Learning from Classroom Video
1
Running head: LEARNING FROM CLASSROOM VIDEO
Learning from classroom video:
What makes it compelling and what makes it hard
Kevin Miller
University of Michigan
Xiaobin Zhou
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
To appear in Goldman-Segal, R. & Pea, R. (Eds.), Video research in the Learning Sciences.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
This chapter is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.
0089293. Address correspondence to: Kevin F. Miller, Combined Program in Education and
Psychology, University of Michigan, 601 E. University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259 (email:
kevinmil@umich.edu) .
Learning from Classroom Video
2
Learning from classroom video:
What makes it compelling and what makes it hard
Anecdotes of personal experience provide a vivid, compelling means of instruction and
communication, something that effective communicators have known from at least the time of
the parables of the New Testament. Newspaper stories commonly wrap stories of affected
individuals around their presentations of scientific or medical reports (e.g., Kollers, 2000). Yet
anecdotes can sometimes stand in the way of drawing larger, more general conclusions,
something effective speakers have also commented on, as in this legislative testimony by Hirsch
(1997):
“You can expect no amusing anecdotes. About thirty years ago, I had a similar
opportunity to address an important policy-making body, when I was a
department chairman, and I was invited to speak to the Board of Visitors of the
University of Virginia. A colleague looked over my prepared talk and gave me a
wise piece of advice. He said, "Take out all the anecdotes; those will be the only
things they will remember."
The fact that Hirsch resorted to a small story to establish the need to eschew anecdotes
suggests just how difficult it is to adhere to the advice he cites. In this chapter we will argue that
video cases can be unusually persuasive because they can function as a form of anecdote,
processed differently than are other kinds of data-based reports.
Although video cases can be vivid and compelling, this does not imply that their use in
education is straightforward. After reviewing research on the persuasive power of anecdotal
Learning from Classroom Video
3
evidence, we will consider the question of what viewers are likely to learn from watching
complex events such as those shown in classroom video cases. Finally, we will discuss two
issues underlying the effective and responsible use of video cases in educational research and
practice – the need to develop clear methods for situating video cases in the larger contexts from
which they were drawn, and the development of instructional procedures that take advantage of
the power of video cases.
The power of anecdotes
Everyone who has taken an introductory statistics course knows that conclusions based
on larger samples are more reliable than are those based on smaller samples (this is usually
termed the law of large numbers). A series of studies in social psychology suggest that this
statistical preference for larger samples is not reflected in human persuasive communication. A
classic study that contrasted the persuasiveness of “direct” experience with more statistically
reliable evidence based on larger samples was reported by Borgida and Nisbett (1977). They
presented University of Michigan undergraduates taking introductory psychology courses with
evaluative information about upper level psychology courses. The information was presented by
previously unknown upperclassmen either as representing their personal experience, or presented
as the average evaluation of an entire class of students. Students were then asked to indicate
which courses they were likely to take in the future. Data presented as the direct experience of
specific students had a significant effect on student choices, compared with a no-information
condition, but the information presented as average class evaluations did not. Contrary to what
the law of large numbers would advise, reports of individual experience of strangers were more
influential than results based on the entire class. Nisbett & Ross (1980) argued that the greater
Learning from Classroom Video
4
persuasiveness of putative tales of personal experience was due to the vivid nature of such stories
compared to the summary statistics that describe a group of respondents.
The basic finding that vivid stories of personal experience are more persuasive than
statistical evidence has been replicated in a number of studies (Martin, 1982; Slater & Rouner,
1997; Zillman, Perkins, & Sundar, 1992). There are exceptions, particularly in cases where
individuals are deeply involved in a topic or where the statistical evidence is consistent with their
original viewpoints (Cacioppo, Petty, & Morris, 1983; Petty & Cacioppo, 1984; Slater & Rouner,
1996). But taken as a whole, these studies suggest that there may indeed be a psychological basis
for the journalistic practice of presenting statistical data through the filter of individual case
reports.
Video cases are perhaps the ultimate in vivid second-hand experience, because however
selected and edited the material shown to viewers might be, they are seeing it for themselves.
