Abstract:

The digital videos gradually affirmed until becoming one of the most used tools in teacher education. However, their single-use cannot guarantee by itself a deep comprehension of classroom events. Their effectiveness depends on the training strategies that are put into action. Teacher trainers can use two training video-based strategies. The first one presents the pedagogical principles, followed by an example of the videotaped practice. Following a direct instruction learning model (DI), the authors define this strategy as a rule-example. In the second strategy, it shows the video; afterward, it asks teachers to note teaching facts sharing their notes collaboratively to elaborate ideas about what observed. Following a knowledge construction learning model (KC), the authors define this strategy as an example-rule. The paper shows the findings of an experiment that merged digital videos with teacher training strategies. The research involved 84 future teachers randomly assigned at two experimental conditions. In both conditions, the subjects watched two clips in which two teachers interact with students following an evidence-based model of feedback based on three facets: task-oriented feedback, student-oriented feedback, motivational feedback. In the first training approach, the participants observed the clips in the context of the KC approach. In contrast, in the second training approach, the participants viewed the clips in the context of a DI strategy.

The research focused on three objectives:
a) understanding the participants’ perception of videotaped teachers’ feedback;
b) comparing the participants’ perception of videotaped teachers’ feedback for DI and KC;
c) comparing the participants’ self-efficacy to provide feedback for DI and KC.

Regarding the first objective, a factorial analysis on 9 item questionnaire, designed to capture the participants’ perception of videotaped feedback, produced a two-factor solution that explains an average of 53% of the total variance, with Component 1 contributing 34,44% and Component 2 contributing 18,75%. We named the first factor learning-oriented feedback (LoF), while the second one we’ve called motivational oriented feedback (MoF). Concerning the second objective, in LoF scores, there is a significant difference for DI (M=3.27, SD=0.58) and KC (M=2.68, SD=0,64), t=4.47(81), p below 0,05. The magnitude of the difference in the means (= -0,59, CI: 0,33 to 0,87) is large (Cohen’s d = 0,968). It means 96.8% of the variance is explained b treatment. Third, an independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare self-efficacy scores for DI treatment and KC treatment. There is a significant difference in SEFB scores for KC (M=0,91, SD) and DI (M=-0,80, SD=3.17), with t=-2.88(71), and a p below 0,05. The magnitude of the difference in the means (= -1,70, CI: -2,89 to -0,52) is moderate (Cohen’s d = 0,626). It means 62,6% of the variance is explained by treatment. Briefly, the factor analysis partially confirmed the three facets model of feedback, showing a different hierarchical order of item for the two watched clips. Only for one of the two clips, the experiment found a difference between treatments. Finally, KC training it seems to produce a higher level of self-efficacy in providing better feedback to students once teachers come back in the classroom.

Keywords:

Digital video, Teacher Education, Training strategies, Formative Feedback, Evidence-based education, Random Control Trial.