Reflection has been widely researched in teacher education, discussed as a notion epitomising the teaching profession as one of high complexity and as a key lever for teacher improvement (Jay & Johnson, 2002); there is thus voluminous work exploring its necessity, nature/types, and different means/tools employed to foster it amongst student teachers (STs). For instance, employing a typology of reflection questions based on surface, pedagogical and critical reflection led to discussions that encouraged STs to think about themselves and their teaching more deeply and from a wider perspective (see Körkkö et al., 2016).

Similarly, the use of video-recordings of STs teaching has attracted considerable attention (Authors, 2018; Endacott, 2016; Zhang et al., 2011) to support them in ‘theorising practice’ and ‘practicalising theory’ (Cheng, et al., 2012). Such arguments have often intersected with those valuing reflection, since they share an explicit concern of enabling teachers’ reflection as a means for supporting teachers’ analysis and understanding of practice (e.g., through video-clubs, see Sherin & van Es, 2005). This is because observing one’s teaching has been seen as a rich resource for guiding and enriching reflection and informing practice in iterative ways (Lampert, 2001); however, there is a scarcity of studies focusing on STs reflection in video-settings.

In this paper we reflect, as teacher educators, on two video-settings we designed to support two groups of senior STs’ reflection during their school practicum and compared them with these questions in mind:

a) What is the nature (focus, type and substantiation) of STs’ written reflections within and between two different video settings?

b) To what extent did the design of each video setting inform STs’ reflective writing?

Though variably defined, reflection definitions usually intersect in anticipating teachers to ‘look back on events, make judgments about them, and alter their teaching behaviors in light of craft, research, and ethical knowledge’ (Valli, 1997, p. 70). Drawing on this definition, Valli and others (e.g., Zeichner & Liston, 1996), describe different types or paradigms of reflection that map the different contents, types, and means/resources in which teachers may reflect upon their practice. Some of these resources have drawn on the use of video for STs’ teacher education (e.g., Bower et al., 2011; Gaudin & Chalies, 2015) and a particular framework of using videos in teacher education has been video clubs. These involve small groups of participants who meet regularly to watch, discuss, and reflect upon selected video excerpts from their teaching (van Es & Sherin, 2002). Video clubs have been documented to support teachers to shift from an evaluative towards an interpretative stance and adopt an evidence-based approach in discussing teaching (Sherin & van Es, 2005). Fewer studies have focused on STs to show how video clubs may support them during initial teacher education (e.g. Johnson & Cotterman, 2015). Moreover, though studies have explored the generic benefit of video clubs (e.g. Sun & van Es, 2015), very few have traced their differential influence amongst participants (e.g. Authors, 2018; van Es & Sherin, 2008). Studies exploring how video-clubs may influence STs’ reflection also appear to be scarce.

The two video-settings took place during the school practicum of two groups of STs (5 STs in each group), all in their final year in a 4-year bachelor programme in primary education. For both groups the school practicum involved designing and teaching 90 lessons, while paired with experienced homeroom teachers and observed, guided, and evaluated by university tutors. In addition, each group met at the university campus to discuss video-excerpts from these lessons with tutors; after the meetings STs wrote reflections for each lesson watched. The first group was conducted when we first introduced such a video setting for a series of four lessons, designed with common foci of reflection based on STs’ general priorities as a group (achieving their main instructional goal, classroom management), while the type of reflection was open-ended. The second was conducted more recently; STs selected their reflection foci for two lessons, but were guided to mobilize specific types of reflection: surface, pedagogical and critical (Larrivee, 2008). The second iteration was informed by our analyses of the first group’s work, where we identified different ST learning paths and concluded that there was a greater need for differentiation in the design of the video-setting (Authors, 2018). This re-design was further inspired by the scarcity of studies documenting video-clubs’ differential benefit between participants, rather than generic for the group (e.g. van Es & Sherin, 2008). Using Larrivee’s (2008) typology of surface, pedagogical and critical reflection, and its practice indicators/descriptors defining each type of reflection in observable terms, all three authors coded all segments of the written reflections to identify patterns with regards to their focus, type and way of substantiation (i.e., by citing video data). The first group’s writing was comprised of twenty written reflections on four lessons per ST (i.e. 12225 words in total) and the second group’s of ten written reflections on two lessons per ST (i.e. 7918 words in total). Once we reached agreement between us and coding was finalised, we run quantitative analyses to identify which types as well as which indicators (within each type of reflection) were used between and within the two groups (Mann Whitney test was employed to compare the frequency of each indicator’s use between the two groups). Having established certain overall patterns, we further analysed data qualitatively to explore how the focus, type and substantiation of STs’ reflection could be connected to the design and guidelines of each video-setting.