Thus it is not surprising that video cases are persuasive; the research described above suggests
that they should actually be more persuasive than larger and more systematic samples of
phenomena. This persuasive power imposes a responsibility on those who select and use such
cases, to make sure that what they show is in fact representative of the larger set of phenomena
from which they are drawn. How one can go about establishing representativeness is discussed
later in this paper, after we consider the broader question of how viewers understand classroom
video cases.
Making sense of video cases
The fact that video cases are compelling might seem to imply that they are iconic, with a
clear meaning accessible to all. Such is manifestly not the case. Roschelle (2000, p. 723) vividly
Learning from Classroom Video
5
describes a problem that many readers of this chapter will have experienced from one or both
perspectives; one he reports having witnessed “too many times:”
“A researcher attends a prestigious conference armed with a project video to
show. After brief introductory remarks, the researcher says, ‘I am going to let the data
speak for themselves.’ But contrary to his or her expectation, the audience sees events in
the video that did not appear in the researcher’s analysis. Soon the session is spinning out
of control, with the researcher unable to inject his or her point of view into what is
becoming a charged and confrontational atmosphere.”
Because researchers who present video cases have selected them from a larger pool of
materials and have watched them repeatedly, the meaning of those cases is clear to them in a way
unlikely to extend to new viewers. In addition to this familiarity gap, there are many other factors
that could potentially affect what viewers attend to in watching a video case, including cultural
background, expertise, and educational philosophy. In this section we will describe recent
research looking at who notices what when watching classroom video, as well as work on the
time course of impression formation and implications for video cases as an educational tool.
Who notices what?
We recently completed a study comparing what elementary school teachers and college
students in China and the United States noticed when they watched a series of short classroom
video segments (Miller, Zhou, Sims, Perry, & Fang, 2005). After viewers watched each segment,
they were asked to write a description and evaluation of what they found noteworthy in the video
case they had just seen. We developed a coding system to categorize the resulting narrative
descriptions. These codes describe aspects of both the teacher and the lesson. The categories are
Teacher Personality, Interpersonal/Affective, Lesson Presentation, Student Participation,
Learning from Classroom Video
6
Motivation, Physical Classroom Environment, Classroom Management, Lesson Content, Lesson
Tools, Lesson Structure, Student Understanding, Teacher Questions, Teacher Knowledge, and
General Description. We found striking differences between viewers of the two cultures, as well
as some smaller differences between teachers and students within cultures.
Figure 1 shows the set of codes for comments that U.S. viewers were more likely to make
than were Chinese viewers. U.S. viewers were significantly more likely to comment on Teacher
Personality (e.g., “the teacher was energetic and warm” or “she was not the nicest person to her
students”) than were Chinese viewers. U.S. viewers were also more likely to comment on aspects
of teaching involving interpersonal relations.
Insert Figure 1 about here
Social psychologists starting with Ross (1977) have used the term “fundamental
attribution error” to describe the tendency to overestimate the role of personal or dispositional
factors in accounting for behavior (compared with situational factors). Westerners are more
likely to emphasize personal attributes as the cause of behavior than are their East Asian
counterparts (Morris & Peng, 1994). Thus the finding that our U.S. viewers were particularly
prone to comment on personal dispositions of teachers was not surprising, but it may have
important consequences for efforts to use video cases in teacher education. To the extent that
viewers a) focus on such personal attributes, and b) view them as stable traits, they may be less
likely to notice aspects of the instructional approach that could be applied to improving
instruction.
Learning from Classroom Video
7
U.S. viewers, and particularly U.S. teachers, also made significantly more comments
about general pedagogical issues, such as classroom management, interpersonal relations with
students, presentation style, participation, classroom structure, and motivational strategies (e.g.,
“she was very effective, had control of the class”, or “this game is a little boring and children
will not long show interest towards it.”). These are clearly important aspects of classroom
interaction; the differences between U.S. and Chinese viewers watching the same classroom
video suggests that the former were more prepared to notice and comment on them.
