fevre, D., & Richardson, V. (2002). Staff development and the facilitator. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(4), 483e500.Leblanc, S. (2012). Conception d'environnements vid�eo num�eriques de formation. D�eveloppement d'un programme de recherche technologique centr�e sur l'activit�e

dans le domaine de l'�education [[Design of training digital video environments. Development of a technological research program focused on the activity in thefield of education]]. Unpublished summary note for accreditation as a research director. France: University of Montpellier 3.

Leblanc, S. (2014a). Video-training scenarios within a progressive professionalization process. Paper presented at the consensus/dissensus conference ofUNESCO Chair: Issues in teacher “video-training” Which theoretical choices? Which scenarios? For which effects? Lyon, France.

Leblanc, S. (2014b). Vid�eo formation et transformations de l'activit�e professionnelle [[Video training and transformations of the professional activity]].@ctivit�es, 11(2), 143e171.

Leblanc, S., & Ria, L. (2014). Designing the N�eopass@ction platform based on modeling of beginning teachers' activity. Design and Technology Education: AnInternational Journal, 19(2), 40e51.

Leblanc, S., & S�eve, C. (2012). Vid�eo-formation et construction de l'exp�erience professionnelle [[Video training and construction of professional experience]].Recherche et Formation, 70(2), 47e60.

Leblanc, S., & Veyrunes, P. (2011). “Vid�eoscopie” et mod�elisation de l'activit�e enseignante [[Videoscopy and modelling of teacher practice]]. Recherche etFormation, 68(3), 139e152.

LeFevre, D. M. (2004). Designing for teacher learning: videobased curriculum design. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education: Vol. 10. Advances inresearch on teaching (pp. 235e258). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2011). Professional vision and the politics of teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 505e514.Leinhardt, G., Putnam, R. T., Stein, M., & Baxter, J. (1991). Where subject knowledge matters. In P. Peterson, E. Fennema, & T. Carpenter (Eds.), Advances in

research on teaching (pp. 87e113). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.Lemke, J. (2002). Discursive technologies and the social organization of meaning. Folia Linguistica, 35(1e2), 79e96.

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6764

Lemke, J. (2007). Video epistemology in- and outside the box: traversing attentional spaces. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Videoresearch in the learning sciences (pp. 39e51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lesgold, A., Rubinson, H., Feltovitch, P., Glaser, R., Klopfer, D., & Wang, Y. (1988). Expertise in a complex skill: diagnosing X-ray pictures. In M. T. H. Chi, R.Glaser, & M. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 311e342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lewis, C. (2000). Lesson study: The core of Japanese professional development. Invited Address to the Special Interest Group on Research in Mathematics Edu-cation. New Orleans: American Educational Research Association Meetings. April 28, 2000. Retrieved from: www.csudh.edu/math/syoshinobu/107web/aera2000.pdf (08.08.2014).

Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: research lessons and the improvement of Japanese education. American Educator, Winter,14e17 & 50e52.

Lim, P., & Pellett, T. (2009). Integrating digital video technology in the classroom. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80(6), 40e45.Liu, M.-h. (2012). Discussing teaching videocases online: perspectives of preservice and inservice EFL teachers in Taiwan. Computers & Education, 59(1),

120e133.Llinares, S., & Valls, J. (2009). The building of pre-service primary teachers' knowledge of mathematics teaching: interactions and online video cases studies.

Instructional Science, 37(3), 247e271.Llinares, S., & Valls, J. (2010). Prospective primary mathematics teachers' learning from on-line discussions in a virtual video-based environment. Journal of

Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(2), 177e196.Lussi Borer, V., & Muller, A. (2014). Exploiter le potentiel des processus de renormalisation en formation a

l'enseignement [[Using The Potential OfRenormalization Processes In Teacher Education]]. @ctivit�es, 11(2), 129e142.

Lussi Borer, V., Ria, L., Durand, M., & Muller, A. (2014). How do teachers appropriate learning objects through critical experiences? a study of a pilot in-school collaborative video learning lab. Form@re, 14(2), 63e74.

Maher, C. A., Landis, J. H., & Palius, M. F. (2010). Teachers attending to students' reasoning: using videos as tools. Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(2), 1e24.Maher, C. A., Palius, M. F., Maher, J. A., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Sigley, R. (2014). Teachers can learn to attend to students' reasoning using videos as a tool. Issues

in Teacher Education, 23(1), 31e47.Marsh, B., Mitchell, N., & Adamczyk, P. (2009). Interactive video technology: enhancing professional learning in initial teacher education. Computers and

Education, 54(3), 742e748.Martin, S., & Siry, C. (2012). Using video in science teacher education: an analysis of the utilization of video-based media by teacher educators and re-

searchers. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. Campbell (Eds.), Second international handbook of science teaching and learning (pp. 417e433). The Netherlands:Springer.

