An Investigation of the Influence of Video Types and External Facilitation on PE Inservice Teachers’ Reflections and Their Perceptions of Learning: Findings From the AMPED Cluster Controlled Trial

Abstract

Teacher professional development (TPD) programs are increasingly using video recordings of teaching practice to develop teacher capacity and foster student learning. However, consensus has yet to be reached about how to utilize video recordings in TPD for physical education (PE) teachers. We used semi-structured interviews and evaluations of PE teachers’ written reflective statements to investigate how they reacted as they engaged with different video material and external facilitators during a TPD program. Teachers believed video-based reflection on their own teaching, rather than viewing others’ practice, was the most useful, even though both forms of analysis produced a similar depth of reflection. PE teachers also benefited from dialogue with external facilitators during the TPD program. These results highlight the importance of researchers, teachers, and facilitators delivering and participating in TPD collaboratively and focusing on strategies that may increase the depth of teacher reflection on their own practices, which is considered a first step toward changing classroom practice and improving student outcomes.

Keywords

professional development physical education teacher education video analysis reflective practice facilitation of learning

Introduction

Over the past 10 years, there has been a proliferation in the use of videos of classroom practice in teacher professional development (TPD; Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015). Videos can capture the complexity of teaching practice, with accumulating evidence demonstrating its potential to advance teacher learning (Borko et al., 2008; Sherin & van Es, 2009). Video clips allow teachers to explore, question, and reflect upon a classroom episode without the constraints of the real-time setting and with the ability to pause and rewind. Exploration of and reflection on video clips can also promote collaborative discussions with others who may have different perspectives. In this way, video offers a window into teaching practice afforded by few other tools (Lieberman & Pointer-Mace, 2009; Santagata, 2009).

Video material often consists of edited selections of classroom sequences (Borko et al., 2008; van Es, 2012), raw data from classroom lessons and units (Schwindt, 2008), and is used to provide examples of good and poor teaching practices (Lampert & Ball, 1998; Seago et al., 2004) and/or examples of typical lessons (Clarke et al., 2008). Several relevant literature reviews have emphasized how video recordings can be used to support teachers’ self-reflection and learning (Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015; Marsh & Mitchell, 2014; Tripp & Rich, 2012). Tripp and Rich’s (2012) review of 63 studies where teachers had reflected on video clips of their own teaching revealed that (a) teachers preferred interviews and collaborative discussions over other reflection tasks (codes, checklists, written reflections, and directly editing the video); (b) providing a reflection framework enhanced the quality of teacher reflections, with teachers primarily wanting to be able to choose their own reflection focus; and (c) teachers’ reflection comments, changes in practices, self-assessment of reflection ability, perceptions of effectiveness, pre- and post-test scores, and coding accuracy were used to determine depth of reflection and no one method was deemed better at measuring reflection than the others. In addition, Brunvand (2010) suggested focusing on short clips (2–7 min) with explicit prompts embedded in the video (e.g., onscreen text or title overlays) to assist reflective practice, while other studies concluded that a facilitator should be used to provide support and scaffolding to adjust the level and/or type of guidance to the needs of participants while working through video-based reflection (Brouwer & Robijns, 2014; Calandra et al., 2014; Crawford & Patterson, 2004).

These relevant reviews, despite bringing some clarity about how to use videos for self-reflection in TPD, have also highlighted research areas that require attention. For example, relatively little is known about the type of video (stock or own teaching practice videos) that leads to deep reflection, the benefits of using both individual and collaborative reflection as part of the video reflection process, and the number of individual and collaborative reflection activities that are necessary for encouraging deep reflection. To address the type of video and its impact on teacher reflection and teaching practice, Beisiegel and colleagues (2018) investigated different video-based TPD designs, including group conversations, teachers’ own video analyses, and lesson reflections. They found that the teacher-led, own video condition is slightly superior to the other conditions for making positive changes to teaching practice.

The decision to use teachers’ own video carries several potential benefits and costs. When viewing their own lessons, teachers are often hesitant to reflect and make critical comments about their teaching (van Es, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011). Furthermore, teachers may “unconsciously develop a ‘deceptive discourse’” to avoid conversations that lead to criticism of their own and others’ teaching (Seidel et al., 2011, p. 261). These cultures of nice (MacDonald, 2011) or contrived collegiality (Hargreaves, 2000) may mean teachers engage in surface-level reflection and collaboration without gaining real insight into their teaching practice (MacDonald, 2011). Other research contests this view, having found that teachers analyzing their own teaching increases the potential impact on practice, as they are critically viewing their own classrooms and receiving direct feedback from colleagues regarding how to improve instruction (Harlin, 2014). Furthermore, Seidel et al. (2011) claimed that teachers viewing their own lessons found the experience more motivating than when watching unknown teachers’ lessons (through stock video). Finally, teachers collaborating with other teachers from their schools or districts can highlight important contextual information as it relates to their own video-based reflective practice (Borko et al., 2008; Goldsmith & Seago, 2011). In considering these findings, it seems that teacher-led, own video observations and reflections, with collegial discussions and feedback, may be useful features to embed in TPD, although a consensus about their influence has yet to be reached.

