“What were you thinking?” Bilingual preschool students talk about reading practices through video reflection

1    

“What were you thinking?” bilingual preschool students talk about reading practices through

video reflection

Joseph C. Rumenapp Judson University

Colleen E. Whittingham

University of Illinois at Chicago

Emily Brown Hoffman University of Illinois at Chicago

This is a draft version. The final version will be published in September, 2015. Please use and cite the version below:

Rumenapp, J. C., Whittingham, C. E., & Hoffman, E. B. (2015). “What were you thinking?” Bilingual preschool students talk about reading practices through vide reflection. In E. Ortlieb, L. Shanahan, & M. McVee (Eds.), Video research in disciplinary literacies. Bingley, UK: Emerald. doi:10.1108/S2048-045820150000006006

2    

Abstract

Purpose To explore the use of video-stimulated reflection during read aloud activities in early childhood to promote self-awareness, reading comprehension, and metacognitive literacy practices. Design The increasing visibility and accessibility of video recording devices across learning environments is cause for investigating their potential utility as effective instructional tools. This chapter outlines a pedagogical approach to the implementation of video reflection in early childhood education. Grounded theory is used to build an understanding of how video can support effective emergent literacy and metacognitive strategy instruction. Findings Video recordings facilitated students’ reflection. Common reflective themes include revisiting the recorded event in reflective discussion, elaboration on story elements towards increasing comprehension, and explaining students’ own thinking. These findings indicate students’ ability to engage in emergent practices fundamental to a disciplinary literacy perspective. Practical Implications The use of tablets as a video device in early childhood can be utilized to promote reading instruction and metacognition. Video reflection can leverage practices that are necessary for disciplinary literacies. Keywords: Video reflection, tablets, emergent literacy, reading comprehension, reading instruction, early childhood, metacognition

3    

Introduction

As the affordances of digital media continue to expand through the increased availability

of digital recording devices, the use of video as an instructional tool warrants further exploration.

The thoughtful and authentic interaction of digital recording devices provides opportunities for

expanding instructional approaches in the classroom (Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007). The use of

video recording with immediate playback allows students to think about learning as well as allow

time for reflection, expansion, and revision of thoughts and ideas (Pomerantz, 2005; Tanner &

Jones, 2007). This study seeks to understand the ways in which video can be used as a tool for

young learners to reflect on their thinking and learning. This reflective process is at the center of

disciplinary literacies, specifically, the ability to “identify all such reading- and writing-relevant

distinctions among the disciplines” (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012, p. 11).

A disciplinary literacy perspective is appropriate for early childhood education were most

students are being exposed to print (and digital) literature as well as being socialized into

schooling. Thus, we investigate how preschool students are able to talk about the practices of

reading in a reflective way, accessing metacognitive strategies. We propose that video can be

used to allow preschool students the opportunity to reflect on their literacy practices. Specific to

the practice of preschool read alouds, this study investigates how video can provide a record of

how students comprehend text and allow them to talk about this process.

Theoretical Framework and Literature

National interest in early learning standards merits investigation into alternative

technology-based learning methods. This rising interest in early childhood education has

coincided with an expansion of technology availability and use in classrooms. In this age of

4    

digital multiliteracies, even the youngest learners face the increased demand for interpretive

critical thinking when interacting with all forms of text (Hoffman, 2011). In the extremely visual

and interactive world of early childhood, using video recording as an instructional tool can

support early childhood instructional strategies consistent with our knowledge of child

development (Schrader et al., 2013) while engaging students in metacognitive practices. These

literacy practices focus on actively constructing meaning through analysis, interpretation, and

critical thinking, all supporting and advancing children’s interpretation of text.

Students in early childhood classrooms learn best when purposeful instructional activities

are embedded in meaningful contexts (Teale, Hoffman, & Paciga, 2010). Research focused on

literacy understandings have found that children are capable of engaging in metacognitive

literacy practices when their meaning making is facilitated by teacher supports and interactive

discussion (Eeds & Wells, 1989; Pantaleo, 2004; Sipe 2008). Effective literacy instruction in

early childhood is consistently characterized by interactive discussion (allowing for freer student

talk than traditional classroom dialogue) which focuses on interpretive meaning rather than

literal comprehension (Hoffman, 2011). The authentic integration of digital tools such as tablets

lend themselves to this distinctive learning environment. Tablets can support students to

construct meaning as interactive platforms that encourage children to collaborate with and learn

from each other, facilitating social interaction (Oladunjoye, 2013). Furthermore, variations of

instant video revisiting of classroom events have been used in preschool classrooms and have

been shown to allow for reflective thinking and accounting for complex interactional matters

(Flewitt, 2006; Forman, 1999; Theobald, 2012). However, these have not been specifically

conducted in bilingual classrooms or in the context of literacy instruction. The present focus on

bilingual students attempts to push the field to consider that emergent bilinguals are not only

5    

capable of these types of reflections but are able to leverage multiple semiotic systems to reflect

on the videos.