Masats, D., & Dooly, M. (2011). Rethinking the use of video in teacher education: a holistic approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1151e1162.Masats, D., Sormunen, K., Hacklin, S., & Ducos, G. (2007). The use of online video case studies in teacher training programmes: A literature review. Paper

presented at the 32nd ATEE Conference, Telford, UK.Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1e19.McDonald, S., & Rook, M. M. (2014). Digital video analysis to support the development of professional pedagogical vision. In B. Calandra, & P. Rich (Eds.),

Digital video for teacher education: Research and practice (pp. 21e35). New York: Routledge.McFadden, J., Ellis, J., Anwar, T., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Beginning science teachers' use of a digital video annotation tool to promote reflective practices. Journal

of Science Education and Technology, 23(3), 458e470.Mead, G. H. (1982). The individual and the social self: unpublished essays by g. H. Mead. In D. L. Miller (Ed.). University of Chicago Press.Meloth, M. (2008). The effects of video case analysis on preservice teachers' understanding of scaffolding. In K. McFerrin, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society

for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 1488e1490). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement ofComputing in Education.

Meloth, M., Good, A., & Sugar, W. (2008). Review of research on the use of video cases to improve preservice and inservice teachers' knowledge and skills. InK. McFerrin, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 940e942). Chesapeake,VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Mennin, S. (2007). Small-group problem-based learning as a complex adaptive system. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(3), 303e313.Merseth, K. K. (1994). Instructional methods and conceptual orientations in the design of teacher education programs: the example of simulations, hy-

permedia, and cases. In K. R. Howey (Ed.), The professional development of teacher educators (pp. 139e174). Cincinnati, OH: Ablex Publishing.Meyer, F. (2012). Les vid�eos d'exemples de pratique pour susciter le changement [Videos of examples of classroom practices to bring about change]. Revue

internationale de p�edagogie de l'enseignement sup�erieur, 28(2) . URL: http://ripes.revues.org/660.Meyer, F., David, R., Cantin, J., & Aub�e, M. (2005). A web based application using videos of practice to support teacher education in Quebec. In P. Kommers, &

G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2005 (pp. 4302e4305). Chesapeake,VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Meyer, F., Lampron, R., & Gaz�e, M.-A. (2014). Four pedagogical models using video as a tool for learning in a distance teacher training program context.Form@re, 14(2), 75e86.

Michalsky, T. (2014). Developing the SRL-PV assessment scheme: preservice teachers' professional vision for teaching self-regulated learning. Studies inEducational Evaluation, 43, 214e229.

Miller, M. J. (2009). Talking about our troubles: using video-based dialogue to build preservice teachers' professional knowledge. The Teacher Educator,44(3), 143e163.

Miller, K., & Zhou, X. (2007). Learning from classroom video: what makes it compelling and what makes it hard. In R. Goldmann, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J.Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 321e334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Minist�ere de l'�education nationale. (2009). Mise en place des diplomes nationaux de master ouverts aux �etudiants se destinant aux m�etiers de l'enseignement �ala rentr�ee 2010. Circulaire n� 2009-0753 du 23 d�ecembre 2009.

Mitchell, N., Marsh, B., Hobson, A., & Sornsen, P. (2008). Bringing theory to life? findings from the evaluation of the university of Sussex in-school teachereducation programme (InSTEP). In British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Edinburgh.

Mollo, V., & Falzon, P. (2004). Auto- and allo-confrontation as tools for reflective activities. Applied Ergonomics, 35(6), 531e540.Moreno, R., & Abercrombie, S. (2010). Promoting awareness of learner diversity in prospective teachers: signaling individual and group differences within

virtual classroom cases. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 111e130. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing inEducation.

Moreno, R., Abercrombie, S., & Hushman, C. (2009). Using virtual classroom cases as thinking tools in teacher education. In I. Gibson, et al. (Eds.), Proceedingsof Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 2615e2622). Chesapeake, VA: Association for theAdvancement of Computing in Education.

Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2007). Immediate and delayed effects of using a classroom case exemplar in teacher education: the role of presentation format.Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 194e206.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.Newhouse, C. P., Lane, J., & Brown, C. (2007). Reflecting on teaching practices using digital video representation in teacher education. Australian Journal of

Teacher Education, 32(3), 1e12.OECD report. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD Publications.Oonk, W., Goffree, F., & Verloop, N. (2004). For the enrichment of practical knowledge: good practice and useful theory for future primary teachers. In J.

Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 131e167). San Diego, CA: Elsevier, Inc.

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 65

Ostrosky, M. M., Mouzourou, C., Danner, N., & Zaghlawan, H. Y. (2013). Improving teacher practices using microteaching: planful video recording andconstructive feedback. Young Exceptional Children, 16(1), 16e29.

Palius, M. F., & Maher, C. A. (2013). Teachers learning about student reasoning through video study. Mediterranean Journal for Research in MathematicsEducation, 12(1e2), 39e55.

Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools. New York: Free Press.Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1998). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Prusak, K., Dye, B., Graham, C., & Graser, S. (2010). Reliability of pre-service physical education teachers' coding of teaching videos using studiocode

analysis software. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 131e159. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing inEducation.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher,29(1), 4e15.

Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E., Krajcik, J. S., Golan, R., Kyza, E., et al. (2002, October). Evolving a scaffolding design framework for designing educationalsoftware. Paper presented at the The International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Seattle, WA.

Renkl, A., Hilbert, T., & Schworm, S. (2009). Example-based learning in heuristic domains: a cognitive load theory account. Educational Psychology Review,21(1), 67e78.

Ria, L., & Leblanc, S. (2011). Conception de la plateforme de formation N�eopass@ction �a partir d'un observatoire de l'activit�e des enseignants d�ebutants:enjeux et processus [[Designing the N�eopass@ction training platform by observing trainee teachers at work: challenges and procedures]]. @ctivit�es,8(2), 112e134.

Ria, L., Serres, G., & Leblanc, S. (2010). De l'observation vid�eo �a l'observation in situ du travail enseignant en milieu difficile : �etude des effets sur desprofesseurs stagiaires [[From video observation to in situ observation of teachers' work in difficult situations: a study of effects on students teachers]].Revue Suisse des Sciences de l'Education, 32(1), 105e120.

Richardson, V., & Kile, R. (1999). Learning from video cases. In M. A. Lunderberg, B. B.Levin, & H. L. Harrington (Eds.), Who learns what from cases and how?:The research base for teaching and learning with cases (pp. 121e136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Decisions and reasons: examining preservice teacher decision-making through video self-analysis. Journal of Computingin Higher Education, 20(1), 62e94.

Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009). Video annotation tools: technologies to scaffold, structure, and transfer. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52e67.Rich, P. J., & Tripp, T. (2011). Ten essential questions educators should ask when using video annotation tools. Tech Trends, 55(6), 16e24.Roche, L., & Gal-Petitfaux, N. (2014). Design of an audiovisual device for preservice teachers' training. In M. Searson, & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of Society

for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2014 (pp. 1313e1316). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Roche, L., & Gal-Petitfaux, N. (2015). A video-enhanced teacher learning environment based on multimodal resources: a case study in PETE. Journal of e-

Learning and Knowledge Society, 11(2), 91e110.Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: teacher change and the role of reflection. [Electronic version]. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230e253.Romano, M., & Schwartz, J. (2005). Exploring technology as a tool for eliciting and encouraging teacher candidate reflection. Contemporary Issues in

Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 149e168.Rosaen, C. L., Degnan, D., VanStratt, T., & Zietlow, K. (2004). Designing a virtual K-2 classroom literacy tour: learning together as teachers explore “best

practice”. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 169e199). San Diego, CA: Elsevier, Inc.Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing noticing: how does investigation of video records change how teachers

reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347e360.Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2010). Interns' use of video cases to problematize their practice: crash, burn and (maybe)

learn. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(3), 459e488.Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Terpstra, M., Coper, M., Niu, R., & Fu, J. (2010). Constructing video cases to help novices learn to facilitate discussions in science

and English: how does subject matter matter? Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 16(4), 507e524.Santagata, R. (2009). Designing video-based professional development for mathematics teachers in low-performing schools. Journal of Teacher Education,

60(1), 38e51.Santagata, R. (2014a). Teacher learning, video in teacher preparation and professional development. Paper presented at the consensus/dissensus conference of