Reflection in TPD

In the area of video-based TPD, van Es and Sherin (2006) found that reflective discussions in a teacher-led video group addressed a broad range of factors, rather than the reflective purpose. These discussions included classroom climate and management but did not focus on pedagogical and critical reflection aspects of teaching, which at the critical level involves the conscious consideration of the moral and ethical implications and consequences of classroom practices on students (van Es & Sherin, 2006). In contrast, results from studies in which external facilitators led group reflective discussions show a focused effort toward improving teaching practice using both a pedagogical and critical lens (Borko et al., 2008). Recent research has reinforced the use of external facilitators because they can provide tailored insights into the adoption and sustained use of pedagogical innovations, which often need the deepest levels of reflection to problematize existing practice and focus on the process of inquiry related to improving it (Goodyear & Casey, 2015; van Es et al., 2014).

The facilitator providing the human support for video-based reflection (Le Fevre & Richardson, 2002) may be a cooperating teacher (Fox et al., 2006), a university supervisor (Mitchell et al., 2008), a peer (Arya et al., 2014), an experienced peer (Fadde & Sullivan, 2013), or a researcher (Sherin & van Es, 2005). Whatever the status, the main functions are to explain how to use the video clips, select or help teachers to select the best-suited chunks of videos, take into account their learning goals, structure a framework for questions (e.g., asking for critical thinking and reflection, information, observations, and connections), guide the reflection and avoid the pitfall of merely evaluating the teacher who has been filmed (if not themselves), and promote discussions among teachers (Borko et al., 2008; Santagata, 2009; Tripp & Rich, 2012; van Es & Sherin, 2008). This last point appears to be crucial for teachers’ reflective practice (Borko et al., 2008; van Es, 2012).

Stimulating and supporting discussions based on classroom videos, the facilitator helps teachers to reflect (Borko et al., 2008; Sherin & van Es, 2005) by inviting them, for example, to work on their misinterpretations (Zhang et al., 2011) or to build new knowledge and skills (Hughes et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2011). Less is known about whether these facilitations are best completed individually or in collaboration with a group of teachers, particularly with regard to teachers’ depth of reflection. Our study aims to use Larrivee’s (2008) typology for evaluating reflections completed individually on two different types of video and completed in collaboration with others to determine whether depth of reflection is different in any of these settings.

There has been a great deal of attention paid to the relevance of critical and transformative pedagogies to improve student learning, and theoretical work about how to construct teacher knowledge through critical reflection about practice (Brockbank & McGill, 2012; Brookfield, 1995; Larrivee, 2000, 2008). As Marcos et al. (2011) noted in their meta-analysis of 122 studies on reflection, investigating reflection in the educational context is far from clear. Indeed, various taxonomies for classifying reflection have been modeled since Van Manen’s (1977) pioneering work on reflection. His model classified reflection at three qualitatively different levels, which all have diverse criteria for action: technical, practical, and critical. Following Van Manen’s footsteps, in the most commonly used conceptual frameworks, the deepest levels of reflection involve critique of existing practice, focusing on the process and pedagogies related to improving it and the influence on student learning (see Larrivee, 2008). According to Larrivee’s (2008) typology, reflection comprises four levels that teachers can demonstrate as they progress to deep or critical reflection—(a) pre-reflective or non-reflective: teachers react to students and classroom situations automatically, attributing ownership of problems to students or others, perceiving themselves as victims of circumstances, and do not adapt their teaching based on students’ responses and needs; (b) surface reflection: teachers’ reflections focus on strategies and methods used to reach predetermined goals. Teachers are concerned with what works rather than with any consideration of values, beliefs, and assumptions that lie “beneath the surface”; (c) pedagogical reflection: teachers reflect on educational goals, the theories underlying approaches, and the connections between theoretical principles and practice; and (d) critical reflection involves examination of both personal and professional belief systems. Teachers who are critically reflective focus their attention both inwardly at their own practice and outwardly at the social conditions in which these practices are situated. Research indicates that developing deep reflective capabilities enhances TPD and improves student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Hatton & Smith, 1995).

Video-Based TPD, Reflection, and Physical Education (PE) Teachers

Only one previous study has focused on video-based learning among PE teachers (Calandra et al., 2008). That study’s purposes were to examine seven preservice PE teachers’ perspectives on successful teaching through personalized video vignettes and investigate how participants’ written reflections might change as a result of creating the vignettes. In general, participants focused the video vignettes on themselves (rather than their students) and reflected on what Van Manen (1977) called more technical aspects of their teaching. As such, to our knowledge, our study is the first to explore the influence of video types (i.e., viewing own teaching videos or videos of others’ teaching) and facilitation (working with an external facilitator) on PE inservice teachers’ reflections and their perceptions of their own and their students’ learning.

Two main research questions underpinned our study:

Research Question 1: How does the type of video influence PE teachers’ reflection and perceived learning during the TPD?

Research Question 2: To what extent do facilitators play a role in supporting PE teachers’ perceived depth of reflection and learning during the TPD?

