Reliability of pre-service physical education teachers' coding of teaching videos using studiocode analysis software ARTICLE
Keven Prusak, Brigham Dye, Charles Graham, Susan Graser, Brigham Young University, United States
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 18, Number 1, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Chesapeake, VA
This study examines the coding reliability and accuracy of pre-service teachers in a teaching methods class using digital video (DV)-based teaching episodes and Studiocode analysis software. Student self-analysis of DV footage may offer a high tech solution to common shortfalls of traditional systematic observation and reflection practices by increasing the amount, timeliness, and accuracy of performance feedback. What is yet to be determined, is whether students can reliably and accurately analyze such footage. Using Studiocode software, student analyses were compared to those of experts to determine coding reliability and content accuracy. The results of this study indicate that with less than two hours of training and three practice attempts, students are moderately reliable in their coding ability and highly accurate in their content analysis. Students who engage in additional attempts demonstrated high levels of coding reliability and content accuracy. Implications of this study include (a) students can reliably learn to self-code within a reasonably short period of time?making these technologies manageable in teaching methods courses?and (b) DV analysis may provide additional, accurate and reliable sources of feedback beyond traditional evaluative techniques. Key Words: physical education teacher education, video analysis, reliability, student teaching, feedback, self-reflection
Prusak, K., Dye, B., Graham, C. & Graser, S. (2010). Reliability of pre-service physical education teachers' coding of teaching videos using studiocode analysis software. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 131-159. Chesapeake, VA: SITE.
© 2010 SITE
- Elementary Education
- Physical Education
- Educational Technology
- Instructional Materials
- Learning Outcomes
- Preservice Teacher Education
- Teaching Methods
- Human Computer Interaction
- Information Communication Technologies
- teaching methods
- Brawdy, P., & Byra, M. (1994). A comparison of two supervisory models in a preservice teaching practicum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
- Berliner, D. (1992). The nature of expertise in teaching. In A. D. F. Oser & J. Patry (Eds.), Effective and Responsible Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bransford, J. D., Barron, B., Pea, R. D., Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P., Bell, P., et al. (2006). Foundations and opportunities for an interdisciplinary science of learning. In K. R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
- Brophy, J. (2004). Introduction Using Video In Teacher Education (Vol. 10, pp. Ixxxiv). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd.
- Chan, P. Y. K., & Harris, R. C. (2005). Video ethnography and teachers’ cognitive activities. In J. Brophy & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Learning From Research
- Cunningham, A. B. (2002). Using digital video tools to promote reflective practices. Paper presented at the Society For Information Technology And Teacher Education International Conference.
- Darst, P. (1989). Analyzing Physical Education And Sport Instruction. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publications.
- Dye, B. R. (2007). Reliability of pre-service teachers’ coding of teaching videos using a video-analysis tool. Unpublished Thesis Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
- Heibert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get it. Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
- Hogan, T., Rabinowitz, M., & Craven, J. A. (2003). Representation in teaching: Inferences from research of expert and novice teachers. Educational Psychologist, 38, 235-247.
- Karppinen, P. (2005). Meaningful learning with digital and online videos: Theoretical perspectives. Association For The Advancement Of Computing In Education Journal, 13(3), 233-250.
- Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and selfregulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies In Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
- O’Donnell, A. M., Reeve, J., & Smith, J. K. (2007). Educational Psychology: Reflection for Action. Holboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Prusak, K. A., & Wilkinson, C. (2007). Using IMovie and Studiocode software to prepare PETE students. Paper presented at the Southwest District AHPERD.
- Rovegno, I., & Dolly, J. (2006). Constructivist perspectives on learning. In K. D. MacDonald & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), Handbook of Physical Education (pp. 242-261). London, GB: Sage.
- Sharpe, T. (1997). Using technology in pre-service teacher education. Physical Educator, 54(1), 11-19.
- Sherin, M. G. (2004). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using Video in Teacher Education (Vol. 10, pp. 1-27). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd.
- Sherin, M. G., & Vans Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475-479.
- Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
- Struyk, L. R., & McCoy, L. H. (1993). Pre-service teachers’ use of videotape for self evaluation. Clearing House, 67(1), 31-34.
- Winograd, K., Higgins, K., McEwan, B., & Haddon, L. (1995). Relinquishing field supervision to the mentors: University teacher educators rethink their practice. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association.
- Wright, G. (2008). How does video analysis impact teacher reflection-for-action? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Brigham Young University.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact email@example.com.