Characterising Student Teachers’ Noticing Habits in Technology-Enhanced Dialogic Reflection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

Education Sciences

 

Characterising Student Teachers’ Noticing Habits in Technology-enhanced Dialogic Reflection

 

Review

 

 

This is a well-written article which looks at how Student Teachers unfold reflective practice through the use of video. The study offers an interesting analysis about how reflective practice is carried out and how the use of video enhance and shapes student teachers reflections. In that sense, the article is highly relevant and innovative. The study is very well-located in the literature and provides detailed information about the importance of reflective practice and the characteristics of reflection when student teachers talk about their own practices, although more specific information about the use of video to promote and support teacher reflection should be included and taken into account. Generally speaking, the findings are clear and are well exposed throuhout the analysis and in the discussion.

 

With some major changes, I would recommend the article for its publication. The following comments are proposed as recommendations to the authors improve their article, mainly, focusing their attention in taking into account the use of video to support teacher reflection and clarify some specific information that, from my point of view, is not clearly developed.

 

Abstract

 

The main aim(s) of the study should be exposed clearly. It is not clear what the research aim is.

 

p. 1, lines 13-14: Findings are exposed in only one line. However, throughout the analysis and the discussion section, the findings are presented in much more detail. The abstract should present them more clearly and with a little more detail.

 

Keywords

 

The use of capital letters should be revised.

 

Introduction

 

p. 2 line 58: It is not clear what the objective of the study is. The authors should specify this. The research questions should be derived from the research objective(s).

 

p. 2, lines 62-64: This information is not necessary here. It corresponds to methodological issues.

 

p. 2, lines 65-66: Could the authors justify in advance why the stated research questions are derived from the research objectives?

 

 

2. Professional Noticing, Reflective Practice and Transformative Learning

 

p. 2, lines 74-79. It is not necessary to specify the procedure for obtaining categories. Simply indicating the bibliographical reference is sufficient.

 

p. 2, line 79. Why ‘findings’?

 

p. 3, lines 87-89: I think there is information in the table that does not appear in the document, because the items referred to in the asterisk do not appear.

 

p. 3, line 90: The word ‘discovery’ seems inadecquate.

 

p. 4, line 145. The acronym ‘SCT’ has not been introduced before. The authors should specify what does it mean.

 

 

Throughout the entire lit. review section, there is no state of the art in which the authors present the main results of related research, results with which those obtained in this study can be discussed. In this sense, a comprehensive review on the use of video to support teacher reflection is missing and is necessary. A careful reading of Baechler, Mann and Nobre (2023) could be very useful, given that these authors refer to many studies that have analyzed the use of video in the training of foreign language teachers, as well as its impact on the development of reflective practice and their professional development.

 

Baechler, L., Mann, S. & Nobre, C. (2023). Using Video to Support Teacher Reflection and Development in ELT. Equinox.

 

               

3. Methods

 

This section is developed with great precision and thoroughness. The only aspects that have been missed are some kind of allusion to the ethical issues involved in the collection and processing of data.

 

4. Findings

 

In the same way as for the methodology section, the development of the results obtained from the analysis is rigorous, exhaustive and perfectly fulfills the task of answering the research questions posed.

 

Discussion

 

Some of the results presented are not disputed with the results of similar research. These are:

 

- Making callouts that contain narrative interpretation only and feature topic drift or topic management.

- Confessing deficiencies and proposing alternatives through normative interpretation.

- Externalizing cognitive and emotional dissonance through expectation and personal interpretation.

 

The information exposed for these three results should be discussed with other research.

 

5.2. Practical Implication for ST’s Needs

 

This is not part of the discussion, since the results are not discussed with the results of related research. This information should appear in the conclusions, as pedagogical implications (or practical implication, as the authors say).

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Characterising Student Teachers’ Noticing Habits in Technology-enhanced Dialogic Reflection

The article aims contributes with systematic content analysis of student teachers’ utterances when discussing videoclips of their own teaching in tutor facilitated professional learning communities with peer student teachers. The question is, if an such analysis can rightly be said to be an ‘teacher noticing’ analysis?