All STs in both groups mobilised different types of reflection; surface and pedagogical were mostly used (Group A: 39% and 61% and Group B: 36.5% and 63% respectively). These differences were not statistically significant. When analysing the indicators comprising each of the reflection types (i.e., by taking the percentage of each indicator either within the surface or the pedagogical type), some significant differences emerged. For example, Group A reflected significantly more on the surface indicator S1 ‘“limiting analysis of practices to technical questions about teaching techniques’ techniques” (Mann-Whitney U(28)=57,21.50 z=-2.34, p<.05). The second group’s reflections were coded significantly more with one surface indicator (S8) and three pedagogical indicators (P2, P6, and P13, ). Group B's reflections were coded more with the surface indicator “implements solutions to problems that focus only on short-term results (Mann-Whitney U(28)=40, z=-2.19, p<.05) and pedagogical indicators directed towards pupils: ‘“enhancing all pupils’ learning’ learning” (Mann-Whitney U(28)=5943, z=-2.3242, p<.05); ‘“adjusting teaching based on pupils’ response’ response” (Mann-Whitney U(28)=52.546.50 z=-2.4300, p<.05); and ‘“considering pupils’ perspectives in decision making’ making” (Mann-Whitney U(28)=8063, z=-2.04, p<.05 ). This could be interpreted by our guidelines: the second group was free to select their foci which gravitated towards child-centred thinking. For example, Nefeli, Neovi and Phedra focused on providing opportunities of pupil interaction and on applying dialogue-based discussion techniques. Moreover, the second group’s writing cited more empirical data, since all 5 STs reflected in the 3 types of reflection by citing specific events, instances, quotes from their interactions with pupils as ‘raw material’ to comment and discuss. We highlight how different video settings may be more or less conducive to ST’s differential reflection (type, focus, substantiation) and discuss our role as teacher educators in designing such settings (e.g. Spiteri, 2024).

Authors (2018). [blinded for review purposes.] Bower, M., Cavanagh, M., Moloney, R., & Dao, M. (2011). Developing communication competence using an online video reflection system: Pre-service teachers' experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 311-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2011.614685. Cheng, M. M. H., Tang, S. Y. F., & Cheng, A. Y. N. (2012). Practicalising theoretical knowledge in student teacher’s professional learning in initial teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 781–790. Dobie, T. E., & Anderson, E. R. (2015). Interaction in teacher communities: Three forms teachers use to express contrasting ideas in video clubs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 230-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.003. Endacott, J. L. (2016). Using video-stimulated recall to enhance preservice-teacher reflection. The New Educator, 12(1), 28-47. van Es, M., & Sherin, G. (2008). Mathematics teachers' ‘‘learning to notice’’ in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.005. van Es, M., & Sherin, G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers' interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571-596. Gaudin, C., & Chalies, S. (2015). Video viewing in teacher education and professional development: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 16, 41-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.06.001. Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73-85. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. Yale University Press. Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers' level of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 9(3) 341-360. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers' ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475-491. Spiteri, D. (2024). The hall of mirrors: reflecting on pre-service teachers’ reflections. Teachers and Teaching, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2024.2320147 Sun, J., & van Es, E. A. (2015). An exploratory study of the influence that analyzing teaching has on preservice teachers' classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 201-214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115574103. Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 67-88. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7201_4. 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. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction (Reflective teaching and the social conditions of schooling). New York: Routledge.