The Study

The study was part of a randomized controlled trial, known as the Activity and Motivation in Physical Education (AMPED) project. Working with 49 teachers, the TPD intervention was designed to help teachers learn and implement self-determination theory (SDT) evidence-based teaching practices and strategies during PE lessons. The focus was to enhance Year 8 students’ motivation and physical activity during PE lessons in secondary schools located in low socioeconomic areas of Western Sydney, Australia (for more information on study protocol, main outcomes, and academic outcomes, refer to Lonsdale et al., 2015, 2019, and Lubans et al., 2018). The TPD was accredited through the state-based teacher governing body and comprised (a) 2 days of face-to-face workshops with good (i.e., the good practice video clips showed a specialist PE teacher delivering a PE lesson to university students using the TPD components) and poor practice (i.e., the poor practice video clips showed a specialist PE teacher delivering a PE lesson to university students with poor strategies in place) videos and reflection tasks and one video-recorded lesson and teachers’ reflection on own teaching practice; (b) two video-recorded lessons and subsequent reflections on teachers’ own teaching practice; (c) additional video-recorded lessons and online reflection tasks; (d) individual reflection meetings with a facilitator; and (e) school-based group reflection meetings with members of the PE Department—one led by a facilitator and the other with the facilitator observing (see Table 1 for TPD components). In the follow-up period (8 months after the completion of the intervention), teachers participated in a half-day face-to-face workshop, one lesson video reflection on their own teaching practice, and an online reflective task.

Table 1.

Overview of TPD.

Component	Timing
Face-to-Face Workshop 1 (1 day)	Start of Term 2, April 2014
Video Recording and Reflective Task 1 Individual facilitator session Group facilitator session (led by facilitator)	Term 2, May–June 2014 Term 2, May–June 2014 End of Term 2, June 2014
Face-to-Face Workshop 2 (1 day)	Start of Term 3, July 2014
Video Recording and Reflective Task 2 Individual facilitator session Group facilitator session (facilitator in attendance)	Term 3, July–September 2014 Term 3, July–September 2014 End of Term 3, September 2014
Face-to-Face Workshop 3—Booster (1/2 day)	Term 1, February 2015
Video Recording and Reflective Task 3 Individual facilitator session Group facilitator session (no facilitator) Teacher interviews	Term 1, February–March 2015 Term 1, February–March 2015 End of Term 1, March 2015 Terms 2 and 3, 2015

Source. Adapted from Lonsdale et al. (2015).

Note. TPD = teacher professional development.

The content of the TPD workshops was designed based on SDT-informed motivation research (e.g., Aelterman et al., 2013; Cheon et al., 2012; Lonsdale et al., 2013; Tessier et al., 2010), as well as evidence-based teaching practices and strategies for increasing students’ physical activity during PE lessons (McKenzie et al., 2003, 2004). Derived from analysis of these studies, the research team identified four main teaching principles with 30 underpinning teaching strategies for the intervention (as shown in Table 2).

Table 2.

Overview of TPD Teaching Principles and Strategies.

TPD principles	TPD teaching strategies
Maximizing movement and skill development	1. Include an active warm-up with dynamic stretching 2. Provide lots of equipment 3. Employ circuits and rotations 4. Use grids effectively 5. Implement small sided games 6. Organize non-elimination games 7. Modify games to maximize activity and skill development 8. Integrate fitness into activities 9. Choose activities that maximize MVPA (activity at an intensity at walking pace or above)
Reducing transition time	1. Manage the change room effectively 2. Take the roll while students are active 3. Early activity setup 4. Distribute equipment quickly 5. Decrease talk/instructions 6. Form groups efficiently 7. Manage water breaks efficiently
Building competence	1. Provide overview of lesson/unit 2. Make behavioral expectations clear 3. Use questioning 4. Provide effective positive feedback 5. Provide effective corrective feedback 6. Match task to ability level 7. Limit peer comparison 8. Promote self-comparison
Supporting students (including support for students’ autonomy and relatedness needs)	1. Emphasize fun and variety 2. Circulate around the class 3. Provide students with opportunities to make choices 4. Provide a rationale and emphasize relevance 5. Minimize controlling language and behavior 6. Take the students’ perspective

Note. TPD = teacher professional development; MVPA = moderate to vigorous physical activity.

The first two principles and implications for practice were addressed during the first workshop: (a) maximizing movement and skill development (n = 9 strategies), and (b) building competence (n = 8). The second workshop addressed the other two principles: (c) reducing transition time (n = 7) and (d) supporting students (n = 6). After each of the presentations and discussions about the theoretical and practical components of the TPD, teachers viewed videos of good and poor practice of the TPD principles. The videos had been recorded using university students, hired as actors to play the role of high school students in a school-based PE class. Next, teachers completed a guided reflection task online, which included the following prompts to guide a small, then whole group discussion: (a) please rate teacher implementation of the principle from 1 = poor through to 5 = excellent; and (b) please explain the areas in which the teacher could improve. Following this task, teachers viewed a 10-min video of their own teaching selected by the lead researcher before completing a self-reflection task using the same questions as above.

The teachers implemented proposed strategies during a simulated microteaching scenario, where they were provided with basic lesson plans to deliver to other teachers. In the afternoon, teachers developed an individual action plan (i.e., personal goals) of no more than six strategies (maximum of three strategies from each principle) for implementation in their PE lessons over the next 3 to 4 weeks. To assist with this process, external facilitators were allocated to schools and met with their group of teachers at the end of each workshop to discuss action plans to be implemented. After helping with the first action plan, the facilitators also met individually with teachers to discuss their video reflections and to schedule a group meeting with the school’s PE Faculty, led by the facilitator to be held before Workshop 2. After the workshop, the facilitators used Dartfish software (www.dartfish.com) to code their teachers’ PE lessons by identifying the specific principles and strategies taught during the workshop and subsequently outlined in each teacher’s action plan. Two 10-min clips and reflective prompts for each teacher were uploaded to the project’s website for teacher viewing and reflection.

