JRTE, 42(1), 73–94 Using Video Editing to Cultivate Novice Teachers’ Practice Brendan Calandra Georgia State University Laurie Brantley-Dias Georgia State University John K. Lee North Carolina State University Dana L. Fox Georgia State University Abstract This article reports research concerning the effective use of video editing to help cultivate novice teach- ers’ reflective practice. The study reported here is part of a larger body of research on video-enhanced teacher reflection. For this study, we used a qualitative research design to examine two guided reflection activities for two groups of novice teachers. The first group debriefed with a teacher educator imme- diately after teaching their lesson. They later wrote about critical incidents that occurred during their teaching. The second group had no debriefing, but the participants were asked to capture their lessons on digital video, edit their video for two critical incidents, and reflect on the incidents in written form using the same rubric as the first group. Given that both groups used the same reflection guide, we found that students who developed video vignettes produced longer and more multifaceted reflections. We found implications of these results to be an important step towards facilitating novice teachers’ development. (Keywords: Digital video editing, teachers’ professional development, video reflection) INTRODUCTION People learn from their experiences (Boud & Walker, 1990; Kolb, 1984; Shulman, 1987). Think of the experiences a teacher has as being on a dynamic continuum, with each experience affecting the quality of future experiences (Dewey, 1933). Providing these experiences to novice teachers enrolled in their teacher education programs, however, can be difficult due to logistical con- straints. In addition, novice teachers bring preexisting educational experiences and beliefs about teaching, learning, children, and culture to their teacher prep- aration programs. These influences can result in deeply entrenched knowledge about teaching that can be difficult to adjust (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). A major challenge for many teacher educators has thus been connecting the theoretical body of knowledge presented in teacher education programs with this immedi- ate, personal knowledge base that drives novice teachers’ decision making while teaching (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). Effective reflection has served in the past as a means for novice teachers to restructure prior understandings and refine pedagogical thinking. We agree with many before us that reflection is a necessary component of teachers’ profes- sional development (Dewey, 1933; Killion & Todnem, 1991; Schon, 1987; Journal of Research on Technology in Education 73 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. Schulman; 1987). Research has demonstrated that novice teachers’ reflective capability can be cultivated (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Pultorak, 1996), especially if certain conditions are met (Snow, 2001; Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). For example, novice teachers’ ability to develop reflectivity is dependent in part on supervised clinical experiences that address “the beliefs that teachers bring with them to the teacher education program” and that allow the novice teachers to develop their own personally meaningful knowledge base (Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000, p.47). Research has documented a variety of successful methods and media used for providing these types of meaning- ful, reflective experiences for novice teachers. Some of these include: a) journal writing (Spalding & Wilson, 2002), b) structured microteachings followed by reflective teaching journals (Sparks-Langer, Simmons, Pasch, Colton & Starko, 1990), c) the use of critical incidents (Griffin, 2003), d) multimedia cases (Hewitt, Pedretti, Bencze, Vaillancourt & Yoon, 2003), and e) video (Wang & Hartley, 2003). We believe that video—specifically digital video editing—is particularly well suited for providing authentic, meaningful, reflective experiences for novice teachers. As Shulman (1987) noted, reflection is a process during which a teach- er “looks back at the teaching and learning that has occurred, and reconstructs, reenacts, and/or recaptures the events, the emotions, and the accomplishments. It is that set of processes through which a professional learns from experiences” (p. 19). The flexibility of digital video affords repeated viewing, pausing, an- notating, editing, and reorganizing of teaching events that can be used as tools for reflection on teaching (van Es & Sherin, 2002; Wang & Hartley, 2003). These affordances seem to match actions such as looking back, reenacting, and reconstructing. What is more, working with video of their own teaching pro- vides teacher candidates with immediate feedback on their lessons—evidence with an immediacy that is less susceptible to selective memory (Yerrick, Ross, & Molebash, 2005). Let us think for a moment about reconstructing a teach- ing event through video editing. Accordingly, we believe that video-enhanced reflection can and should be generative in nature. Mayer’s theory of generative multimedia learning suggested that a learner can be viewed as a “knowledge constructor who actively selects and constructs pieces of verbal and visual knowledge” in unique ways (p. 4). Mayer (1997) believed that, in accordance with Wittrock’s Generative Theory (1974), “meaningful learning occurs when learners select relevant information from what is presented, organize the pieces of information into a coherent mental representation, and integrate the newly constructed representation with others” (p. 4). We feel that novice teachers can edit and reflect upon video clips of their teaching in a manner that could help them make connections between what they need to learn and their prior knowledge about teaching. Similarly, we propose that editing video vignettes of one’s own teaching is a constructionist approach to learning in that it “includes, but goes beyond, what Piaget would call ‘constructivism.’ The word with the v expresses the theory that knowledge is built by the learner, not supplied by the teacher. The word with the n expresses the further idea that this happens espe- cially felicitously when the learner is engaged in the construction of something 74 Fall 2009: Volume 42 Number 1 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. external or at least shareable....” (Papert & Harel, 1991, p. 518). That is, people may tend to learn better when they actively participate in activities to create something that is meaningful to themselves and/or to others around them (Papert, 1993; Resnick, 1994). A constructionist approach to learning through video editing thus could provide teachers a motivating context to construct their own meaningful, usable knowledge base about teaching. As emphasized by Sparks-Langer and Colton (1991), “Teachers need opportunities to construct their own narrative context-based meaning from information provided by re- search, theoretical frameworks, or outside experts” (p. 43). Our research has led us to believe that this reflective process should be collaborative in nature. Our digital video editing process allows novice teachers to externalize the complex, interdependent, and synergistic assembly of factors that inform their actions while teaching so that they can work together with their mentors to analyze and rework them into positive, usable knowledge. The following section describes our five-year research agenda surrounding video-enhanced teacher development. Toward a Grounded Process Using Video-Enhanced Critical Incident Analysis Through much iteration of research, design, implementation, and redesign, we have established a process of digital video editing combined with critical incident analysis (Griffin, 2003; Tripp, 1993). Grounded theory and case-study methodology have informed our research. Although each study stands on its own, we view them as one entity constructed through theoretical sampling— a continuation from one to the other, allowing us to go back to the data and forward again to analysis so that we can continue to refine our emerging theo- retical framework (Charmaz, 2006). Over the course of our research, we have examined 44 participants (43 preservice teachers and one first-year teacher) as they create 161 critical incidents and produce 144 edited, digital video clips. Data collection procedures have included reflection protocols, digital video, debriefing, and postteaching conferences. The desired outcomes of working through our video-enhanced process have expanded beyond our original mea- sures of teaching behaviors and reflective language into a more holistic, perhaps transformative kind of change. We will explain that in more detail later in this article. In the following paragraphs, we present a brief summary of our research. In our first study, we investigated how a science education teacher candidate worked with digital video while reflecting on her teaching (Calandra, Brantley- Dias, & Dias, 2006). She was asked to film herself during two separate teaching cycles, edit each cycle for teaching incidents that were meaningful to her, and discuss the edited clips with her cooperating teacher. Data sources included the audiotaped conferences, full videotapes of her teaching, the edited clips, a debriefing session with the participant on her experience using video, and, after reviewing the data, a final interview. We used open coding to analyze our data for themes and used the Framework for Reflective Pedagogical Thinking (Sparks-Langer, Simmons, Pasch, Colton, & Starko, 1990) to identify levels of reflective language. This framework distinguishes among seven types of lan- guage and thinking employed by the teacher. These range from “no descriptive language” to “explanations with consideration of ethical, moral, political issues” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 75 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. (Sparks-Langer, et al., 1990, p. 27). Although the participant’s level of reflection was not high during her unguided reflection, she showed remarkably high levels of reflection during a final, video-enhanced interview/stimulated recall session in which she made connections between theory and practice and discussed racial and cultural identity. In a second study (Calandra, Gurvitch, & Lund, 2008), we worked with seven physical education teacher candidates enrolled in an intensive, four- week secondary methods course. Our purpose was to examine the participants’ perspectives of successful teaching through personal video vignettes. We were also interested in how participants’ written reflections might change as a result of creating the videos, but with intentionally little external guidance. Three consecutive times throughout their 4-week course, participants were videotaped teaching a 45-minute lesson at a local, urban high school. For each lesson, we asked them to complete the following steps: 1. Describe how the lesson went and determine whether it had been suc- cessful or unsuccessful. 