UNESCO Chair: Issues in teacher “video-training” Which theoretical choices? Which scenarios? For which effects? Lyon, France.Santagata, R. (2014b). Video and teacher learning: key questions, tools, and assessments guiding research and practice. Beitr€age zur Lehrerbildung, 32(2),

196e209.Santagata, R., & Angelici, G. (2010). Studying the impact of the lesson analysis framework on preservice teachers' abilities to reflect on videos of classroom

teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(4), 339e349.Santagata, R., & Guarino, J. (2011). Using video to teach future teachers to learn from teaching. ZDM The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 43(1),

133e145.Santagata, R., & van Es, E. A. (2010). Disciplined analysis of mathematics teaching as a routine of practice. In J. Luebeck, & J. W. Lott (Eds.), Association for

mathematics teacher education monograph series (Vol. 7, pp. 109e123). San Diego: Association for Mathematics Teacher Educators.Santagata, R., & Yeh, C. (2013). Learning to teach mathematics and to analyze teaching effectiveness: evidence from a video-and practice-based approach.

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1e24.Santagata, R., Zannoni, C., & Stigler, J. (2007). The role of lesson analysis in pre-service teacher education: an empirical investigation of teacher learning from

a virtual video- based field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(2), 123e140.Savery, J. S. (2006). Overview of PBL: definitions and distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9e20.Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-incontext. Issues in Education, 4(1), 1e94.Sch€on, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Schwindt, K. (2008). Lehrpersonen betrachten Unterricht: Kriterien für die kompetente Unterrichtswahrnehmung [[Teachers observe instruction: Criteria for

competent perception of instruction]]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology,

99(2), 285e296.Scott, S. E., Kucan, L., Correnti, R., & Miller, L. A. (2013). Using video records to mediate teaching interns' critical reflection. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 21(1), 119e145. Chesapeake, VA: SITE.Seago, N. (2004). Using videos as an object of inquiry for mathematics teaching and learning. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp.

259e286). Oxford: Elsevier.Seago, N., Driscoll, M., & Jacobs, J. (2010). Transforming middle school geometry: professional development materials that support the teaching and learning

of similarity. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(4), 199e211.Seidel, T., Blomberg, G., & Renkl, A. (2013). Instructional strategies for using video in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 56e65.Seidel, T., Blomberg, G., & Stürmer, K. (2010). “Observer:” Validierung eines videobasierten instruments zur erfassung der professionellen wahrnehmung

von unterricht [[“Observer:” Validation of a video-based instrument for measuring the perception of professional lessons]]. Zeitschrift für P€adagogik,Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 296e306.

Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2007). Wie Lehrpersonen Unterricht wahrnehmen und einsch€atzen: Erfassung p€adagogisch-psychologischer Kompetenzen beiLehrpersonen mit Hilfe von Videosequenzen [[How teachers perceive lessons: assessing educational competencies by means of videos]]. Zeitschrift fürErziehungswissenschaft, 8, 201e218 [Special issue].

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e6766

Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., Rimmele, R., Schwindt, K., Kobarg, M., Meyer, L., et al. (2005). Do videos really matter? the experimental study LUV on the use of videos inteacher's professional development. Paper presented at the Eleventh Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction,Nicosia, Cyprus.

Seidel, T., Schwindt, K., Stürmer, K., & Blomberg, G. (2008). Observer: Videobasiertes Tool zur Diagnose pedagogisch-psychologischer Kompetenzen bei Lehr-personen [[Observer: Video-based tool to diagnose teachers' professional vision]]. Jena, Germany: Frie-drich-Schiller-Universitat.

Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: the role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysisresults. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454e499.

Seidel, T., Stürmer, K., Blomberg, G., Kobarg, M., & Schwindt, K. (2011). Teacher learning from analysis of videotaped classroom situations: does it make adifference whether teachers observe their own teaching or that of others? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 259e267.

Seidel, T., & Stürmer, K. (2014). Modeling and measuring the structure of professional vision in pre-service teachers. American Educational Research Journal,51(4), 739e771.

Sen, A._I. (2009). A study on the effectiveness of peer microteaching in a teacher education program. Education and Science, 34(151), 165e174.Shanahan, L. E., & Tochelli, A. L. (2014). Examining the use of video study groups for developing literacy pedagogical content knowledge of critical elements

of strategy instruction with elementary teachers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53(1), 1e24.Shepherd, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Facilitating professional development through video based, formative assessment e-portfolios. Journal of Computing

in Teacher Education, 25(1), 63e69.Shepherd, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009). Beyond recollection: re-examining preservice teacher practices using structured evidence, analysis, and reflection.