The article includes empirical data (N=40 final year Student teachers, 20-25 years, 12 PLC’s with 2-4 ST in each + one tutor to supervise reflections). The approach to analyzing them, is systematic, though it is not entirely clear why these particular extracts have been selected and not others and why they are delimited as they are. They seem quite long.

Although several elements of the article should be tightened up, it seems important! The contribution is significant, when it comes to expanding our understanding of, student teacher's use of interpretive frameworks in their work with video clips, to develop teacher noticing. Please bear this in mind, when reading the following points of notion.

At page 5, it is argued, that there are the three research gaps. They are not based on previous studies. When it comes to research gap 1: “the phenomena of noticing events in the video have never been investigated in socially situated contexts and LTE settings” (p. 5), it is unclear to what this actually means. What does ‘socially situated contexts mean? There are a vast amount of studies on teacher noticing and video in social contexts (like videoclubs).

The theoretical approach is broad (teacher noticing, levels of reflection, transformative learning, critical reflection). It seems appropriate to draw on Larrivee (2008)’s five levels of reflection, when it comes to exploring STs reflections as this phenomenon. Besides Larrivee, two other fields of research do on the one hand seem central in the study and on the other hand, they are not broadened very much out. The first one is the tradition of Teacher noticing, that in the introduction is stated as central. But the tradition is only introduced in a narrow sense. The field of research on Teaching noticing is broad, but only few studies are mentioned/cited here. It is not very clear how this study positions itself in the field of teacher noticing, and which connections between teacher noticing and respectively transformational learning, habits and reflection the authors see. On the one hand, the authors emphasize teacher noticing as a concept and tradition, that has changed over time. On the other hand, they relate the concept in a special way by linking it with a cognitive learning theory and by talking about habits which they derive from this. They could also talk about habits in relation to the Teacher noticing tradition. Why move out? Is seems very productive to include the interpretation frames developed by Sherin and Ross (2014). They are striving to ”fill the gaps in understanding the social nature of teacher noticing”. But is manly focused on cognition and reflection.

Another central field of research is the use of video as medium for the ST’s discussions. Several review studies on this have been published within the last decade. Insights from these are not presented in this article and there is only a limited clarification of how the study relates to this. Several studies have been carried out that deal with the importance of facilitating student teachers' discussions when working with video. Studies that show that the way it is facilitated is of crucial importance for discussions, and for example whether they include emotions. Considering those studies, it is surprising that the authors of this article do not consider the importance of the facilitator. It is also unclear how and who has been responsible for facilitating. Further it is unclear, what more precise is meant by PLC.

This could be why it remains unclear if what is explored is teacher noticing? Why is does the authors focus om Larrivees concepts of reflections, and does not include noticing frameworks?

The many abbreviations disturb my reading.

More precise discussion would be desirable as well as considerations of consequences in regards of the conclusions, that data comes from a language education setting? And which? Why? Why not?

The selected extracts appear to be of a very different nature (eg, p. 14). Here, first, a quote has been brought that contains a ST personal reflections. He/She elaborates on his own considerations. Next, an excerpt is used that has a more dialogic form. Three people are represented here. Here, 'reflections' are allowed to cover individual as well as collective reflections.

The individual extracts are analyzed with different literature. For example, refer to p. 18, for Berliner's studies of pedagogical excellence. Why not stay more clear in the Teacher Noticing field, where there is plenty of literature that could be included more analytically. The wide range of theories seems eclectic.

I miss reflections on what happens when the video clips to be discussed are clips of their own teaching. What does this mean for the discussion/dialogue and reflections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article presents a valuable perspective on examining teacher noticing through video-enhanced reflection, filling a gap in the literature concerning dialogic reflection in technology-enhanced environments. It is a compelling and well-organized article. The introduction and literature review are thorough, while the methodology section is comprehensive and well-detailed. The findings are articulated systematically, with supporting evidence provided. However, the discussion and conclusion sections should be assessed by other international studies. Congratulations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I would like to thank the authors for the great effort in reviewing the article. All the comments and changes have been carried out properly. The article is now ready to be published.

 

 

Best wishes,