2. Identify and briefly describe incidents that supported their overall feeling in Step 1. 3. Create video clips representing those incidents. Participants did not use a detailed reflection guide. Again, we used the Framework for Reflective Pedagogical Thinking (Sparks-Langer, et al., 1990) to examine the participants’ written reflections. Data sources included videotapes of the entire 45-minute lessons, participants’ edited vignettes, and participants’ written reflections. Results showed that participants generally focused their video vignettes and related written reflections on themselves (rather than their students) and on more technical aspects of their teaching. Initially, the partici- pants thought they created positive vignettes of their teaching. However, upon further reflection, their views of the events changed. We observed some changes in the focus of their written reflections (e.g., from self to students) that may have been caused in part by the video editing process. In a third study (Fox, Brantley-Dias, & Calandra, 2007), we implemented a more guided process. As part of their field-experience requirements, we asked each of 24 English education teacher candidates to create two digital videos focused on their own teaching. We then asked them to analyze each video through a written reflection. Because the teacher candidates were asked to create the digital videos and written reflections while they were in the field (and not as a part of a course that met regularly), we attempted to scaffold their reflection using a modified version of Tripp’s (1993) and Griffin’s (2003) steps for reflec- tion on critical incidents in teaching. From this point on, we will refer to the scaffold as the CIR form. Data sources included the edited digital videos, writ- ten reflections, and follow-up, open-ended questionnaires. Results showed that the digital video reflection process that the teacher candidates employed helped improve their reflective writing. In addition, use of the CIR form appeared to be essential in enhancing the quality and depth of participants’ reflective artifacts. 76 Fall 2009: Volume 42 Number 1 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. In a related study, we conducted an action research project with a first-year teacher at her school (Lokey-Vega & Brantley-Dias, 2006). We explored what happens when a first-year Technology teacher uses critical incident analysis and digital video editing while working closely with her mentor. Together the men- tor and first-year teacher selected one lesson to videotape, edit, and collabora- tively reflect upon. Reports from both participants indicated that using the CIR form along with digital video editing may assist mentors and beginning teachers in having meaningful conversations about lesson implementation, and it may facilitate the mentee’s professional development under certain conditions. At this stage of our research, patterns in the data as a whole pointed toward the importance of two factors in our design: a) The CIR Form and b) video editing. Thus, our next step was to explore what types of reflection occurred when eight preservice teachers of secondary science used the CIR form and digital video without editing (Brantley-Dias, Dias, Frisch, & Rushton, 2008). In this study, each participant videotaped one of their lessons, analyzed the videotape for two to three critical incidents, and wrote a reflection on each using the CIR Form. We then conducted a postteaching interview to elicit participants’ comments on the critical incidents and perspectives on learning to teach while reviewing the videotaped lesson. The interviews, however, did not guide participants toward a particular type of reflection. Data sources included written reflections and interviews. Results indicated that participants initially reflected on technical aspects of their teaching. Although the digital video and the scaffolding support provided by the reflective prompts in the CIR assign- ment were beneficial in helping the preservice teachers identify their strengths and weaknesses, most did not exhibit depth in their written analysis or in their reflective discourse with the researchers. We designed our CIR form to help teacher candidates examine their video- taped teaching by reflecting on critical incidents of their choosing. They had opportunities to use a variety of reflective lenses during the written reflection as well as during their reflective discourse with the researchers. In most instances, the participants did not reflect across all of the hierarchies. They lacked exami- nation of contextual factors and questioning of their own assumptions as well as imposed policies. This was in contrast to evidence of more robust reflective practices commonly found in studies in which participants annotated or edited their video (e.g., Calandra, et al., 2006; Calandra, et al., 2008; Fox, et al., 2007; Rosaen, Lundberg, Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008; Sherin & van Es, 2005; Yerrick, et al., 2005). We did not examine students who worked with video alongside those who did not in any of the studies mentioned in this review. Hence, our