Figure 2 shows the set of codes for comments that Chinese viewers were more likely to
make than were U.S. viewers. Chinese viewers commented more on the mathematical content of
the classes (e.g., “the content of the knowledge learned in this class is little, and the level is low”)
and on the kind of knowledge that Shulman (1987) termed “pedagogical content knowledge.”
Pedagogical Content Knowledge includes information about the kinds of difficulties students
might have and strategies for helping them overcome these obstacles. It differs from general
teaching strategies primarily in being domain-specific and focusing on student understanding.
Examples of pedagogical content knowledge mentioned more by Chinese viewers are the use of
lesson tools to facilitate learning (e.g., “there should have been more examples of equivalent
bars” and “this method combined the class content with everyday life”) and comments on student
understanding (e.g., “they may find this easy to understand, and have a deep impression and
solid memory of the knowledge”).
Insert Figure 2 about here
Learning from Classroom Video
8
Student viewers commented more than teachers on student motivation (e.g., “this game is
a little boring and children will not show long interest towards it”). The differences between
teachers’ and college students’ comments seem to reflect a difference in perspective, with
students finding it easier to think about what it would be like to be a young student in this
classroom, and teachers comparing their methods to what they see the teacher doing.
U.S. and Chinese viewers saw the same set of classroom videos, but in many cases
noticed different aspects of those cases. These differences are consistent with previous reports of
differences in the training and beliefs of U.S. and Chinese teachers. Fore example, the difference
between Chinese and U.S. viewers (particularly teachers) in their focus on content-specific
aspects of teaching versus general pedagogical issues is consistent with differences in their
training and the organization of their professional lives (e.g., Ma, 1999). Chinese elementary
school teachers are usually specialized in reading and mathematics, and their training typically
focuses on content-related instruction from the start of their teacher preparation.
Whatever the source of these differences, there existence serves as a reminder that
viewers are likely to see video cases through significantly different lenses depending on the
experiences they bring to the task of watching. The next section will look at one key aspect of
this larger issue – exploring the time course of impression formation from viewing classroom
video and the extent to which task matters in affecting what viewers notice.
The time course of learning from video
Ambady and Rosenthal (1993) showed untrained judges three 10-second silent videos of
instruction by college instructors and high school teachers. Judges were asked to rate the
instructors on a variety of dimensions (active, confident, dominant, enthusiastic, likable, and
optimistic, among others). The adjectives listed correlated significantly (with r ‘s > .70) with
Learning from Classroom Video
9
end-of-semester course evaluations of the college instructors from (different) students, despite
the fact that one set of judgments was based on 30 seconds exposure and the other on a semester
of classroom experience. Similar results were found for videotaped thin slices of instruction by
high school teachers, using principal’s evaluations as the criterion (although in this case
“attentive” and “empathic” were added to the highly-correlated list and “confident” and
“dominant” were absent).
The “thin slice” research results are potentially bad news for anyone interested in using
classroom video as an instructional technique. They seem to imply that viewers will form quick
and persistent impressions of the materials shown that will resist change as a result of further
experience. Alternatively, what viewers are asked to judge may affect what they notice and the
time course of impression formation. The second possibility would suggest that viewers can be
guided to engage with classroom video in a way that goes beyond impressions formed from brief
encounters.
Zhou and her colleagues (Zhou, Miller, Sims, & Perry, 2005) used a modification of the
thin slice paradigm to look at how instructions affected the time course of impression formation
in watching classroom video. College students watched one of two U.S. elementary school math
lessons. The video was paused at 10 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 5 minutes, 10
minutes, and ended after about 20 minutes. At each pause, viewers filled out a quick rating scale
evaluating aspects of either teacher personality (using eight highly correlated items from
Ambady and Rosenthal, 1993) or instructional processes (using seven most commented-upon
items from Miller et al., 2005). At the conclusion of the entire video, each viewer wrote a
narrative description of what they noticed and filled out the rating scale used by the other group.
Learning from Classroom Video
10
Viewers’ ratings at each time the video stopped were compared to their ratings on the
same item after watching the entire video. As with previous work using this technique (Ambday
& Rosenthal, 1992, 1993; Ambady, Bernieri, & Richeson, 2000), we found that viewers quickly
formed evaluations of the teachers’ personality and these evaluations tended to remain stable
over time. Figure 3 shows correlations between college students’ ratings of personality variables
at each stop and their ratings on the same scale after watching the whole video. The dashed line
shows the critical value for statistical significance. Remarkably, after only 10 seconds of
viewing, seven of eight ratings on the teacher’s personality were already significantly correlated
with the final judgment. Ratings of teacher personality features were also quite persistent,
showing little change across the viewing episode.
Insert Figure 3 about here
Judgments of instructional processes, on the other hand, were more likely to change over
the course of the video case. Figure 4 shows the correlation between college students’ ratings of
instructional variables at each stop and their ratings on the same scale after watching the whole
video. The dashed line again shows the critical value for statistical significance. The pattern is
quite different from that obtained for personality ratings. No instructional variable was
significantly correlated until viewers watched a full 10 minutes of the lesson.
Insert Figure 4 about here
Learning from Classroom Video
11
Viewing task also had significant effects for the kinds of open-ended comments and
descriptions viewers wrote after watching the entire case. Viewers who had rated teacher
personality were significantly more likely to make comments on the teachers’ personal attributes
than were those who had focused on instruction. And those who had focused on instruction made
more comments on instructional features of the lesson. This study suggests that even very simple
changes in the viewing task can have big consequences for what viewers take from a video case.
Our results indicate that Ambady and colleagues are right in identifying an extremely
rapid process by which viewers make judgments of teacher personality based on very thin slices
of behavior. Recall also that U.S. viewers were more likely than Chinese viewers to comment on
these features when they were asked to report what they noticed after watching video cases. This
suggests that, left to their own devices, U.S. viewers are likely to take away from viewing video
cases the kinds of inferences that could be drawn from a few seconds of viewing.
But there is also a more hopeful message that emerges from these results. Viewers who
were explicitly instructed to rate the quality of instruction showed a very different profile of
impression formation when watching video cases, and the instructions carried over to affect the
general descriptions and comments they wrote after watching the entire video case. Viewers may
need to be given a task when watching classroom video if we wish them to go beyond noticing
teacher personality, but simple variations in viewing instructions can lead to very different
experiences with the same video case.
We are at a relatively early stage in developing a pedagogy of classroom video, in part
because of the apparent iconicity of what are in fact deeply complex educational materials. In the
remainder of this paper, we will discuss two issues that affect the educational use of video cases
Learning from Classroom Video
12
– the importance of establishing their representativeness and some ways that these materials can
be used to develop reflective practitioners.
Videocases in educational practice: A pedagogical prolegomena
Using case reports in a way that supports communication of either educational research
or as instructional materials involves “taming the anecdote,” that is, collecting cases in a
comprehensive and systematic way, presenting them as well-described samples from a larger
domain of instructional experience, establishing their representativeness, and presenting them in
a manner that enables viewers to comprehend them. The specific requirements for providing
context will vary with the audience and intended use. The emerging methodology of video
surveys (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999) provides a good context for discussing each of these issues,
although they apply as well to other approaches that involve the use of case reports in
educational research.
Issues in collecting cases. Video methods provide a powerful method for collecting and
presenting classroom interactions in their complexity, but not in all of their complexity.
Decisions about what to record have important consequences for what viewers could learn from
the resulting record. Hall (2000) provides a set of clear examples showing how beliefs about
what is important in classroom interaction will constrain the kind of information collected and
the kind of inferences that can be drawn. A video record that focuses tightly on the teacher, for
example, will limit viewers’ ability to understand students’ contributions to classroom processes.
Multiple camera views can provide additional information about classroom interactions, and
techniques for such integrating multiple perspectives are increasingly accessible to researchers
(Kumar & Miller, 2005). But the reality is that researchers will be constrained to record a limited
sample of the complexity of classroom processes for at least the foreseeable future. Decisions
Learning from Classroom Video
13
about what to record in a classroom need to be made, and the protocols for recording and
selecting cases should be explicitly described.