The use of a tablet as a video recording and viewing device merits further exploration in

early childhood contexts. Stimulated reflection has long been touted as a theoretically good idea

(Foreman, 1999). This study focused on how stimulated reflection through the use of video

recording tablets can be authentically integrated into preschool classrooms when engaging

students in interactive read alouds. Reading aloud to children can help to develop early literacy

skills necessary for later literacy success (Price, Bradley, & Smith, 2012). Interactive read alouds

create “a space where meaning is constructed through dialogue and classroom interaction,

providing an opportunity for children to respond to literature in a way that builds on their

strengths and extends their knowledge” (Wiseman, 2011, p. 435). Video recording and viewing

via tablets may allow such interaction around literacy practices.

Our study is framed by sociocultural theory, specifically Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of

mediated human activity serves as the basis of the study design. We understood “activity” in the

sense that they are collaborative in nature, oriented toward an object, and mediated by artifacts

that are simultaneously ideational and material (Cole, 1996; Engeström, 1999). This is to say

that meaning making first takes place dialogically through the use of signs and tools such as

language, writing, video recordings, and other material and ideational artifacts. It is the artifacts

that serve as evidence of human thinking and mediate joint activity. Since thinking cannot be

directly observed, artifacts used as “thinking devices” can be methodologically investigated

(Jordan & Henderson, 1995; Lotman, 1988). Video may serve a dialogic purpose as artifacts of

thinking. Lotman (1988), for example, demonstrates that video recordings can be utilized as both

instructional tool and mode of data collection.

6    

Methods

Three classrooms participated in this study. Two were urban, Catholic elementary school

classrooms located in a predominantly Latin@ community. All of these students used Spanish in

the home, though teachers predominately used English for instruction. The third classroom was a

special education classroom situated in a suburban public school. Students were predominantly

Latin@ and exposed to Spanish at home and through instruction in school. Each classroom also

had one bilingual instructional aide. All student names are pseudonyms and faces have been

blurred to protect their identity.

Following a series of classroom observations, the research team scheduled classroom

visits during daily read aloud time. Field notes were collected during the whole class, teacher

directed read aloud and subsequent follow-up activities. A small group of four children then

recreated the follow-up activity at the direction of a member of the research team, who recorded

the activity on a tablet. A total of 18 tablet recordings of follow-up activities were collected;

each was approximately 10 minutes in length. The tablet recordings were used as instructional

tools to stimulate recall of student thinking. We chose to record interactional activities

associated with read alouds because they have been shown to enhance students’ talk about

thinking and understanding (Lennox, 2013; McGee & Schickendanz, 2007).

Immediately following the tablet recording, students collectively viewed the tablet video

of their engagement in the literacy activity. Students were prompted with questions such as

“What were you thinking when you said that?” or “How did you know that?”. This process was

video recorded (resulting in a reflection video) to document student interaction and reflections on

the previously collected tablet recording. This process documented 10-40 minutes of student

reflection per group session. Field notes were taken throughout. Additionally, teachers

7    

participated in two interviews to inform our understanding classroom contexts and teachers’

perceptions of this process.

Toward applying grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to understand how preschool

students talk about their own emergent literacy practices, we engaged in an iterative process of

coding (Gray, 2009). Open coding involved the cataloguing of each reflection video,

summarizing each minute and noting themes that emerged around our research question. We

reviewed field notes and memos taken during our data collection phase. We developed three

categories to explain what students did while watching tablet videos of themselves participating

in reading activities. The three dominant behaviors students exhibited are all supported in

theliterature; students recalled experiences (e.g., Forman, 1999); reflected on text (e.g., Hong &

Broderick, 2003), and reflected on literacy practices (e.g. Fang & Cox, 1999).