most recent study became an examination of reflective artifacts from teacher candidates working with and without video but using the CIR form. For this study, we used a qualitative research design to examine two guided reflection activities for two groups of novice teachers. The following question steered our investigation: How can video editing combined with critical incident analysis cultivate more multifaceted reflection among preservice teachers? Journal of Research on Technology in Education 77 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. METhODs The current study examined two processes intended to help cultivate reflec- tive ability in a group of novice teachers. We used a modified case study design (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995) informed by grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The units of analysis were two groups of preservice teachers: one group that used video for reflection (VR) and one that did not use video for reflection (NVR). The NVR group debriefed with their university supervisor prior to their reflection. This debriefing was part of the institutional program at the respective university. Due to these contextual issues, we were unable to include a group that did not use video and did not debrief prior to reflection. Contexts and Participant Selection The contexts for this study were two teacher education programs located at large state institutions in the southeastern United States that focused on developing new teachers for urban/suburban educational environments. Both provided a variety of field experiences and numerous authentic opportunities for reflection. A population of 54 teacher candidates (24 from a secondary Eng- lish education program and 21 from a middle-grades language arts and social studies program) were in respective 15-week student-teaching field placement at the time of this study. Because the programs were different in size and degrees awarded (undergraduate vs. graduate), we used a stratified sample to exam- ine the similarities and differences within and across subgroups and the two cases (Kemper, Stringfield & Teelie, 2003). We selected a sample of six teacher candidates (three from each of the respective programs) to participate in the study. Students in the two classes were separately ranked using previous grades on activities and previous practicum experiences. One student in each class was selected from the top third, middle third, and bottom third of these rankings. Students’ willingness to participate was a secondary factor in selecting from the three ranked groups. This was done using participants’ self-reports and research- ers’ observations. We also gave attention to students’ ages and prior teaching experiences. We should note here that two of the researchers were also field-experience supervisors for participants. One researcher was the supervisor for three of the students and another researcher was the supervisor for the other three. The six students who participated did so voluntarily and were able to leave the study at any time. The two researchers who supervised the participants were responsible for assigning grades for the students they supervised. A clear boundary existed between the grading procedures and the research procedures. Students were graded based on activities that were outside the bounds of this research. None of the research experiences were evaluated or graded as part of the course credit students received for their student teaching. A brief description of each participant along with a summary of participant characteristics is provided in Table 1. To protect the identity of the participants, we use pseudonyms in this paper. Video Reflection (VR) group. Three of the teacher candidates were enrolled in a master’s degree alternative teacher education program for secondary English at 78 Fall 2009: Volume 42 Number 1 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. Table 1: Participant Characteristics Group Participant Age Perceived Success Teaching Experience VR Amy 22 Struggling None Akeem 30 Typical One year on a provisional Barbara 24 Exemplary Informal tutoring NVR Ellen 21 Struggling None Cindy 37 Typical Informal tutoring Anne 20 Exemplary None a second major university in the Southeast. Amy was a 22-year-old European- American female who was characterized as a struggling student teacher. Akeem was a 30-year-old African-American male who was characterized as a typical or good student teacher. Barbara was a 24-year-old European-American female characterized as an exemplary student teacher. Nonvideo Reflection (NVR) group. The second three participants were enrolled in an undergraduate teacher education program for middle-grades social studies under the direction of one of the authors of this paper. Ellen was a 21-year- old European-American female who was characterized as a struggling student teacher. Cindy was a 37-year-old European-American female who was charac- terized as a typical or good student teacher. Anne was a 20-year-old European- American female who was characterized as an exemplary student teacher. Procedures VR group. As part of their program, members of the VR group were required to take a technology integration course for teachers. During this course, they learned how to create and edit digital video using iMovie™ software. As part of their field experience requirements, these three participants were then asked to videotape themselves