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2), 229e251.Sherin, M. G. (2001). Developing a professional vision of classroom events. In T. Wood, B. S. Nelson, & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy: Teaching

elementary school mathematics (pp. 75e93). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Sherin, M. G. (2004). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 1e28). Oxford, UK:

Elsevier.Sherin, M. G. (2007). The development of teachers' professional vision in video clubs. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in

the learning sciences (pp. 383e395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 163e183.Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes. New York: Routledge.Sherin, M. G., Linsenmeier, K. A., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Issues in the design of video clubs: selecting video clips for teacher learning. Journal of Teacher

Education, 60(3), 213e230.Sherin, M. G., Russ, R., Sherin, B. L., & Colestock, A. (2008). Professional vision in action: an exploratory study. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(2), 27e46.Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2002). Using video to support teachers' ability to interpret classroom interactions. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual

Meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (pp. 2532e2536). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing inEducation.

Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers' ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,13(3), 475e491.

Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers' professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20e37.Sherin, M. G., & Russ, R. S. (2014). Making sense of teacher noticing via video. In B. Calandra, & P. Rich (Eds.), Digital video for teacher education: Research and

practice (pp. 3e20). New York: Routledge.Siry, C., & Martin, S. N. (2014). Facilitating reflexivity in preservice science teacher education using video analysis and cogenerative dialogue in field-based

methods courses. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(5), 481e508.Smith, D., McLaughlin, T., & Brown, I. (2012). 3-D computer animation vs. live-action video: differences in viewers' response to instructional vignettes.

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 41e54.Snoeyink, R. (2010). Using video self-analysis to improve the “Withitness” of student teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(3),

101e110.Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P., & Ramchandran, A. (2007). Reflections on a post-Gutenberg epistemology of video use in ill-structured domains: fostering complex

learning and cognitive flexibility. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 93e100). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: random access instruction for advancedknowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 57e75).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Star, J., & Stirkland, S. (2008). Learning to observe: using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers' ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics TeacherEducation, 11(2), 107e125.

Steffensky, M., Gold, B., Holodynski, M., & M€oller, K. (2015). Professional vision of classroommanagement and learning support in science classroomsdDoesprofessional vision differ across general and content-specific classroom interactions? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9607-0.

Sterrett, W., Dikkers, A. G., & Parker, M. (2014). Using brief instructional video clips to Foster communication, reflection, and collaboration in schools.Educational Forum, 78(3), 263e274.

Stigler, J. W., & Staley, L. (2002, June). LessonLab viewer: A software platform for teacher training. Paper presented at the international conference on teachingculture and the quality of learning, Monte Verit�a, Switzerland.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Stürmer, K€onings, K. D., & Seidel, T. (2014). Factors within university-based teacher education relating to preservice teachers' professional vision. Vocations

and Learning. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12186-014-9122-z.Stürmer, K., K€onings, K. D., & Seidel, T. (2012). Declarative knowledge and professional vision in teacher education: effect of courses in teaching and

learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 467e483.Sun, J., & van Es, E. A. (2015). An exploratory study of the influence that analyzing teaching has on preservice teachers' classroom practice. Journal of Teacher

Education, 1e15.Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295e312.Tan, A.-L., Tan, S.-C., & Wettasinghe, M. (2011). Learning to Be a science teacher: reflections and lessons from video-based instruction. Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 27(3), 446e462.Tekkumru Kisa, M., & Stein, M. K. (2015). Learning to see teaching in new ways: a foundation for maintaining cognitive demand. American Educational

Research Journal, 52(1), 105e136.Theureau, J. (2003). Course-of-action analysis and courseof- action centered design. In E. Hollnagel (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive task design (pp. 55e81).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgment. London: Routledge.Tripp, R. T., & Rich, J. R. (2012a). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and teacher education, 28(5), 728e739.Tripp, R. T., & Rich, J. R. (2012b). Using video to analyze one's own teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 678e704.van den Berg, E. (2001). An exploration of the use of multimedia cases as a reflective tool in teacher education. Research in Science Education, 31(2),

245e265.van den Bogert, N., van Bruggen, J., Kostons, D., & Jochems, W. (2014). First steps into understanding teachers' visual perception of classroom events. Teacher

and Teacher Education, 37, 208e216.

C. Gaudin, S. Chali�es / Educational Research Review 16 (2015) 41e67 67

Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205e228.van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 227e269.Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Vifquin, J.-M. (2014). La r�eflexivit�e par la vid�eoformation: impact sur le transfert [Reflexivity through training video: Impact on the transfer]. Paper presented at

the 26th conference of ADMEE-Europe, Marrakech, Morroco.Viiri, J., & Saari, H. (2006). Teacher talk patterns in science lessons: use in teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 347e365.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wang, X. (2013). A potential approach to support pre-service teachers' professional learning: the video analysis of the authentic classroom. US-China

Education Review B, 3(3), 149e161.Wang, J., & Hartley, K. (2003). Video technology as a support for teacher education reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 105e138.Wells, G. (2002). Dialogic inquiry. Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Welsch, R. G., & Devlin, P. A. (2006). Developing preservice teachers' reflection. Examining the use of video. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 53e61.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.West, C. (2012). Developing reflective practitioners: using video-cases in music teacher education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 22(2), 11e19.Whitehouse, P. (2010). Making teacher learning visible. In D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference 2010 (pp. 4137e4143). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Whyte, S. (2011). Learning to teach with videoconferencing in primary foreign language classrooms. Journal ReCALL, 23(3), 271e293.Wiens, P. D., Hessberg, K., LoCasale-Crouch, J., & DeCoster, J. (2013). Using a standardized video-based assessment in a university teacher education program

to examine preservice teachers knowledge related to effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33(1), 24e33.Wiesemes, R., & Wang, R. (2010). Video conferencing for opening classroom doors in initial teacher education: sociocultural processes of mimicking and

improvisation. International Journal of Media, Technology & Lifelong Learning, 6(1), 28e42.Wittgenstein, L. (1996). In G. E. M. Anscomb, & G. H. Von Wright (Eds.), Remarques philosophiques. [Philosophical investigations]. Oxford: Blackwell.Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11(2), 87e95.Wong, S. L., Yung, B. H. W., Cheng, M. W., Lam, K. L., & Hodson, D. (2006). Setting the stage for developing pre-service teachers' conceptions of good science

teaching: the role of classroom videos. International Journal of Science Education, 28(1), 1e24.Wu, C. C., & Kao, H. C. (2008). Streaming videos in peer assessment to support training preservice teachers. Educational Technology and Society, 11(1),

45e55.Yadav, A. (2008). What works for them? preservice teachers' perceptions of their learning from video cases. Action in Teacher Education, 29(4), 27e38.Yadav, A., Bouck, E. C., Da Fonte, M. A., & Patton, S. (2009). Instructing special education preservice teachers through literacy video cases. Teaching Education,

20(2), 149e162.Yadav, A., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). The role of epistemological beliefs in preservice teachers' interpretation of video cases of early-grade literacy instruction.

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 335e361.Yadav, A., Phillips, M., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M., Hilden, K., & Dirkin, K. H. (2011). If a picture is worth a thousand words is video worth a million?

Differences in affective and cognitive processing of video and text cases. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(1), 15e37.Yamamoto, J., & Hicks, J. (2007). Using digital movie and online discussion forum to facilitate microteaching for future secondary teachers. In T. Bastiaens, &

S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 6685e6688).Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Yerrick, R., Ross, D., & Molebash, P. (2005). Too close for comfort: real-time science teaching reflections via digital video editing. Journal of Science TeacherEducation, 16(4), 351e375.

Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection: implications for teacher education pro-gramming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39e49.

Youens, B., Smethem, L., & Sullivan, S. (2014). Promoting collaborative practice and reciprocity in initial teacher education: realising a “Dialogic space”through video capture analysis. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 40(2), 101e113.

Yung, B. H. W., Wong, S. L., Cheng, M. W., Hui, C. S., & Hodson, D. (2007). Tracking pre-service teachers' changing conceptions of good science teaching: therole of progressive reflection with the same video. Research in Science Education, 37(3), 239e259.

Yung, B. H. W., Yip, V. W. Y., Lai, C., & Lo, F. Y. (2010). Towards a model of effective use of video for teacher professional development. Paper presented at theInternational Seminar, Professional Reflections, National Science Learning Centre, York, UK.

Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M.-J., & Eberhardt, J. (2011). Understanding affordances and challenges of three types of video for teacher professionaldevelopment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 454e462.

Zottmann, J. M., Stegmann, K., Strijbos, J.-W., Vogel, F., Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2013). Computer-supported collaborative learning with digital video cases inteacher education: the impact of teaching experience on knowledge convergence. Computers in Human Behaviour, 29(5), 2100e2108.