Enhancing Teaching Effectiveness Through Interactive Video Analysis with Literacy
Coaches
Dana A. Robertson, University of Wyoming
Evelyn Ford-Connors, Boston University
George Kamberelis, University of Wyoming
Jeanne R. Paratore, Boston University
At the center of improving teaching practice in literacy is strengthening clinical practice
(NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel, 2010). Despite efforts to improve literacy instruction and
achievement (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 2003), national and state data persistently
show little change in students’ reading proficiencies, especially for striving readers (NAEP,
2013). Recent research has focused on teacher talk as a powerful resource in improving student
learning (e.g., Boyd, 2012), but studies have also found teacher talk to be difficult to change
(e.g., Neuman & Wright, 2010). In this study we examined the development of teacher talk
within the context of a graduate program for literacy specialists. We reasoned that failure to
develop efficacious teacher talk may be rooted in inadequate teacher preparation. We engaged
teachers in two kinds of reflective activities: (a) self analysis of their videotaped interactions
with children and (b) dialogic analysis of the same videotaped interactions with coaches. These
reflective activities were designed to increase coherence in course and practicum experiences and
to prompt teachers to engage in more and more effective forms of mindfulness in relation to their
instructional work with children.
Three research questions guided this research: First, when literacy specialists-in-training
engage in video-analysis coaching sessions, what types of interactions occur between the
teachers and coaches? Second, are changes over time observed in tutors’ awareness of effective
and ineffective instruction? Third, are changes over time observed in tutors’ responsive teaching
practices?
1
Literature Review
Skillful teacher talk supports high levels of engagement, fosters problem-solving abilities,
and improves students’ perceptions of competence (Johnston, 2004). Such talk also promotes
elaborated thinking and improves student understanding (Wilkinson, Reninger, & Soter, 2010;
Wolf, Crosson, & Resnick, 2006). However, developing the ability to engage in skillful talk is
difficult and requires cycles of doing, reflecting, and adapting (Johnston, 2012), a process that is
most productive when guided by a knowledgeable and effective mentor or coach (e.g., Rosemary
et al. 2002).
To use talk effectively, teachers not only must reflect critically on their actions after
teaching, but also assess their moment-to-moment effectiveness and make in situ adjustments to
best meet students’ needs (Schon, 1983). Research has shown that when specialists-in-training
collaboratively analyze videotaped instruction, they increase their awareness of effective
instructional actions and talk; yet such discussions do not always lead to application of learning
(e.g., Christ, Anya, & Chiu, 2012; Roskos, Boehlen, & Walker, 2000). Research has also shown
that when teacher education includes coaching or supervisory observations with repeated videoanalysis opportunities, teachers develop deeper understandings of effective instructional moves
and more reflective dispositions about their own instruction (Neuman & Wright, 2010;
Rosemary et al., 2002). Coaching or mentoring dialogues about videotaped instruction draw out
the complexity of teaching actions as cultural practices that mediate learning. Such opportunities
help teachers connect theory to practice within situated contexts, and are more likely to result in
effective knowledge transfer across varied related practices (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989;
Vygotsky, 1978).
2
Method
This formative experiment (e.g., Reinking & Bradley, 2008) used a multiple case-study
design (e.g., Stake, 1995) to examine responsive coaching and collaborative analytic work
among teachers-in-training and coaches. In this paper, we report preliminary findings from a
sample taken from a larger study that is currently underway in two sites. Primary goals of this
initial phase were (a) to understand the types of discourse interactions that occur between
coaches and tutors; (b) to examine tutor’s reactions to the video viewing and coaching process;
(c) to begin to examine the types of changes that occur in the awareness and practice of teachersin-training, based on their participation in video analysis and coaching; and (d) to begin to map
comparisons across cases.
Setting and Participants
The setting was a university-based reading clinic in the northeast United States. The
clinic serves as a practicum site for graduate students seeking licensure as reading specialists and
involves these students in tutoring activities. Children from 6- to 12-years old who struggle with
literacy are referred to the clinic by their parents or their teachers.
Participants were two graduate students in literacy education who were enrolled in the
practicum course and volunteered to engage in video analysis activities. One participant had
gone directly from an undergraduate program in education to graduate school, and the other had
3 years of elementary classroom teaching experience before enrolling in the graduate program.
Video analysis activities were not a course requirement or final grade determinant.
Two members of the research team were the coaches. As participant-observers, they
interacted with the graduate students and children during instruction and with the graduate
students during video analysis sessions.
3
The Formative Experiment
Graduate students (i.e., tutors) were paired with children for one-on-one tutoring 4 days
per week for 6 weeks. Each tutoring session lasted three hours with a focus on comprehensive
literacy instruction (i.e., vocabulary, word attack, fluency, comprehension, writing) and
incorporated three characteristics of effective instruction for striving readers (engagement,
intensity, cognitive challenge). Following each tutoring session, tutors and coaches engaged in
reflection activities designed (a) to help tutors tap students’ interests, guide students in
discovering new topics of interest, and help students gain ownership of their knowledge goals
(Guthrie, Wigfield, & You, 2012); (b) to help tutors understand how and why to increase
instructional intensity by targeting students’ individual needs through explicit, strategic teaching
and coherent learning opportunities (Torgesen, 2004); and (c) to help tutors utilize cognitivelychallenging texts and tasks (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003), carefully matching texts to a student’s current
ability level, selecting topics and themes that are age-appropriate and thought provoking, and
utilizing extended texts and dialogic instruction (McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009; Mesmer &
Cumming, 2009; Reznitskaya, 2012). Throughout this dialogic process, tutors were encouraged
to notice: (a) their use of effective talk to scaffold student learning, (b) their use of evidencebased practices, and (c) their students’ responses to instruction. By using these foci as a
framework for our coaching sessions, we intended to prompt a closer examination of tutors’
instructional interactions, and thus, to understand how coaches promoted tutor reflection and
encouraged more productive instructional responses to deepen student learning.
Data Sources
Training data. The researchers/coaches described the study and the use of its various
reflective tools. These tools were designed to focus attention on the characteristics of effective
4
interventions tutors had previously studied and to help them document their awareness of
effective practices. Together, researchers/coaches and tutors viewed and reflected upon
videotaped examples of tutorial instruction. In consultation with a researcher/coach, each tutor
also conducted pre- and post-assessments of a child.
Instructional data. Tutoring sessions were videotaped one day each week for 5 weeks.
Tutors chose the instructional foci in consultation with researcher/coaches who were sometimes
present during instructional activities. Lesson plans for each session were collected.
Reflection data. Tutors and coaches were paired together. Each tutor and coach
independently viewed and reflected upon each video-recorded instructional session prior to
meeting in coaching sessions. Using a Focused Observation and Reflection Template (FORT),
each tutor and coach recorded factual observations, questions, and reflections on next
instructional steps.
Coaching data. During two separate coaching sessions over a 6-week term, the coachtutor dyads co-viewed the lesson videos (two coaching sessions for each tutor). Discourse-based
interviews (Odell & Goswami, 1982) were conducted during each co-viewing session, as
researchers/coaches and tutors collaboratively analyzed the interactions that occurred in the
session. Researchers/coaches also constructed retrospective written accounts of each session,
paying particular attention to the coach-tutor interactions and the coach’s perceptions of the
tutor’s awareness of instructional effectiveness. Finally, tutors composed final reflections about
the nature and effectiveness of their involvement in the study by responding to a specified set of
open-ended prompts.
5
Analyses
To gain an understanding of the various factors that influenced participants’
development, we used an adapted version of grounded theory analysis techniques (Strauss,
1987). We first examined data in light of question one: When literacy specialists-in-training
engage in video analysis coaching sessions, what types of interactions occur between the
teachers and coaches? Members of the research team independently viewed the coaching videos
and recorded general impressions of the types of discourse interactions and relationships between
the tutor-coach dyads. Then, all coaching videos were transcribed verbatim. For each tutor, these
data were analyzed by one member of the research team through open coding of the interactions,
and then by a second member to corroborate those codes. Discrepancies and clarifications were
discussed and resolved by consensus. The researchers followed the same process for the second
transcript for each tutor. The researchers tallied frequencies (see Table 1) on individual codes
across the four transcripts and identified categories and categorical relations in the data.
We then examined data in light of the second and third questions: Are changes over time
observed in tutors’ awareness of effective and ineffective instruction? Are changes over time
observed in tutors’ teaching practice? To examine each tutor’s awareness of instruction, we
analyzed the types and frequencies of each tutor’s comments across the two sessions in relation
to her final written reflection. To examine changes in teaching practices, we analyzed coaching
transcript interactions in relation to teaching practices evidenced in lesson plans and videotapes
for subsequent instructional sessions.
Finally, we began a preliminary analysis using an adapted version of critical discourse
analysis (CDA) techniques (Fairclough, 1992) to examine the relationship between the tutor and
6
coach, and how tutors and coaches position themselves during and across coaching sessions
relative to their perceptions of the power relationship.