After these initial categories were developed, we engaged in the axial coding process to

compare and look for relationships across and between categories. Notes were kept to give

examples, define codes, and facilitate discussion regarding confusing areas. Through discussion

the research team reached consensus on discrepant codes, leading to minor changes in the coding

scheme. An emergent story, or underlying theory, that could explain the data developed through

selective coding. Examples were then selected for transcription which demonstrated this story.

In order to fully document each example, gesture was transcribed in addition to participants’ oral

language. It was important to include the semiotic tool of gestures since participants used them

to create meaning with each other or with the tablet. All gestures were recorded by jotting them

down with the transcript, but only those relevant to the examples in this paper appear in

transcripts below. These examples provided an eye into what was observed and demonstrate the

8    

ways reflective video can be used as an instructional tool. These examples are analyzed using

discourse analysis techniques (Gee, 2011).

We then applied three major coding categories to the reflection videos, marking at 15-

second increments, when coding categories were observed. This quantitative analysis allows us

to compare the approximate percentages of time students engaged in each of the three categories.

Findings

The research team used grounded theory to conceptualize how preschool students made

sense of their own literacy practices while interacting with tablet recordings. Students used the

tablet videos at least three different ways when talking about thinking. These included: recalling

events on the tablet screen, using the tablet video to provide another opportunity to talk about the

read aloud, and using the tablet video to talk about their own literacy practices. .

Recalling events

Self-awareness. The majority of reflection videos consisted of students talking about the

actions of the tablet video (42.1% of the dataset). Immediate recall provided opportunities for

students to demonstrate self-awareness as well as awareness of others. Students often identified

themselves by pointing to the screen and saying “It’s me!” In the third classroom, a self-

contained special education and bilingual room, several of the students pointed to the screen and

identified themselves in third person. For example, David frequently pointed at himself and said

“David” or “It’s David!” When the tablet displayed footage of the teacher, David would walk to

Miss M. and show her the video. Reflections of awareness suggest that most students are able to

identify and talk about themselves in relation to how a third-person is perceived of in the mind of

others. This is what would typically be expected in metaconsciousness of 4-5 year olds (e.g.

9    

Rochat, 2003). This initial reflection of the self was the most basic verbalization of thought

identified.

Recalling and explaining events. Basic levels of self-awareness, however, were not the

only type of reflection observed. Students spent significant time talking about what was

happening on the screen. While watching the tablet videos, students talked about their own

actions and the actions of others through both self-initiated responses and responses to questions.

As example 1 illustrates, video reflection allowed students to explain events that occur in the

tablet video. In this example, the reflection process allows for the student to draw on multiple

semiotic tools (gestures, pointing to the video, Spanish, English) to make meaning and explain

what he was seeing.

Example 1:

01 Colleen: Do you have something you want to say? 02 Omar: (nods head) 03 Colleen: Ok 04 Omar: um Jimmy say the caterpillar en the coocoo y en la 05 caterpillar (moving fists in a circle) y an da an da 06 butterfly .. (pointing to the video) y coocoo son y es 07 jumpin’ the kwas y katana En the cocoon. 08 Colleen: Ok, you’re using some Spanish words and some English words 09 to tell me about that 10 Omar: (nods head) 11 Colleen: I want you to slo:w down and tell me again because that was 12 very important and I want to hear all of it. Ok. You were 13 telling me something about what Jimmy was talking about, 14 right? 15 Omar: (Nods head) 16 Colleen: (to a girl in the group) Let’s wait a second so we can hear 17 everything he says, ok? Tell us one more time. 18 Omar: Ok. Um. Da Coocoon es the first and the kaus y the 19 butterfly no son no kaus and the butter/ and the 20 caterpillar walking walking (making walking gestures) y and 21 the caterpillar es moving moving and the butterfly estep 22 (slams fist into hand) like that. 23 Colleen: The butterfly stops like that? 24 Omar: (nods head) Yeah 25 Colleen: So the caterpillar is moving 26 Omar: y y moving y piken (unknown word accompanied by hand 27 gestures) like that it’s moving (looks behind 28 at the real caterpillar) 29 Colleen: The caterpillar is moving, right and you are telling me the 30 butterfly is staying still.

10    

31 Omar: yeah.

Figure 1. Omar points to the butterfly.

Figure 2. Students discuss sequencing.