The facilitators were an integral part of the video component of the TPD and the teacher reflection discussions. Facilitators were selected based on (a) being a qualified PE teacher, (b) at least 2 years teaching experience in a primary or secondary school setting, (c) at least 2 years teaching experience in a tertiary setting, and (d) previous successful facilitator experiences with preservice teachers who have participated in a range of professional experience placements. One peer facilitator was female, while the other two were male. Two had completed a PhD (and are co-authors of this article: L.R.P. and A.B.). All three were involved in preservice teacher education at the time of the study. One facilitator was matched with three schools and 16 teachers, the second facilitator was matched with two schools and 17 teachers, and the third facilitator was matched with two schools and 16 teachers. The facilitators attended all allocated reflection sessions throughout the intervention.

Workshop 2 was held 3 months later. The format remained the same, but with a focus on reducing transition time (n = 8) and supporting students (n = 6) strategies. The group facilitator meeting within the school’s PE Faculty was led internally, by a nominated PE teacher rather than the facilitator. The aim was to shift the focus from the external facilitator to the PE Faculty to increase the likelihood of sustainability. The booster workshop, or Workshop 3, was scheduled for a half day and scheduled using a face-to-face format, 5 months after the end of the intervention. A final action plan was agreed upon (in collaboration with the facilitator), with self-reflection on teachers’ video-recorded lesson and a facilitator meeting scheduled for 3 to 4 weeks post-booster workshop.

Outside the workshops, teachers completed written reflections at their own pace on two 10-min clips of their own video-recorded PE lesson (one for each principle highlighted in the previous workshop). Teachers used these video clips to reflect on teachers’ personal goals in the action plan developed at the end of the face-to-face workshop as well as their implementation of selected workshop principles and strategies, using the guided reflection prompts (How well do you think you implemented this strategy? How did the students respond to this strategy?). Teachers also had the option of viewing the entire lesson video.

Following the guided self-reflection questions, each teacher met his or her facilitator for approximately 30 to 45 min during a school day. Prior to meeting with the teacher, the facilitator reviewed the teachers’ video clips and self-reflection ratings making notes on a standardized template (see the appendix) about strategy implementation so as to provide specific feedback in relation to the teachers’ action plans/ratings and to facilitate a discussion. At the end of these reflection meetings, facilitators and teachers co-constructed mutually agreeable goals via another action plan for the remainder of the school term. These procedures were repeated at all stages of the TPD.

In addition to individual reflection meetings, group reflection meetings were organized once per term and once during the booster period (i.e., three in total). The purpose was to encourage teachers to reflect on their implementation of strategies, design methods to support each other’s implementation in the future, and devise group or Faculty-based strategies for other programs in the school.

Method

Sample

Human research ethics approval was obtained from Western Sydney University (H9171), Australian Catholic University (2014185N), and the NSW Department of Education and Communities (2013162) prior to the commencement of the research study. Fourteen Western Sydney government-funded secondary schools meeting the inclusion criteria (Lonsdale et al., 2015) volunteered and were randomized into either the intervention (n = 7) or waitlist control group (n = 7). All PE teachers in the participating schools were eligible to participate, with all 49 PE teachers from the intervention schools consenting to participate in the study (100% recruitment rate).

All intervention teachers completed all video-based reflections by the end of the intervention (100%). Determined a priori, 1/3 of the intervention teacher sample would be randomly selected (seven males, nine females; 32% of teacher sample) to participate in individual semi-structured interviews. Of the 16 randomly selected, all (100%) consented to be interviewed at the completion of the intervention. Of these teachers, five (31%) were considered early career teachers (1–5 years teaching experience), nine (56%) were mid-career teachers (6–15 years teaching experience), and two (13%) were experienced teachers (15+ years teaching experience).

Procedure

We collected and analyzed a range of sources of qualitative data to answer the research questions. This approach allowed for triangulation among different sources of evidence regarding the influence of the types of video and facilitation on teachers’ depth of reflection and perceptions of learning. To determine depth of reflection, we analyzed written teacher reflections, using Larrivee’s (2008) typology, in response to the two types of video material: (a) recordings of experienced teachers, who were also part of the research team, enacting good and poor practice; and (b) teachers’ own teaching practice. In addition, teacher interviews were conducted at the end of the TPD and analyzed to gain further insight into the types of video material, the influence of facilitation on reflection, and perceived teacher learning throughout the TPD program. An overview is shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Overview of Study Procedure.

Research questions	Qualitative data used to answer questions
1. How does the type of video influence PE teachers’ reflection and perceived learning during the TPD?	1. Teacher reflections on recordings of good and poor practice 2. Teacher reflections on own practice 3. Semi-structured interviews
2. To what extent do facilitators play a role in supporting PE teachers’ perceived depth of reflection and learning during the TPD?	1. Teacher reflections on own practice 2. Semi-structured interviews

Note. PE = physical education; TPD = teacher professional development.