Results
Question 1: When literacy specialists-in-training engage in video-analysis coaching sessions,
what do teachers and coaches talk about, i.e., what is the nature of their talk?
Preliminary analyses revealed five major categories (See Table 2) of coaching talk during
video co-viewing and coaching sessions (CVCSs): (1) observations and explanations of
instruction (i.e., noticing, naming, and/or elaborating a tutor’s instruction); (2) affirmations of
tutor’s instruction (i.e., both examples of praise, and examples of praise followed by an
explanation of instruction being praised); (3) questions about content or process (e.g., eliciting a
line of thinking about the teaching observed, asking a tutor to explain an action or to clarify a
confusion, asking a tutor about how the coaching session might proceed); and (4) student
observations (i.e., things noticed about the child’s behaviors, responses, and actions) (5)
suggestions for modifying or improving instruction.
Similarly, preliminary analyses revealed three predominant categories (See Table 3) of
tutor talk during these same sessions. Here, predominant categories of talk included: (1) student
observations (i.e., things noticed about the child’s behaviors, responses, and actions); (2)
teaching reflections (i.e., statements indicating additional consideration of her teaching actions or
talk); and (3) justifications (i.e., explanations about why she did or said something during
instruction).
Question 2: Are changes observed in tutors’ awareness of effective and ineffective instruction?
Over the course of the coaching sessions, graduate students increased their awareness of
effective and ineffective instructional practices. For example, one tutor stated, “I felt my
7
instruction…became a lot more focused and I was able to narrow in on her needs.” In addition,
over time, we saw a clear increase in “co-constructed” segments of talk between coaches and
tutors about “teaching effectiveness” and “next instructional moves”—i.e., segments in which
tutors actively engaged in problem-solving and contributed to the specification of “next”
teaching steps.
As we considered the possible benefits and challenges to engaging teachers-in-training in
video coaching, we examined the tutor reflections at the conclusion of the tutoring term.
Reflections listed numerous benefits of the video-viewing as a coaching tool (e.g., “Most helpful
was planning next steps for instruction. It was also helpful to have the same coach view the
videos and sit in on our sessions because I felt more confident that she understood the context of
one video to the next.” “Hearing myself on video allowed me to see what talk enhanced
instruction and what I should have said to improve instruction.”) At the same time, tutors’
addressed challenges of video recording for tutors (e.g., “Watching myself and hearing my voice
was definitely the most challenging.” “The difficult aspect was having to videotape our coviewing and analysis! This should be a time where you can talk honestly about struggles or ask
questions without a camera recording.”); and tutors also addressed the challenges for students,
too (e.g., “My student was a bit shy with the camera rolling.”).
Question 3: Are changes observed in tutors’ teaching practice?
Evidence from lesson plans and lesson videos revealed that tutors regularly modified
their instruction in response to the feedback they received and the planning that occurred during
CVCSs. For example, both tutors noted the need to talk much more explicitly when providing
initial explanations of content or strategies and also when guiding children’s application of skills.
Additionally, one tutor paced her talk more effectively and used more wait time during
8
instruction after these issues were discussed during a coaching session. Finally, after a coaching
session during which the coach and tutor discussed integrating multiple learning goals (e.g.,
retelling stories and learning key vocabulary words), the other tutor began moving more fluidly,
flexibly, and thoughtfully across instructional segments addressing each of these goals and the
relations between them.
What dynamics are observed in tutor-coach relationships?
Given the asymmetrical power relation involved in collaborative video-analysis, it was
expected that this process might initially be stressful, and both graduate students alluded to this
sense of self-consciousness at the beginning. For example, one tutor engaged in a fair amount of
self-deprecating talk early on in the study (e.g., “It was early on and I don’t really, I’m don’t,
[laughs] I’m not proud of it.”). However, as they began to note the positive influences of the
process on their own teaching and on interactions with their students, their anxiety diminished.
Further, initial impressions of coaching interactions show many instances in which the tutor
seemed to assume greater control of the session. For example, in one coaching session involving
dyad 2, the coach opened a session prompting the tutor to note observations and reflections, and
the tutor responded in an animated and engaged manner. The coach followed this, however, by
offering several suggestions for instruction rather than eliciting the tutor’s ideas for next
instructional steps. The tutor’s demeanor noticeably changed; her behavior was less animated
and most of her responses were solely back channeling (e.g., “Ok.” “Right.” “Yeah.”). Power
flowed toward the coach here, and its effects seemed clearly felt by the tutor. In later segments of
the same coaching session, the positioning again seemed to shift, with the coach and tutor
engaging in brief but productive dialogues about possible instructional moves based on the
tutee’s demonstrated understandings and misunderstandings. Power seemed to flow between
9
them here, and both the coach and the tutor were animated and engaged during these moments.
In another coaching session, the tutor and coach engaged in a long dialogic segment about next
instructional practices. Both parties were very animated and engaged throughout. Power, again,
seemed to flow more or less equally between them.
Although still early in the analysis process, coaches’ shifts from dialogic to more
monologic discourse were consistent with observations and reflections recorded by the coaches
in their written notes prior to the coaching sessions and may signal a more directive coaching
approach through which to focus the teacher’s attention on some facet of instruction that requires
closer consideration. We speculate that during these episodes, the coach offers more information
or detailed explanations to address a particular aspect of instruction or to describe alternative
practices. For example, the relative inexperience of the teacher in dyad 2, who had not taught in
her own classroom before enrolling in the graduate program, may have prompted the coach to
engage in more of a mentoring exchange with periodic, lengthy descriptions of teaching actions
that might better match the student’s needs in that instructional instance. Ongoing CDA analyses
will help us determine the extent to which these early observations hold up or are altered as the
entire data set is examined more comprehensively at both macro- and micro-levels.
Significance
At the outset, we noted the importance of high-quality teacher talk in advancing
children’s reading achievement, and we also noted that pre-service teacher education and
professional development programs have had little influence on skillful teacher talk. Although
the findings presented here are as yet only preliminary, should they hold up, we expect them to
extend understanding, and in turn, to improve literacy-specialist training, in the following ways.
First, findings suggest specific categories of talk that comprise the coaching session (i.e.,
10
observations/explanations; affirmations of tutors’ instruction; questions about content or process;
observations about the child; and ideas for modifying or improving instruction). Early results
suggest that these types of coaching talk elicited reflective responses and helped tutors focus on
aspects of instruction that could support children’s learning, i.e., their use of effective talk to
scaffold student learning, their use of evidence-based practices, and their students’ responses to
instruction. Data also suggest an association between teachers’ participation in coaching
sessions and their enactment of more effective instructional practices: modifications seen in
teachers’ instruction were traceable to coaches’ suggestions and the co-planning that occurred
during coaching sessions; and in their final reflections, teachers attributed a greater awareness of
effective practices to participation in coaching sessions.
Although preliminary, these findings suggest value in these coaching approaches as tools
for teacher education and resources for professional growth. These understandings extend our
knowledge of the types of mediating activities that help literacy specialists-in-training deepen
their understanding of the broad range of learners they will face. In addition, findings shed light
on how reading teachers develop richer repertoires of instructional strategies for accelerating the
learning of striving readers. Finally, findings demonstrate how the use of critical discourse
analyses can help us understand the ways in which cultivating particular kinds of social
relationships, using particular forms of language, and attending to the circulation of power can
help teacher educators develop more effective ways of working with relatively novice teachers.
11
References
Boyd, M. P. (2012). Planning and realigning a lesson in response to student needs: Intentions and
decision making. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 25-51.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Christ, T., Arya, P., & Chiu, M. M. (2012). Collaborative peer video analysis: Insights about
literacy assessment and instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(2), 171-199.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, EG: Polity Press.
Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and
achievement in reading. In S.L. Christenson et al. (eds.), Handbook of research on
student engagement (pp. 601-634). New York: Springer.
Johnston, P. H. (2004). Choice words: How our language affects children’s learning. Portland,
ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Johnston, P. H. (2012). Opening minds: Using language to chance lives. Portland, ME:
Stenhouse Publishers.
Kuhn, M. R. & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3-21.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking comprehension instruction:
Comparing strategies and content instructional approaches. Reading Research Quarterly,
44(3), 218-253.
Mesmer, H. A. E., & Cumming, S. (2009). Text-reader matching: Meeting the needs of
struggling readers. In E. H. Hiebert & M. Sailors (Eds.), Finding the Right Texts: What
Works for Beginning and Struggling Readers (pp. 149-176). New York: Guilford Press.
National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2013 Reading Assessment. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Blue Ribbon Panel on
Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning (2010).
Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare
effective teachers. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education.
Neuman, S. B., & Wright, T. S. (2010). Promoting language and literacy development for early
childhood educators: A mixed-methods study of coursework and coaching. The
Elementary School Journal, 111, 63-86.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003).
Odell, L., & Goswami, D. (1982). Writing in a nonacademic setting. Research in the Teaching of
English, 16, 201-223.
Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2008). Formative and design experiments: Approaches to
language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College press.
Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature
discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446-456.
Rosemary, C. A. et al. (2002). Improving literacy teaching through structured collaborative
inquiry in classroom and university clinical settings. In D. L. Shallert et al. (Eds.), Fiftyfirst yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Oak Creek, WI: National Reading
Conference.
12
Roskos, K., Boehlen, S., & Walker, B. (2000). Learning the art of instructional conversation:
The influence of self-assessment on teachers’ instructional discourse in a reading clinic.
The Elementary School Journal, 100(3), 229-252.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, EG: Cambridge
University Press.
Torgeson, J. K. (2004). Lessons learned from research on interventions for students who have
difficulty learning to read. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.). The voice of evidence in
reading research. (pp. 355-382). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilkinson, I. A. G., Reninger, K. B., & Soter, A. O. (2010). Developing a professional
development tool for assessing quality talk about text. In R. T. Jimenez, V. J. Risko, M.
K. Hundley, D. W. Rowe, (Eds.), 59th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp.
135-153). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A. C., & Resnick, L. B. (2006). Accountable talk in reading
comprehension instruction. CSE Technical Report 670. Los Angeles, CA: National
Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
13
Table 1: Frequencies of Coach-Tutor Interactions
Type
Connection
Question –
Process (Qp)
Response –
Process (Rp)
Question –
Content (Qc)
Response –
Content (Rc)
Affirmation
Explanation
Reflection
Suggestions
for
Instruction
Justification
Observation
Direct
Instruction
CoConstruction
Technical
Problem
Resolution
Technical
Process
Backchanneling
Count
CoachInitiated
3
18
Count
TutorInitiated
4
1
Total
1
15
15
41
4
45
3
39
42
45
40
16
67
1
5
44
5
46
45
60
72
2
42
12
10
54
0
12
96
12
32
33
65
7
8
15
2
4
5
27
198
225
7
19
14
Table 2: Five Most Prevalent Coach Interaction Types
Purpose
Question –
Process or
Content
Definition
A question asked
about the coaching
process or about
lesson content
Affirmation
Statement used to
compliment an
action done well
Observation/
Explanation
Statement that
notices and names a
teacher’s action(s)
Suggestions
for
Instruction
Student
Observation
Statement that
mentions the
possibility of
something that
could be changed in
the future
Statement about
what was noticed
about student (i.e.,
behavior,
performance, etc.)
Example
“What are you thinking? What do you
want to tell me about this particular
clip?”
“How did you decide to do this
particular sort in connection to the book
that’s coming up?”
“One of the things I noticed…that you
did a really nice job with is that you
actually slowed her down.”
“Yes! That’s a great strategy.”
“You were very explicit with her about
that vowel consonant vowel.”
“So what you’re doing here is building
this sort of coherence to the next
section, going back to what you did the
last session, and you’re saying this is
what we did and this is how you did it,
and sort of debriefing…and now you’re
going to start next steps.”
“…even in her notebook, you could
have her write ‘My Prediction,’
‘Evidence From the Text,’ and then
you could have a column like ‘Did you
confirm or revise?’”
“Yeah, let’s make it more explicit. This
is the main idea because – and then,
say why is it the main idea statement?
What does it do?”
“She’s providing some evidence for
those predictions.”
“She’s a little more passive now than
she usually is. But this is her area of
need, so she tends to feel most shaky in
this part because this is hard.”
15
Table 3: Three Most Prevalent Tutor Interaction Types
Purpose
Reflection
Justification
Observation
Definition
Statement indicating
additional
consideration of
actions
Statement about
why something was
done the way it was
Statement about
what was noticed
about student (i.e.,
behavior,
performance, etc.)
Example
“I feel like when it comes to writing
sometimes I do, but I remember when
we’re talking about it, it’s just hard for
her…like how to say it.”
“When I first watched this…I first said
I think the pacing was a little bit too
slow, and I thought I took too long.
And now that I’m re-watching it, I feel
like all of the parts were necessary to
get her to be more confident.”
“…especially with spelling, I was
really trying to reinforce that we can
use our notes as a reference to make
sure that we spelled the word
correctly…”
“I was trying to restate that it still has
the /oo/ sound…that’s why I asked her,
‘why did you put it there?’”
“And as we were going, even though I
didn’t ask her to, she started sort[ing]
them on her own on the side.”
“She’s mixing up her b’s and d’s. So
[the word] is bum, but she said drum,
because she’s got that d.”
16