A good example of such a description is that provided by the TIMSS video study (Stigler,
Gonzales, Kawanaka, & Serrano, 1999). The procedure for sampling classrooms from within the
larger TIMSS sample is described, as is the procedure for sampling lessons within the school
year in the three participating countries, including differences between them (for example, the
Japanese sample was collected over a shorter time period than was the case for German and the
United States). Because this study was part of the larger TIMSS project, the researchers were
able to select classes from a national probability sample in each country, where each class had an
equal chance of being selected. The classes were filmed with a single camera, and the
videographer was given a series of principles to use in deciding where to point that camera, chief
among them the instruction to:
“Assume the perspective of an ideal student in the class, then point the camera
toward that which should be the focus of the ideal student at any given time. An
ideal student is one who is always attentive to the lesson at hand and always
occupied with the learning tasks assigned by the teacher. An ideal student will
attend to individual work when assigned to work alone, will attend to the teacher
when he or she addresses the class, and will attend to peers when they ask
questions or present their work or ideas to the whole class.” (Stigler et al., 1999,
p. 35)
This “ideal student perspective” is well-suited to the intended purpose of the TIMSS
video survey, getting a rich representation of a lesson as delivered by a teacher to an entire class,
but it would fail to capture other information that educational researchers might be interested in.
Learning from Classroom Video
14
For example, it does not provide a good representation of the teacher’s viewpoint in the
classroom interaction, which may be an important perspective to capture in trying to understand
teacher decision-making. If one is interested in variation among students’ experiences, then a
focus on an ideal student is unlikely to capture the range of experiences that different students
might have of the same lesson. Finally, to the extent that a classroom involves multiple children
and groups of children engaging in different activities, there may not be any single “ideal
student” perspective to be found.
Because of the complexity of classroom interactions, any representation of those
processes will necessarily provide a limited perspective.
Establishing representativeness. A second issue arises when researchers select cases for
presentation to a larger audience. These cases are nearly always short segments of interaction
drawn from larger cases, which in turn are samples from the underlying classroom phenomena.
The dangers of selection bias are magnified in cases where rich case material is presented,
because whether or not the cases are representative of what the researcher saw, they will be
representative of what the viewer sees.
The problem of representativeness was brought home in a project where we have been
videotaping mathematics classes in China and the United States. The first pilot video we
collected in Beijing was particularly striking. A second grade teacher taught her students a
gestural schema for representing addition and subtraction problems, in which they identified
three numbers – the larger number, the smaller number, and the difference between them – all
represented by separate gestures. Then they developed addition and subtraction problems, acting
out the various operations one could do on these numbers, such as taking the smaller number
away from the larger one, or adding the difference between the numbers to the smaller one in
Learning from Classroom Video
15
order to get the larger one. The approach was engaging, with students actively participating in
constructing problems, acting out the solutions, and commenting on each other’s ideas.
U.S. viewers found this case interesting and thought provoking but a group of Chinese
elementary school teachers had a different reaction. They were very critical, complaining that
this was an old-fashioned teaching approach that is rarely used any more. As we collected more
cases, we discovered they were right. Thus, presenting it in situations where viewers were
unfamiliar with Chinese mathematics teaching would do those viewers a real disservice, because
they would be likely to assume that what they saw was typical of mathematics teaching
approaches used in China. Because of these considerations, we have been forced to stop showing
this case in that context. In other contexts, particularly where viewers could see enough examples
to get a sense of the range of approaches used in teaching mathematics in China, it would be
entirely appropriate to include this case. But the power and vividness of video cases impose a
responsibility on those who collect and use them to ensure that what viewers will take as
representative in fact is representative.
In order to ensure that cases are representative of underlying phenomena, researchers
need to explicitly describe how these cases were selected and provide evidence supporting the
claim that they are representative cases. We will describe two approaches to establishing the
representativeness of cases, one very straightforward and the other more formal. Each has
advantages, but either should suffice for addressing the concern that cases may provide a
misleading picture of the phenomena addressed.