over the course of several lessons. Participants then used a protocol based on a modified version of Tripp’s (1993) and Griffin’s (2003) steps for reflection on critical incidents in teaching to edit critical incidents from their teaching footage and reflect on them in writing (see Appendix A, p. 91). The participants were expected to illustrate the incidents in detail, describe their emotions and feelings about the incident, explain the incidents from the point of view of all participants (e.g., teacher, student), take a position on their beliefs about the incidents, determine what might be done differently next time, and connect the incidents to portfolio standards on content, teaching perfor- mance, cultural relevance, and impact on student learning. NVR group. Members of the NVR group taught lessons and debriefed with their university teaching supervisor immediately after their lesson. These debrief- ing sessions focused on areas for growth and improvement. The discussions were emergent and typically focused on specific areas of content and general peda- gogical areas most often related to classroom management (students, time, and materials). Following the debriefing, participants in the NVR group used the same critical incident protocol as the VR group, reflect in writing on selected Journal of Research on Technology in Education 79 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. critical incidents they remembered from their lessons. As with the VR group, participants in the NVR group were expected to describe the incidents in detail, expressing emotions, points of view, beliefs, thoughts about future actions, and connections to standards. Data Collection and Analysis The researchers included a panel of two content and pedagogy experts in Eng- lish education and social studies education, respectively, and two instructional design and technology experts specializing in multimedia learning, cognitive theories of learning, and technology for teachers. Data collection occurred during the spring 2006 semester. Data sources included a total of five video vignettes in combination with five written reflections on critical incidents de- veloped by the VR participants and five written reflections on critical incidents from the NVR participants. There were five sets of reflective artifacts because, in each group, one participant identified only one critical incident, whereas the others in the group identified two each. This provided us with a total of 60 narrative data segments and five video clips. We analyzed the data within and across the two groups. Before analyzing the data, we met multiple times to dis- cuss the trustworthiness and applicability of different measures of reflection— especially with regard to reflective artifacts. In a fashion similar to our previous studies, we first reviewed participants’ writing for levels of reflective language and thinking using the rubric in Ap- pendix B (p. 92; based on Sparks-Langer et al., 1990). We assigned each written segment in the participants’ journal entries one of the seven levels of reflective language. For example, if the segment seemed to express explanation of an event with tradition or personal preference as rationale, we assigned the entire seg- ment a “4.” During the first round of data analysis, we noticed patterns in the data that the rubric did not satisfactorily address. That is, multiple dimensions of reflective thinking began to appear that were both layered and more complex than the continuum from technical to critical that we had previously used as an analytical lens. Given this new perspective and based on prior findings, we developed a second, more layered code set for analyzing reflective artifacts using a Multi- dimensional Model of Reflection on Teaching (Fox, et al. 2007). The multidi- mensional model illustrates three overlapping lenses: • Time—reflection in, on, or for action • Type—technical, contextual, or critical reflection • Competency—evidence of dispositions, knowledge, or skills The time lens emerged from prior research on how teacher candidates may reflect in action (i.e., in the moment), on action (i.e., after the moment), and/or for action (i.e., for the future) (Killion & Todnem, 1991; Schon, 1983, 1987). The Type lens is based on Van Manen’s (1977) three levels of reflection. It in- cludes technical reflection focused on teaching techniques, procedures, knowl- edge base, or student actions within an event; contextual reflection focused on 80 Fall 2009: Volume 42 Number 1 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. analysis and/or interpretation of events within a specific context; and critical reflections that consist of observations related to issues such as fairness, ethics, equity, power, or social justice. The Competency lens includes knowledge, which is concerned with knowledge of content, pedagogy, pedagogical content knowl- edge, learners (e.g., diversity, development), or context (e.g., classroom environ- ment, school community); skills such as planning, the use of instructional strat- egies and tools, implementation of the curriculum, and communication; and dispositions such as attitudes, values, professional beliefs, and habits of thinking such as reflective, action-oriented, inquiry-based, collegial, open-minded, and caring orientations. Two of the researchers coded participants’ reflective writing individually using the code set in Appendix C (p. 93). For example, if a