Data Collection

Teachers responded to two good and two poor practice clips at Workshops 1 and 2 (i.e., four in total) and wrote eight reflections on their own video-recorded lessons (two for each face-to-face workshop and two for the subsequent lesson videos, that is, eight in total) following the aforementioned prompts. Therefore, for each intervention teacher (n = 49), there were 12 written reflections in total. This approach generated 588 individual reflective statements (focusing on the implementation of the principles and selected strategies) that were included in the analyses.

Interviews were conducted with 16 intervention teachers at the completion of the entire intervention period (main intervention and follow-up period; end of Term 1, 2015). Semi-structured interviews were employed due to their structured starting point (a guide focused on the predetermined subject area) and element of flexibility that enables questions to be asked spontaneously when interesting topics arise during the interview (Patton, 2015). The teachers were interviewed about their perceptions of the TPD, videos, reflections, facilitators and facilitator meetings, and the implementation of evidence-informed strategies in their Year 8 classes and their learning. While facilitators conducted all interviews, to reduce potential bias, it is important to note that they did not interview their own teacher. These interviews were scheduled at a mutually appropriate time for the teacher and facilitator and occurred in a meeting room within the teacher’s school. Interviews were audio-recorded using Dictaphones or mobile phone Dictaphone apps. Each interview lasted between 15 and 45 min (see the appendix for interview schedule).

Data Analysis

Reflective statements on the good and poor practice videos (during the workshops), and on teachers’ own lesson videos were transferred into a spreadsheet. The reflective statements were then analyzed and coded by one of the authors (L.R.P.) according to Larrivee’s (2008) four levels of reflection (pre-reflection, surface reflection, pedagogical reflection, and critical reflection) using typological analysis (in the form of the facilitator checklist) to determine the depth of reflection that took place as a result of engaging in the two video types.

The interviews were professionally transcribed. Two authors (L.R.P. and A.B.) with expertise and experience in qualitative methodologies conducted thematic analysis of the interview data based on Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2013) six-phase process. First, a professional typist transcribed all audio-recorded interviews before the researchers immersed themselves in the interview data by reading and re-reading each interview for any potential early patterns or key points. Second, we commenced the data-driven coding process independently by looking for important quotes and tagging them with words that meaningfully represented the raw data. In Phase 3, we began to organize related codes to refocus the analysis into themes. At the culmination of this stage, we met to discuss our initial analytic insights, reflect on our own interpretations of the data, and offer critical feedback (B. Smith & McGannon, 2018). We then continued to review the data to determine which data should be deductively sorted in two predetermined broader categories related to the research questions: (a) the influences of the different types of video on reflection and teachers’ perceptions of learning, and (b) the influences of different forms of facilitation on reflection and teachers’ perceptions of learning. Next (Phase 4), we further reviewed and refined our themes before meeting again to finalize our theme list (Phase 5) to adequately capture teachers’ perceptions of the program. These are described in the ensuing “Results” section (Phase 6).

Results

The purpose of the study was to determine the influence of the different types of video and different forms of facilitation on PE teacher reflection and perceived learning during the TPD. The first section of the results addresses the first research question and, in doing so, explores the influence of different types of video on teachers’ depth of reflection and perceptions of learning. The second section focuses on the second research question and explores the different forms of facilitation on the teachers’ perceptions of their depth of reflection and learning during the TPD. Pseudonyms have been used throughout this section to protect the identity of participants.

Research Question 1: How does the type of video influence PE teachers’ reflection and perceived learning during the TPD?

The interviews revealed that the embedded video-based reflection was one of the most important components of the face-to-face workshops. Teachers reported that the video-recorded good and poor practice lessons, reflective tasks, and subsequent group discussions during the workshops gave a clear picture of how to, and how not to, implement the principles and strategies in their own future practice:

These were incredibly valuable because it’s almost scaffolding or showing really clearly what was good and what was poor. That helped me identify in terms of that as a baseline . . . They were probably the best part. (Mark)

They were good in helping us reflect on our own, and also getting an idea immediately of what it was that the professional development program and researchers were trying to get across in terms of the research presentations and how to incorporate those in our lessons. (Ricki)

While the good and poor practice videos were viewed as stepping stones before viewing and reflecting on their own practice videos, some of the teachers criticized the use of university students in “staged” performances during these video clips. These teachers wanted realistic representations of the high school PE setting, as Tran indicated:

It was very—it was very staged. Things just fell into place. There’s a difference between adult education or adult teaching versus the environment that we’re in, which is unpredictable. The good and poor practice videos should have this.