The simplest way of establishing the representativeness of cases is to rely on expert
opinion from persons who are closely familiar with the phenomenon being described. This
approach was used in the pioneering video study of preschool classrooms in China, Japan, and
Learning from Classroom Video
16
the United States by Tobin, Wu, and Davidson (1989). Tobin and his colleagues videotaped
preschool classrooms in these three countries and produced edited videos depicting a “typical
day” in each setting. They then showed them to teachers and principals in each country for
confirmation that the events shown were typical and representative of what went on in their
country’s preschool. Where there were disagreements (for example, viewers in Beijing felt that
the Chinese preschool might represent rural preschools but did not represent urban settings),
these were described as well.
A similar approach was taken by Stigler et al. (1999) in the TIMSS video study. The
teachers who were videotaped were asked to assess the typicality of their videotaped lesson and
identify any atypical aspects of the class.
A second approach to identifying the typicality of cases relies on quantitative coding of
the relevant features of cases. Once the cases have been coded in terms of the categories of
interest, statistical procedures such as HOMALS (Gifi, 1990) can analyze the similarities among
the individual profiles of codes, providing a spatial representation of the typicality of individual
cases. This can provide a quantitative way of identifying cases that are typical of a larger sample.
Either approach requires that the purveyors of video cases confront the question of
whether or not the materials they are showing are representative of the phenomena of interest.
Because viewers are likely to assume implicitly that the cases are representative of the larger
universe of educational phenomena, it is critical that the representativeness of those cases be
established. Journals have developed standards for describing who research participants are and
how they came to be included in a study; similar practices will need to be developed for video
cases, so that viewers can understand the degree to which the cases they watch represent a larger
reality.
Learning from Classroom Video
17
Conclusions
What makes video cases compelling is their ability, partly real and partly illusory, to
communicate to viewers something of the chaos and complexity of classroom interactions.
Evidence reviewed in this chapter suggests that such presentations may be far more compelling
than more traditional ways of communicating educational phenomena. The greater
persuasiveness of video cases imposes a responsibility on those who would use such cases,
however, to evaluate the representativeness of the examples shown and situate them in a larger
educational context.
What makes learning from video cases hard is the fact that viewers bring a variety of
different kinds of filters to the task of viewing classroom video. Some of these reflect
background experiences, aspirations, and the viewers’ construal of the task of watching video.
Understanding both the perspectives viewers bring and the ways that viewing tasks affect what
viewers learn from video cases will be essential to developing effective instructional techniques
based on video cases. The fact that one can watch the same interaction repeatedly, in different
viewing contexts or with different tasks or questions in mind, is at the heart of the unique power
of video representations of classroom processes, but as with other educational experiences, it is
the sense that viewers construct from engaging with these materials that determine the value of
the experience of working with classroom video..
Some of the problems described in this chapter are likely to diminish as the use of video
cases becomes more widespread. The more classroom videos one sees, the more one is able to
place new viewing experiences in a larger context. Thus it is very likely that the problem of
learning from video is a moving target, in terms of what viewers bring to watching classroom
Learning from Classroom Video
18
video as well as in educators’ understanding of how to present representative and effective video
cases.
New technology has made feasible the rich presentation of classroom processes in a way
that can capture much of the complexity inherent in education. Yet because video cases provide
an illusion of direct experience of some phenomenon, those of us who attempt to capture
classroom processes and use them for instructional purposes take on a burden of responsibility to
present them in a way that fairly represents the underlying phenomena. Issues of producing and
consuming video cases are ineluctably intertwined. If this technology is to fulfill its promise to
provide new windows into classroom processes, the technology will need to be matched by the
development of methodological standards to ensure that the picture presented provides a
representative depiction of the underlying phenomena and provide contextual support so that
viewers will come to a deeper understanding of the phenomena represented.
Learning from Classroom Video
19
References
Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior:
Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 201-271). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of
interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256-274.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin
slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 64, 431–441.
Ball, D., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a
practice-based theory of professional development. In G. Sykes and L. DarlingHammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice
(pp. 3-32). San Fracisco: Jossey Bass.
Borgida, E., & Nisbett, R. (1997). The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on
decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 257-271
Gifi, A. (1990). Nonlinear multivariate analysis. Chichester: Wiley.
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? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
Nisbett, R. E., Borgida, E., Crandall, R., & Reed, R. (1976). Popular induction: Information is
not necessarily informative. In J. S. Carroll & J. W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and Social
Behavior (pp. 113-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Learning from Classroom Video
20
Hall, R. (2000). Videorecording as theory. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of
research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 647 – 664). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
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? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
Hirsch, E. D. (1997, April 10). Address to California State Board of Education. Retrieved
October 20, 2005 from http://www.coreknowledge.org/CK/about/articles/CAStBrd.htm.
Kollars, D. (2000, December 11). True tales of algebra. Sacramento Bee.
Kumar, S., & Miller, K. F. (2005). Let SMIL be your umbrella: Software tools for transcribing,
coding, and presenting digital video in behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 37, 359-367.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miller, K. F., Zhou, X., Perry, M., Sims, L., & Fang, G. (2005). Do you see what I see? Effects of
culture and expertise on attention to classroom video. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Michigan.
Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for
social and physical events. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67(6), 949-971.
Nisbett, R. & Borgida, E. (1975). Attribution and the psychology of prediction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 932-943.
Roschelle, J. (2000). Choosing and using video equipment for data collection. In A. E. Kelly &
R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education
(pp. 709 – 729). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Learning from Classroom Video
21
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribuiton
process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp.
173-220). New York: Academic Press.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS
videotape classroom study: methods and findings from an exploratory research project
on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States,
NCES 99-074. Washington, D.C., National Center for Education Statistics.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Free Press.
Tobin, J. J., Wu, D. Y. H., & Davidson, D. (1989). Preschool in three cultures. New Haven:
Yale.
Zhou, X., Miller, K. F., Sims, L., & Perry, M. (2005). It does matter how you slice: Effects of
viewing task on attention to classroom video. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Michigan.
Learning from Classroom Video
22
Figure captions
1. Percentage of comments from free description of classroom viewing that were coded into
various categories. U.S. viewers were more likely than Chinese viewers to comment on aspects
of the teacher’s personality, interpersonal relations with students, presentation style, student
participation, aspects of the classroom environment (such as organization of desks), and
classroom management. (adapted from Miller et al., 2005)
2. Percentage of comments from free description of classroom viewing that were coded into
various categories. Chinese viewers were more likely than U.S. viewers to comment on aspects
of the lesson content, tools such as manipulative devices that were used, lesson structure, and
student understanding. (adapted from Miller et al., 2005)
3. Correlation between ratings on different aspects of teacher personality at each stop (10
seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 5 minutes, and 10 minutes) with the final rating after
20 minutes of viewing. Dashed line shows statistical significance. Judgments of personality were
formed remarkably quickly and were generally quite stable across the entire viewing experience.
(adapted from Zhou et al., 2005).
4. Correlation between ratings on different aspects of classroom instruction at each stop (10
seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 5 minutes, and 10 minutes) with the final rating after
20 minutes of viewing. Dashed line shows statistical significance. In contrast with the results
obtained for personality judgments, judgments of classroom instruction were more variable,
indicating that viewers did not form a quick, stable impression of classroom processes. (adapted
from Zhou et al., 2005).
Learning from Classroom Video
Chinese Teachers
16.0
Chinese Students
U.S. Teachers
14.0
U.S. Students
12.0
Percentage of comments
23
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Teacher
Personality
Interpersonal
Presentation
Participation
Motivation
Environment
Management
Learning from Classroom Video
25.0
24
Chinese Teachers
Chinese Students
U.S. Teachers
U.S. Students
Percetage of comments
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Content
Lesson Tools
Lesson Structure
Understanding
Questions
Teacher
Knowledge
Learning from Classroom Video
25
Fourth-Personality
1.0
0.9
0.8
Correlation
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
1
2
3
Stops
4
5
6
7
Learning from Classroom Video
Fourth-Instruction
1.0
0.8
Correlation
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0
1
2
3
4
Stops
5
6
7
26