written segment seemed to be reflection on action that was technical in nature, the au- thors assigned the codes 1A and 2A to the written segment. In other words, the time (1) of the reflection was “on action” (A), and the type (2) of reflection was “technical” (B). After individual coding, the two reviewers came together and reconciled any discrepancies. This process involved reviewing each discrepancy in coding and either reconciling the disagreement and assigning a single code or labeling the data unit with a dual code. Less than 10% of the data were dually coded. Finally, we worked independently using constant comparative analysis (Charmaz, 2006) to identify categories in the written reflections. We then came back together to discuss and refine these initial categories within the data to determine any themes across both groups. Our discussions throughout data analysis provided opportunities for researcher reflexivity (Morrow, 2005)—a time to propose alternative interpretations and question one another’s assump- tions. This was especially important for the trustworthiness of our analysis, as two of the researchers were program coordinators and field-experience supervi- sors for the teacher candidates, and two others work in the field of instructional technology. For example, as we reviewed the data, some disagreement emerged about the authenticity of some data that were coded as reflection in action. A concern was raised that some of these data may have been reflection on action that emerged as participants watched their videos. To reconcile these differences of opinion, we opted to only code participant comments where the participant directly stated that their reflective thoughts occurred during the act of teaching. REsUlTs By and large, we found that participants who worked through the video-en- hanced reflective process (VR group) tended to write longer and more pedagog- ically connected reflective pieces than their NVR counterparts, who wrote more about interpersonal relationships and classroom management. We also found that the VR group described transformations in their thinking about teaching, which was less evident in the more technical NVR group writing. Because we analyzed the written data using two frameworks, we present summarized find- ings from each of the two reviews, followed by patterns we noticed in the data when we used open coding and constant comparative analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 81 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. Table 2: Range of levels of Reflective language Based on First Rubric Group Participant Perceived Success Range of Reflective Language VR Amy Struggling Levels 4–7 Akeem Typical Levels 4–6 Barbara Exemplary Levels 4–7 NVR Ellen Struggling Levels 2–4 Cindy Typical Levels 3–4 Anne Exemplary Levels 3–6 Note: See Appendix B for descriptions of each numerical level within the range of coded reflectivity. Findings Using the Sparks-Langer Rubric Upon initial review of the data, we noticed that the VR group tended to produce reflections that not only described incidents, but also demonstrated an awareness of what Van Manen (1977) might call practical, contextual, and/ or even critical aspects of their teaching. They tended to describe events and explain their decisions using personal preference, principles of teaching, and at times even ethical, moral, and/or political perspectives (Levels 4–7). In addition, they showed evidence of change in perspective about teaching and learning through their reflections. Barbara, in thinking through why she may have had difficulty with her students calling answers out of turn, commented, “I grew up in a very structured classroom environment where students generally followed the strict norm or raising their hands if they wanted to speak (even in response to open questions). However, that norm was not as clearly established in this classroom, and I should have been more culturally sensitive to that fact.” She later went on to detail what she might change. NVR participants wrote shorter reflections that focused more on technical (Van Manen, 1977) aspects of their teaching (i.e., concerns about classroom management). The NVR group generally described what happened during their teaching (Level 2), occasionally using appropriate terminology (Levels 3 and 4). In addition, we noticed that they narrated their written reflections with little attention to student learning, but instead were more focused on teacher and student behavior. A typical observation made by Cindy was: “The A-day group is more talkative; it contains a class clown.” She later revisited the thought with the resolution, “Right after class I wrote down the names of students who should not sit together. I created the seating chart based on this information.” See Table 2 above for a summary of our numerical coding. Findings Based on the Multidimensional Code Sheet Upon a second review of the reflection papers, it became apparent that VR participants transformed their thinking about teaching by using the opportunity to consider pedagogical and contextual dimensions of their teaching experience. For example, the VR group addressed elements of (teaching) knowledge, skills, or dispositions a total of 37 times, compared to the VR group’s 16 times. They also reflected on contextual elements of their teaching 12 times, whereas the 82 Fall 2009: Volume 42 Number 1 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved.