Examining The Affordances Of Mobile-app Supported Teacher Observations For Peer-Feedback

Author(s):

Sercan Çelik(presenting / submitting)Evrim Baran Olcay Sert

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

16. ICT in Education and Training

Format:

Paper

Session Information

16 SES 03 B, ICT Professional Development

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-22

17:15-18:45

Room:

W4.21

Chair:

Philippe Gabriel

Contribution

Mobile technologies offer new affordances for teacher observation schemes in teacher education programs. The purpose of this research was to investigate the integration of mobile technologies into teacher observation approaches. This case study investigated the differences between traditional narrative paper-pen, mobile app-supported and video observation methods. Participants included experienced teachers who were selected as the observers and the observees within EFL settings in a private university. The data was collected in three different teaching sessions using three different approaches. Data sources included lesson observation notes and semi structured post-interview questions conducted with teachers after each session. Results reveal recommendations for the integration of mobile and video based observation tools into teacher professional development programs.

Method

The study followed a case study methodology (Creswell, 2013) which is defined as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenology and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 2009, p. 18). In this study, only qualitative method was conducted to collect data by means of semi-structured interviews (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Even though the possibility of making empirical generalizations in case studies has been regarded controversial (Thomas, 2011), generalization in this study was accepted naturalistic (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stake, 1995) which refers to “a process where readers gain insight by reflecting on the details and descriptions presented in case studies” (Melrose, 2009). Data sources included three post-feedback interviews conducted with the observer and three with the observee. Initially, themes to be discussed in post-observation conferences, which would provide the basis for post-interview interviews, were determined altogether as 1) interaction, 2) classroom atmosphere, 3) discipline, 4) feedback, 5) instruction clarity, 6) speed of instruction, 7) tone of voice, and lastly, 8) manner of instruction. Additionally, two sets of questions to be addressed to the observer and the observee in the semi-structured interviews were created based on the relevant literature and research questions of the study. They were piloted with an expert, who is currently a PhD student and previously conducted both qualitative and quantitative studies, to collect feedback on their validity and consequently, two items were found to be overlapping and thus merged into one and other minor additions like restatement or replacing certain terminology with more frequently used words were done. As a result, a total of 16 questions were created that aimed to provide insights about both the observation process and post-observation conference sessions, which ultimately helped the researchers to understand teachers’ perspectives and experiences with the different medium, and compare and contrast each of them in relation to teacher observations.

Expected Outcomes

This study contributes to the field of integrating mobile technologies into teacher education and professional development in several ways. First, this is the first study to use iPad and mobile application VEO in educational settings to improve teachers’ observation and reflection skills. By means of comparing this to other tools, this study found that each tool has its own affordances as well as limitations. Although none of the tools was found superior, teachers concluded an improved version of video observation can be more preferable. This study also compared different roles of observer and observee thanks to different technological tools. While in paper-pen, they relied on the observer’s notes, iPad tags were done by the observer but analysed together and they both did reviewing actively on the video. Consequently, they stated that each feedback session was different thanks to different procedures and data collected through different tools. Last but not least, the participants stated that it was an enlightening experience for them because although they had been doing observations in the traditional manner for some time, it was the first time they tried out different technologies and discovered their potential first-hand. At the end of the study they said that, even though they were used to paper-pen, they would definitely invest in these technologies and recommend it to their colleagues who might easily adapt them to their needs. Thus, this case study provided a data on the experiences for using different technologies in teacher observation. The findings supported Aubusson et al.’s (2009) result claiming mobile tools give a better reflection opportunity to teachers. All in all, the findings of this study add to the understanding of how difficult it is to effectively integrate mobile technologies into teacher observation schemes, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach (Hammersely-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005)

References

Aubusson, P., Schuck, S., & Burden, K. (2009). Mobile learning for teacher professional learning: benefits, obstacles and issues. Research in Learning Technology, 17(3). Barnard, A., Croft, W., Irons, R., Cuffe, n., & Bandara, W. R. P. (2011). Peer partnership to enhance scholarship of teaching: A case study. Higher Education Research and Development, 30, 435–448. Baran, E. (2014). A Review of Research on Mobile Learning in Teacher Education. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 17–32. Beck, R., King, A. Marshall, S. (2002). Effects of videocase construction on preservice teachers’ observations of teaching. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4), 345–361. Bell, M. (2001). Supported reflective practice: A program of peer observation and feedback for academic teaching development. International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 29–39. Bell, M., & Cooper, P. (2013). Peer observation of teaching in university departments: A framework for implementation. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 60–73. Carroll, C., & O’Loughlin, D. (2014). Peer observation of teaching: enhancing academic engagement for new participants. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(4), 446–456. Cosh, J. (1999). Peer observation: a reflective model. ELT journal, 53(1), 22–27. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council. Engin, M. (2016). Enhancing the status of peer observation through the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(4), 377–382. Gosling, D. (2002). Models of peer observation of teaching. Generic Centre: Learning and Teaching Support Network. Retrieved, 8(10), 1–6. Hammersley‐Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2005). Reflecting on reflective practices within peer observation. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 213–224. Kohut, G. F., Burnap, C., & Yon, M. G. (2007). Peer observation of teaching: Perceptions of the observer and the observed. College Teaching, 55(1), 19–25. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2007). Designing for mobile and wireless learning. Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning, 180–192. Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2013). RP or ‘RIP’: A critical perspective on reflective practice. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 291–315. Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. N., & Sharples, M. (2004). Mobile technologies and learning. Bristol: Futurelab. Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. (2011). Understanding affordances and challenges of three types of video for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 454–462

Author Information

Sercan Çelik (presenting / submitting)

TED University, Turkey; METU, Turkey

Evrim Baran

METU, Turkey

Olcay Sert

Hacettepe University, Turkey

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.