Example 1 shows one student talking about the events occurring on the tablet (lines 04-

07, 18-22). He is pointing to the screen (see figure 1 above) and reflecting on the unfolding of

events (e.g. line 06, displayed in figure 2). While the pictures of the caterpillar came out of The

Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle, he was telling about what the other students had said and done

during the video, specifically explaining their process of sequencing. In the video, students were

placing pictures in sequential order (egg, caterpillar, chrysalis/cocoon, and butterfly). Omar is

explaining his interpretation of the process they had just gone through, specifically regarding the

walking of the caterpillar prior to the cocoon and the non-movement finality of the butterfly in

11    

the sequencing activity. Additionally, he compares the visualization on the screen to a real

caterpillar that was in a jar behind him.

Omar’s use of multiple semiotic systems is notable. Through gestures, pointing at the

video, and using Spanish and English, Omar draws on his extensive communicative repertoire to

respond to Colleen’s question. With the video as a thinking tool, Omar points to the real

caterpillar behind him as evidence for the point he is making (Berland & Hammer, 2012; von

Aufshnaiter, Erduran, Osborne, & Simon, 2008). Furthermore, he does this by using both

Spanish and English, taking a stance that both languages are necessary for him to engage to his

fullest extent in this moment. Colleen also acknowledges both languages are being used (line

08) and asks him to slow down a little so that all of the students could understand. He repeats

himself with the same linguistic patterns. We can see how the use of these multiple semiotic

systems play a role in him taking up a position of expertise.

Talking about future events. This category also included moments when students

engage in futuristic talk about events that had yet to unfold in the tablet video. During this type

of talk, students recalled activity portions that were further along in the tablet video. Unlike

basic recall of historical events, we see the video being used as a tool of the mind (Forman,

1999) to provide opportunities for deeper reflections on activities and events not seen in the

video. Example 2 demonstrates this futuristic talk. Students previously listened to an

informational text about nutrition and drew a plate full of healthy foods. During the reflection

video, Joe asked students if they could remember the order in which they drew things. Aaron

discussed what he had drawn so far according to the video.

Example 2:

01 Joe: Let’s look over here (pointing to the tablet). What do you 02 have on the plate so far?

12    

03 Aaron: A milk, um pineapple, a apple and a carrot. 04 Joe: Ok, so what else are you going to put on the plate in the 05 video? (holding up the completed drawing) 06 Aaron: (alternating looking at the video in figure 3 and the 07 drawing in figure 4). The raisins and the ap, the yellow 08 apple, and the black raisins and that, that (pointing to 09 the drawing) and that, that’s a celery

Figure 3. Video of students drawing.

Figure 4. Completed drawing.

Example 2 allowed students to compare their completed drawing (figure 4) with a

previous version that they could refer to in the video (e.g. line 06, figure 3). This recollection of

events displays practices of comparing, recall, and prediction of text. As can be seen in these

two examples, students both reflected on what happened and recalled events that had yet to be

13    

shown in the video. Additionally, reflecting on the tablet video provided an additional

opportunity to engage in literacy practices around the read aloud text.

Reflecting on the book

Watching the video on the tablet allowed students to talk about the read aloud in more

depth. This third experience with the text (first during whole class read aloud, second during the

small group follow-up activity) provided another opportunity to talk about the text (9.42% of the

dataset). This category was observed in all three classrooms. In the third classroom, Joe was

talking with a student, Nataniel. Nataniel was watching a video of their literacy activity in which

students were making a flag. Joe had been asking questions about the dragon design Nataniel

had made on his flag. Joe asked if he remembered what design flag in the book had, and

Nataniel remained silent. Joe brought over the book and Nataniel pointed at the flag. To follow

up, Joe pointed to the flag and asked, “What’s on the flag?” to which Nataniel responded “fire.”

Joe asked if he had remembered that the flag had fire and if his was different than his own flag.

Nataniel responded in the affirmative both times, thus indicating that the video response activity

allowed Nataniel to reflect on the book.

In the other classrooms, students often referred to the book it as if they were continuing

the comprehension activities. This was usually initiated by the student and triggered by the

video (e.g. figure 5). In some instances, students sequenced or further elaborated events from the

book while in others the actually grabbed the book and began to look through it. These

occurrences support the notion that video reflection allows additional opportunities to engage

with the text.

Figure 5.

14    

Figure 5. Student referring to the book

In example 3 students had categorized sounds heard during a read aloud. Colleen asked

the students to talk to one another about the book, which appears on the left side of example 3.

The right side of the transcript is the talk that occurred when students watched this episode. It is

important to note that during the initial follow up sessions Karina either rarely spoke or made

contributions by telling stories about her home. Here, Karina expanded on talk about the text

that she remembered but did not verbalize during the initial reading activity.

Example 3

Video Transcript Reflection Transcript 01: Colleen: Do you want to use the 02: book to help you? 03: Nate: (nods head and grabs 04: book) 05: Colleen: You can look at the 06: book and get some 07: ideas. Karina, Ernie, 08: what do you think 09: about making noises? 10:(6 sec pause) 11: Nate: The picture, the 12: picture don’t have a 13: bear. It don’t have a 14: bear.

01’: Colleen: Ernie did you see how 02’: they took that book? 03’: Do you remember them 04’: doing that? 05’: Ernie: (Nods head) 06’: Colleen: What were they 07’: talking about? 08’: Ernie: Animals 09’: Colleen: They were talking 10’: about the animals 11’: Karina: Yeah, because of the 12’: cat. The other cat 13’: was sleeping and the 14’: other cat was, his

15    

15: Colleen: It doesn’t have a 16: bear? 17:(9 sec pause) 18: Ernie: (gestures with hands) 19: Ernie: Cow. 20: Colleen: Cow. Karina and Ernie 21: do you guys want to 22: talk about what the 23: animals do? And you 24: guys have decided to 25: talk about people.

15’: eyes were open and 16’: there was something 17’: in the ear.

Since the reading activity was focused on the categorization and comparison of noises

discussed in the read aloud, students hadn’t had the opportunity to share general comments or

responses to the text. Additionally, Ernie and Karina hadn’t talked during the initial activity

except for short responses (e.g. line 19). The wait time had been significant (lines 10 and 17),

but the two remained silent while the other two boys jumped in to speak. The video reflection

offered another chance for students to reflect on the text and to talk about it.

Though Karina’s comments were not about the noises, we can see that she was recalling

specific images from the text and making sense of what she saw (lines 11’-17’). This possibility

was afforded by her review of the video. When she was asked about the other students’ use of

the book, she was able to explain and expand on the text herself. Perhaps it was seeing the

students modeling how to use text that may have extended her the possibility to do the same.

While using video reflection allowed a third time for Karina to talk about the text, for others it

provided a way to talk about the very practices of reading. In this way, the video reflection was

able to move students from talking about the text to talking about their interaction with the text.

Reflecting on literacy practices

The final type of verbalization of thinking was reflecting on literacy practices (10.14% of

entire dataset). This coding category emerged when students answered why questions about their

reading or thinking. When prompted by the researchers with questions about why they said or

16    

did something, students responded with reasons from their lives, from something someone else

said, or because of the text. This meta- coding category reveals that preschoolers are aware of

their literacy practices. Being able to reflect explicitly on thinking is a particularly powerful

practice, one in which the video played a key role (Fang & Cox, 1999). Students were able to

explain why they did and said what they did, indicating a type of awareness that teachers can

leverage in their classrooms.

Students articulated daily life experience as having influenced their thinking. This code

captured a range of instances which included making textual connections to daily lives as well as

reflecting on language practices. This is an imperative skill for furthering student

comprehension. Making personal connections to the text leads to reading comprehension when

students further the connection to consider how it enriches their own understanding of the text

(Harvey & Goudvis, 2000). More importantly, students are able to verbalize these choices as

they reflect on them in the video.

Influences from others. Students also articulated their thinking or doing as influenced

by the actions of others. In Example 4 Joe was asking students why they chose to include certain

foods as “healthy” in their drawings. This moment follows the reviewing of a clip when students

were discussing whether Nate’s drawing was of chocolate chip cookies (unhealthy) or a tortilla

with raisins (presumably healthy).

Example 4

01 Joe: Nate, what were you thinking when you drew that? Can 02 you point to it? 03 Nate: (Pointing to the drawing) Right here. 04 Joe: What were you thinking? 05 Nate: It’s a tortilla with raisins on top. And if you put some 06 beans and um some cheese on it, it will taste good. 07 Joe: (to other student) And you thought it was a tortilla when 08 you saw it. Did it look like a tortilla? 09 Aaron: uh yeah but I know it was raisins. 10 Joe: Why 11 Aaron: because raisins look like circles

17    

12 Joe: Ok, so let’s look at your picture here (pointing at video), 13 do you see raisins up there yet? 14 Aaron: No. 15 Joe: So where did you get the idea about raisins? 16 Aaron: From Nate.

The reflection video shows students articulating the origins of their ideas. Aaron

explained that he thought of raisins because Nate had drawn them (line 16). Thus, the students

understood the practices of drawing to include a collaborative aspect. They also acknowledge

the use of signs to emerge in the moment, like the round black circle representing a raisin.

Understanding how signs come to carry meaning is a complex process, an example of higher

order cognitive processes (Vygotsky, 1978). Aaron articulated that he drew black circles

because that is what raisins look like (line 11). However, the idea to draw raisins emerged

because he had seen Nate’s drawing and the group had come to an understanding that the picture

was, indeed, a tortilla with raisins. Students reflect on literacy practices by acknowledging the

role others play, but they also acknowledge the role texts play in their reasoning.

Leveraging textual evidence. Example 5 shows how students leveraged textual

evidence to support their claims. This is a key tool in argumentation, which is foundational to

the discussion of disciplinary literacies (Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, 1984). These preschoolers

justify their claim that the “[police officer] is good” by explaining their reasoning from the text.

Emily is facilitating the reflection activity.

Example 5

01 Anna talking on the Video: He’s good. 02 Emily: Do you remember saying that about the police officer? 03 Anna: nods head 04 Emily: yeah. So you said what? The police officer waaas 05 Jorge: He was hungry 06 Emily: Who was hungry? 07 Jorge: [The birds] 08 Eric: The duncklings (sic.) 09 Emily: the ducklings. And you said the police officer was what? 10 (3 sec) You said he was good, right. He was good. Why do 11 you think he said he was good? What were you thinking that

18    

12 made him good? 13 Anna: Because because because they were flying together 14 Emily: Who was flying together? The ducks? So the police officer 15 (holds up a picture of the police officer) you said he was 16 good. Do you remember saying he was good? (2 sec) I think 17 you said he was good too. Do you remember? Do you remember 18 why he was good? 19 Maria: Because the ducklings was um a hungry. 20 Emily: And what did he do? 21 Anna: He fed them.

The initial clip from the video displays Anna saying the police officer was good (line 01).

When Emily asked why (lines 9-12), the students begin to recount events from the text.

However, the most significant moment here is what occurs in lines 19 and 21 where the two girls

explain that the police officer was good because the ducklings were hungry and he fed them. In

this example, students make a moral argument backed by textual evidence. This moves beyond

basic recall (e.g. lines 02-08) and demonstrates the practice of justifying claims.

This final type of practice, talking about “why” students did something, was noticeably

absent from students in one classroom. This third classroom was a special education pre-school

classroom in which several students were selective mute or language delayed. Often in this class,

our observations were limited to non-verbal cues. While it is possible that this final category was

not observed in this classroom because students couldn’t articulate their thoughts verbally, more

data would need to be collected to investigate non-verbal ways they may accomplish this.

Students in this classroom were observed to engage in the first two categories of reflection, so it

is possible they would be able to engage in this final category as well.

Students are aware of the roles other people, life events, and texts play in their own

thinking, and thiscan be practiced and leveraged in a classroom toward the ends of literacy in

general and disciplinary literacies in specific. Students are aware that they reason from texts,

and they know that they are using texts to construct claims. This basic observation should be

19    

used to inform teachers that literacy pedagogy must include more than just “reading” and instead

allow students to reflect on the “practices” of engaging in literacy events.

Discussion

Video reflection can be used as an instructional tool in the preschool classroom to reflect

on literacy practices. Students used the video reflection to talk about their own actions, to talk

about text, and to talk about their own thinking. Evidence of these preschool behaviors

encourage the continued and expanded use of classroom-available technologies towards

increased metacognition and self-awareness of students and addresses the need to implement 21st

century standards at the preschool level.

Teachers can use technologies, such as video, as a tool to facilitate higher order cognitive

processes. Students’ ability to talk about the actions of the video demonstrates a level of

individual and social awareness. Not unlike the demonstrated self-knowledge and observed

affective responses of toddlers recognizing themselves in the mirror, (Schneider-Rosen &

Cicchetti, 1991), preschoolers reflected on their learning and their sense of self when viewing

their own images through video. Particularly in the third classroom, video reflection activity

allowed students with special needs a chance to demonstrate awareness of themselves and others,

to verbalize what they were watching, and to revisit classroom content. The teacher, in her exit

interview, noted the following:

Watching the videos of themselves, their friends, and familiar adults was exciting for them, and encouraged verbal expression of feelings while at the same time promoting social interactions with peers and adults- all of which contributes to healthy development in the domains of social-emotional and speech/language. Many of the activities were science and math related, so watching videos of these activities made learning more accessible to those who did not participate cooperatively or constructively the first time. Overall, having my students watch video recording of themselves is something I plan to continue doing after witnessing the positive impact it has on student progress and the opportunities it provides for students to learn and re-learn academic and non-academic concepts.

20    

The teacher noted both social as well as academic benefits that she had witnessed.

Through the experience with using tablets for stimulated recall, she saw the increase of social

interaction happen in tandem with participation and academic learning. This experience also

allowed students to reflect on mathematics and science activities. The teachers’ specific

inclusion of math and science learning in her reflection provides an entry-point to revisit the role

of disciplinary literacies in preschool classrooms. Our additional findings support the suggestion

that the use of video as a reflective tool in early childhood does, indeed, develop the foundational

skills necessary towards developing disciplinary literacy.

Video reflection afforded students an additional opportunity to reflect on the text and

therefore elaborate on their initial comprehension. Preschool students are beginning the process

of socialization into formal schooling, and are simultaneously socialized into the types of literacy

practices expected in school. Revisiting read aloud texts may allow students additional time and

opportunities to be socialized into those practices. On average, 10% of student time was spent

expanding on the text or talking about the book. In some instances, as much as 46% of student

time was spent elaborating on the text. The use of video reflection strategies following an

informational text read aloud could afford students additional opportunities to begin to

understand the text features unique to particular disciplines. It may allow students to begin to

engage in conversations of various disciplinary communities as students become aware of the

role text plays in learning.

The most critical of finding was how students were able to talk about their thinking.

Students repeatedly referred to the text as evidence for something they had said or done.

Students were able to gather evidence from a text, use that evidence to justify their thinking (as

the rudimentary beginnings of an “argument”), and then verbalize this process. Video reflection

21    

as an instructional tool facilitated the use of higher-level mental processes, which may not have

otherwise occurred without this opportunity. On average, 1.55 minutes of reflective verbalization

occurred per session, with one video displaying 7 minutes of students talking about their own

literacy practices. This evidence also demonstrated that the students saw the text as

authoritative. Thus, video reflection may be a useful tool towards developing a metacognitive

approach to learning, which is a necessary precursor to navigating different disciplinary texts.

Conclusion

We might frame our findings with the following words: “Learning to read involves much

more than acquiring skills; it should extend the reader’s own experiences as a language user”

(Wiseman, 2011, p. 432). Reading is not simply a set of skills, but rather is a social practice.

Video reflection can be a useful tool for young children to think about those practices.

Disciplinary literacy in early childhood is an emerging concept in need of more

exploration. At the preschool age, students are learning the differences between school and

home language and literacy use. If students are being socialized into schooling itself at this age,

then educators have the opportunity to concurrently socialize students into disciplinary literacy.

Text has a unique influence in this situation. A well-chosen text has the authority to socialize

children into a discipline of literacy.

In this study, students and teachers acknowledged text as a tool. In addition to

strengthening current instructional practices involving the text, video reflections give students

the opportunity to engage in literacy practices that are required in disciplinary literacies.

Specifically, encouraging students to reflect on their own thinking through deeper text analysis.

Researchers need to further examine how video may be used to benefit preschool student

engagement in disciplinary literacies through advancing student thought and questioning of

22    

different texts. Additionally, this context provides evidence that dual language learners engage

in these practices by using multiple languages as well as other semiotic resources. This provides

insight into other possible applications of video recording to be used with DLLs to foster critical

language learning and bilingual identities (Morales & Rumenapp, 2015). Findings indicate that

video reflection can be a useful tool when setting the stage for future disciplinary literacy

learning in an early childhood setting. The results of this study warrant future investigation into

how video can be used to promote metacognitive student thinking as well as disciplinary learning

in a preschool classroom.

References

Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94. doi: 10.1002/tea.20446

Cole, M. (1996). Culture in mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Eeds, M., & Wells, D. (1989). Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning construction in

literature study groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 4-29.

Engeström, Y. (1999) Innovative learning in work teams: Analysing cycles of knowledge

creation in practice. In: Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki. (Eds.),

Perspectives on Activity Theory (377-406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fang, Z., & Cox, B. E. (1999). Emergent metacognition: A study of preschoolers' literate

behavior. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13(2), 175-187. doi:  

10.1080/02568549909594738

Flewitt, R. (2006). Using video to investigate preschool classroom interaction: Education

research assumptions and methodological practices. Visual Communication, 5(1), 25-50.

23    

doi:  10.1177/1470357206060917

Forman, G. (1999). Instant video revisiting: The video camera as a “tool of the mind” for young

children. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 1(2).

Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method (3rd ed.). New York:

Routledge.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Gray, D. E. (2007). Doing research in the real world (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance

understanding. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Hoffman, J. (2011). Co-constructing meaning: Interactive literacy discussions in kindergarten

read alouds. The Reading Teacher. 65(3). 183-194. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01025

Hong, S. B., & Broderick, J. T. (2003). Instant video revisiting for reflection: Extending the

learning of children and teachers. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 5(1), 1-23.

Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal

of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.

Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology

into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and

answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575-614. doi: 10.3102/0034654307309921

Lennox, S. (2013). Interactive read-alouds—An avenue for enhancing children’s language for

thinking and understanding: A review of recent research. Early Childhood Education

Journal, 41(5), 381–389. doi: 10.1007/s10643-013-0578-5

Lotman, Y. M. (1988). Text within a text. Journal of Russian and East European

24    

Psychology, 26(3), 32-51. doi: 10.2753/RPO1061-0405260332

McGee, L.M., & Schickedanz, J.A. (2007). Repeated interactive read-alouds in preschool and

kindergarten. The Reading Teacher, 60(8), 742–751.

Morales, P. Z., & Rumenapp, J. C. (in press). Rethinking preschool education through bilingual

universal pre-kindergarten: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Multilingual

Education Research.

Oladunjoye, O.K., (2013). iPad and computer devices in preschool: A tool for literacy

development among teachers and children in preschool. Department of Child and Youth

Studies, Stockholms Universitet.

Pantaleo, S. (2004). The long, long way: Young children explore the fabula and syuzhet of

“shortcut.” Children’s Literature in Education, 35(1), 1–20. doi:

10.1023/B:CLID.0000018897.74948.2a

Pomerantz, A. (2005). Using participants’ video stimulated comments to complement analysis of

interactional practices. In H. te Molder & J. Potter (Eds.), Conversation and cognition

(pp. 93–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Price, L., Bradley, B., & Smith, J. (2012). A comparison of teachers’ talk during storybook and

information book read-alouds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 426–440. doi:

doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.02.003

Rochat, P. (2003). Five levels of self-awareness as they unfold early in life. Consciousness and

Cognition, 12, 717-731. doi: 10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00081-3

Schneider-Rosen, K., & Cicchetti, D. (1991). Early self-knowledge and emotional development:

Visual self-recognition and affective reactions to mirror self-images in maltreated and

non-maltreated toddlers. Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 471. doi: 10.1037/0012-

25    

1649.27.3.471

Schrader, P.G., Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C.K., Ataya, R., Teale, W.H., Labbo, L.D., & Cammack, D.

(2003). Using Internet delivered video cases, to support pre-service teachers'

understanding of effective early literacy instruction: An exploratory study. Instructional

Science, 31(4-5), 317-340. doi: 10.1023/A:1024690111227

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it

matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7-18. doi:

10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a

Sipe, L.R. (2008). Storytime: Young children’s literary understanding in the classroom. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2007). Using video-stimulated reflective dialogue to learn from children

about their learning with and without ICT. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(3),

321–335. doi: 10.1080/14759390701614454

Teale, W., Hoffman, J., & Paciga, K. (2010). Where is NELP leading preschool literacy

instruction?: Potential positives and pitfalls. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 311-315.

doi: 10.3102/0013189X10369830

Theobald, M. (2012). Video-stimulated accounts: Young children accounting for interactional

matters in front of peers. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 10(1), 32–50. doi:

10.1177/1476718X11402445

Toulmin, S.E., Rieke, R.D., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New

York: Macmillan.

Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and

learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific

26    

knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. doi:

10.1002/tea.20213

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. (Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S, & Souberman,

E., Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wiseman, A. (2011) Interactive read alouds: Teachers and students constructing knowledge and

literacy together. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38,431–438. doi: 10.1007/s10643-

010-0426-9

Literature Cited

Carle, E. (1969). The very hungry caterpillar. New York: Philomel.