Emulating teachers’ own schooling or classroom practices more closely could improve the influence of these types of videos on teacher perceptions of learning. The workshop also provided an opportunity for some teachers to have a PE lesson video-recorded for the first time. In viewing their own teaching video clips, teachers were able to pick up on personal idiosyncrasies that they had not been aware of previously which helped them identify areas to improve:

I’ve never had myself filmed before. So, it’s not until you actually see yourself filmed and some of your behaviours and teaching strategies that I didn’t realise I did a lot of the stuff that I did . . . It’s really, really beneficial in terms of improving our teaching strategies and implementing what we were trying to implement for that particular workshop. (Nathaniel)

Then, sometimes you see in the video, oh look what that kid was doing. Because in a practical setting it’s such a big wide space and that gives you the feedback from looking—oh well next time I’ve got to make sure that I’m positioning myself . . . I especially got that from my first video that I watched. (Gary)

During the interviews, teachers were candid about the principles that they felt were already part of their pedagogical processes (e.g., supporting students) and the specific strategies that they found challenging to implement (e.g., providing specific feedback, reducing controlling language, encouraging choice). This was evident in written reflections throughout the TPD, which at times showed that teachers were less comfortable applying some of the motivational strategies than the organizational strategies but learned to improve their practice as a result of reflection on their own teaching video clips:

The big thing for me, was . . . how can I be more specific in my feedback? The one thing I do now, I’ll still say I’m massive for “great work” or “good work,” I just say that so many times. So now I’ll say “good work,” because it just comes naturally. But I don’t just stop at good work, I’ll say . . . “great work Johnny, that was a really good kick, I love the way you followed through.” So I’ll still say it naturally as it comes out, but it’s almost like a cue that when I say it, you’ve got to add something more to that, to give it some value. That’s probably the biggest thing that’s changed for me. (Jack)

I think the biggest one that sort of influenced me was the controlling language and the creating that supportive environment for students. I think, as a teaching philosophy, it was probably lower on the radar than what I probably should have given it. I think watching my own practice videos . . . and then going away and seeing and reflecting on what I was doing was probably a big influence, and something that’s really changed what I’ve been doing which is pretty significant I think. (Mark)

These insights demonstrate the reflective and learning process teachers underwent with respect to pedagogical strategies of positioning, communication, and motivation during PE. For other teachers, the videos offered an opportunity to challenge the trap of producing “what sometimes becomes easier and not necessarily best” (Jack). As Tran explained,

Even teachers like myself, entering our eleventh year of teaching, it does give you a bit of a self-check in, like I said, what you actually think you are practicing may not be what you are actually doing when you see it visually. The video-based reflections helped to realise this.

These quotes demonstrate the learning process that took place as a result of viewing their own teaching video clips. At the same time, teachers noted some challenges when viewing their own teaching videos. For instance, Ricki emphasized how she experienced a series of tensions and emotions while watching her videos:

I hated watching myself. I didn’t enjoy that part of it at all, but it really did help open your eyes to some of the things that you do, which maybe you didn’t realise you did do well. Then there were definitely other things that you looked at and thought, oh that really needs improving. It wasn’t until I looked back on them you realise how much sitting around students do. It wasn’t until you’re watching the video that you really took that into consideration.

The most common challenge that teachers mentioned with respect to their reflection on their own video clip was time. With limited time, teacher reflections generally occurred outside of school hours because they struggled to find time during the school day. The teachers said that reflections generally took around 30 min, which involved watching video clips, reflection and responding to reflective prompts, as well as preparing for the facilitator meeting. Despite the fact that teachers perceived time to be a major constraining factor, when asked during interviews whether they were able to maintain an appropriate level of reflection as the TPD progressed, most believed they were able to constantly reflect at an appropriate level:

I think I was fairly consistent. I guess I probably wasn’t much of a long writer on the comments where it’s just being really to the point. I guess that’s a time saving thing but I tend to think . . . they [my reflections] generally stayed the same. (Mark)

Similarly, when teachers were asked to comment upon the reflective prompts that guided their reflections, all teachers believed they were able to reflect at a level that was required for learning and changing teaching practice and that no additional questions were needed.

Our analysis of teachers’ reflections, which were conducted after viewing good and poor practice videos, as well as viewing video clips of their own lessons, based on Larrivee’s (2008) typology, revealed that when viewing the good and poor practice videos during the workshop, 3% of participants reflected at the non-reflection level, 5% reflected at the surface level, and 92% reflected at the pedagogical level. When reflecting on their own teaching videos outside of workshop hours, 16% of the participants reflected at a surface level, 81% were at the pedagogical level, with only 3% reflecting at the critical level. We found that teachers who reflected at a surface level noted strategies that worked or failed, but did not offer any explanation or reasoning (e.g., “Only explained the ‘Messengers’ [warm up] game, not the entire lesson focus,” Anthony). Most of the teachers were able to reflect at a pedagogical level by linking theory to practice and acknowledging strengths and areas in need of improvement in their teaching practices, as shown by Natasha’s reflection:

Positive feedback was used but it was not effective corrective feedback. The positive feedback was given consistently throughout the lesson. Well done, Great job . . . but I need to be more specific with my feedback and how I can correct their technique.

While some teachers moved between the pedagogical and critical layers of reflection during different reflective statements, one teacher who consistently reflected at a critical level was able to focus on his or her teaching practice and the influence this was having on a range of students. Addison began to consider moral and political issues of the teacher’s authority by working with students in a facilitator role, which led her to question students’ movements and learning:

I employed self-comparison as much as possible to ensure I motivated each student. I questioned students and asked them about the changes that they had made to their technique or performance based on our discussions. Did they notice anything different or how did it feel this time? Once they were jumping into the pit, I asked the students to track their progress and encouraged them to try and better their previous attempt after discussions with myself and each other. Facilitating their learning, rather than informing them of what they need to do to improve technique and learning I think has been very beneficial for student motivation and learning. (Addison)

Although this demonstrates critical analyses of teaching and power, we do acknowledge that Addison could have taken her critical analyses deeper to explore the implications of facilitation with different student groups and the social and political conditions that limit teacher facilitation and student learning. Overall, the analyses using Larrivee’s typology showed that teachers generally reflected at the same levels when viewing the good and poor practice videos and their own practice videos. This focus on surface and pedagogical reflection did not change throughout the TPD, despite the support of a facilitator and structured reflective prompts.

When teachers were asked to make recommendations to improve the video clips, depth of reflection, and their learning during the TPD, there was an indication that some of the teachers would benefit from learning with other colleagues by sharing and reflecting on their own and others’ teaching videos together, as Jack highlighted:

I don’t know whether you can, but it would be a good way to view motivational teaching and reflecting with the teachers together. So I don’t know if you pair up with a buddy or someone within your faculty who was considered good in this aspect and you actually went through the videos together. Because I was always keen to see what other people did, and I’d love to see people comment on mine.

Research Question 2: To what extent do facilitators play a role in supporting PE teachers’ perceived depth of reflection and learning during the TPD?

After the workshops, an external facilitator assisted teachers in refining their understanding, implementation, and reflection upon the principles and strategies from the TPD. When asked to report on how the facilitators influenced their reflections and learning during the TPD, the teachers reported that the facilitators were excellent resources for (a) increasing the teachers’ knowledge of the theory underpinning the TPD; (b) providing additional teaching ideas; (c) displaying honesty and empathy when listening to teachers’ perspectives; (d) providing relatable stories (on teaching and according to program goals); (e) being friendly, approachable, and able to connect with teachers; and (f) providing feedback on reflections and strategy implementation. The characteristic that teachers perceived to be most important was the facilitators’ previous PE teaching experience within similar contexts. That is, TPD teachers perceived the facilitators to have credibility within the field. From the teachers’ perspectives, this ensured a level of respect and trust, while also providing practical and moral support for their learning during the TPD:

Those meetings made me think about the strategies that we talked about. It was a good environment for me to unload on what I think I need to change and the practices that I need to improve. But it was good to talk to someone who is specialised, has similar experiences and can help and give me feedback—a support network for me to go through to help my pedagogy in the end. Every meeting was really stimulating. (Samuel)

Furthermore, when teachers were critical of their own teaching practice during reflections and individual meetings with facilitators, the facilitators were able to empathize and communicate ways to address perceived challenges while also highlighting teachers’ strengths. The facilitators were also able to initiate new ideas about how to continue to implement a range of strategies from the TPD, as Anna and Sienna noted:

I think they [individual facilitator meetings] worked well because they just gave me some direction of where I could go afterwards. Whether it be the new strategies that I wanted to look at or the old ones. I found the suggestions that she had were quite realistic and possible to achieve. So, I was then eager to apply them. So that was motivating. (Anna)

But [Facilitators name] on the other hand with the [facilitator] discussions, I guess he has given me really positive feedback and he really did see a different perspective in how I teach. I was just so negative in how I—I always pinpoint the flaws and don’t really talk much about my strengths. (Sienna)

Having facilitators support the teacher reflections after implementation attempts and enable further learning appeared to be uplifting and motivating for the teachers following facilitator meetings. These effects were evident, not only in their own individual classrooms, but Head Teachers also noticed that the TPD enhanced the individual teachers’ collaboration and effort toward Faculty goals, camaraderie, and sharing of resources/ideas. The enhanced collaboration emerged from the time provided in workshops to discuss plans for future implementation of strategies, as well as when facilitators met with teaching staff during individual and group facilitator meetings, as Head Teacher Jack acknowledged:

It’s been really beneficial for our school. I think the most powerful thing about it for our school is the fact that the program and facilitator meetings allowed us to generate a lot more conversation within the Faculty about what we’re going to do for each practical lesson . . . I think that’s gold, the collaboration amongst the faculty to share what works for you and what’s getting kids more active, has been really beneficial.

As a result of the group facilitator meetings and overall involvement in the TPD, another unanticipated finding was that many schools initiated Faculty and School policy changes for the delivery of PE lessons. Natalie and Daniel explained,

We do find that we’re doing it, not just with Year 8 classes, we’re doing it across the board with all our classes. From the group facilitator meetings and collegial discussions, we realised that we can make larger-scale changes . . . The kids that aren’t so skilled love it, because they know they always have a chance, they’re communicating better, it’s self-directed, so we don’t really need to tell the kids what to do—there’s no fuss with it. (Natalie)

I know one big change that we have made as a result of group facilitator meetings is that the whole Faculty here has got on board with free play. At the start of a lesson, as soon as they’re changed, they’re straight down there playing . . . From this point on, I say “boys don’t forget there’s equipment out here,” and within 30 seconds most of them were out kicking the ball round or playing sports, so that was huge. (Daniel)

The program emphasized the importance of starting lessons quickly to provide early opportunities for students to be active. This change in practice alters what had traditionally been a very lengthy process for these PE teachers where there is often a significant time-lag between students arriving in class and being active (due to changing, taking the roll, and introducing class objectives/content). These shifts in policy and teaching practice were perceived to have led to transferability, integration, and sustained practice of the TPD strategies within the varying school contexts.

As mentioned previously, when teachers were asked to make recommendations to improve the facilitation, depth of reflection, and their learning during the TPD, there was an indication that some of the teachers would benefit from learning with other colleagues, as an additional form of facilitation. However, only Jack captures succinctly in the interview:

As the facilitator discussions with teachers were not audio-recorded or captured, we cannot make comment on the depth of reflection that occurred during these conversations, but reflection analyses show that depth of written reflection did not change during the intervention. Teachers’ perceptions of reflective depth and learning also show that they believe that their depth of reflection was sufficient to make positive changes to their teaching practice.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of different video types and facilitation on PE teacher reflections and perceptions of learning during the TPD. Overall, teachers perceived their reflections upon their own teaching video clips to be the most beneficial component of the TPD. In addition, teachers believed there was value in the good and poor practice videos, but these videos could have been more influential on teachers’ learning if they had authentically emulated real high school environments. These findings support previous research which suggests that teachers experience stronger feelings of immersion, resonance, authenticity, and motivation when viewing their own teaching, rather than another context, where the classroom or students are perceived to be too different (Goldman et al., 2014; Lemke, 2007; Seidel et al., 2011). While the teachers reported that they learned the most from viewing their own lesson video in terms of changing their teaching practice, the analysis of reflective data using Larrivee’s typology showed that the depth of teacher reflections remained similar—at a pedagogical level—when teachers were reflecting on either video format. This may be due to a number of reasons, including the fact that teachers had more time to immerse themselves, without distractions, in the good and poor practice and own teaching video clip reflections during the workshops when compared with their own school and home context where finding time to reflect on their own teaching video clips was challenging, and the good and poor practice videos were used as an instructional tool that followed lectures delivered to support learning of “new” pedagogical strategies underpinned by theory, and therefore teachers were able to recognize and justify the use of pedagogical strategies immediately in the good and poor practice video clips through their reflections. This suggests that imparting theoretical content, pedagogical knowledge, and student learning information, before introducing stock video clips, is important for reflection and teacher learning (Beisiegel et al., 2018) as it gives teachers a particular filter for viewing such videos. Therefore, videos of other teachers’ lessons can play an important role in exposing teachers to the content or pedagogical focuses of a TPD; however, supplementing these videos with reflection on videos of their own teaching practice will provide opportunities for more specific pedagogical learning in teachers’ own school and classroom contexts (Goldman et al., 2014; D. Smith et al., 2012). This finding confirms Desimone and Garet’s (2015) conclusion that professional development has greater success when it is directly connected to teachers’ lessons.

Few studies have provided opportunities for teachers to collaborate with an external facilitator when reflecting on their own video-recorded teaching practice (Zhang et al., 2011). The teachers in this study valued the role of the external facilitator for reinforcing learning and extending ideas that were noted in teachers’ individual reflections. While the facilitators did not focus on (or appear to influence) the depth of reflection, they provided opportunities for meaningful discussions with and between teachers about the content of their reflections, their own teaching practices, and bringing individual learning to the forefront of collaborative discussions with members of their Faculty. In some schools, the TPD led to systemic changes in policy and practice across all PE teaching lessons, due to the combination of video-based reflective tasks and external facilitation. As such, the role of the facilitator in this TPD aligns with calls for teacher educators and researchers to work together, and further highlights the potential benefits of greater collaboration and collegial learning for improving teaching practice (Beisiegel et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2011).

In this study, the majority of teachers engaged in a pedagogical level of reflection, which is not surprising given the focus on implementing motivational and instructional strategies to improve physical activity levels in PE. Reflecting at the pedagogical level is helpful for changing teaching practice in the short term, but engaging in critical reflective practice is necessary for substantial, sustainable, and impactful change to teaching practice for student learning (Brookfield, 1995; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Kemmis, 2011; Larrivee, 2000). While the teachers in this study claimed they had sufficient time to reflect during the TPD, recent research has shown that teachers and preservice teachers need to be highly supported so that they can reach the stage of critical reflection (Beauchamp, 2015; Körkkö et al., 2016). Re-structuring and re-wording the reflective prompts (Korthagen, 2017) and having facilitators focusing on the depth and content of reflections when discussing teaching practice and reflections with teachers (Beauchamp, 2015; Beisiegel et al., 2018; Hatton & Smith, 1995) may increase the depth of reflection and create more opportunities for teachers to improve their teaching practice. These factors are worth considering in future programs that specifically focus on evaluating the depth and quality of teacher reflective practice and subsequent changes in teaching practice.

Despite overall positive responses from teachers, there were a number of limitations to this study. First, the study was not able to determine an association between teachers’ levels of reflection (i.e., surface, pedagogical, and critical), teaching practice, and impact on student learning. It would be pertinent in future research to explore whether those teachers operating at a pedagogical and critical level of reflection were able to produce the greatest impact on student outcomes (i.e., improving student physical activity and motivational outcomes). Second, based on the reflective depth found in this study and the suggestion for facilitators to engage teachers in discussions that focus on the depth and content of reflections, it would be important for future research to audio-record facilitator and teacher reflective discussions to determine how to engage teachers in critically reflective thought. Furthermore, future research could determine the extent to which different types of video and external facilitation could influence other important PE learning outcomes (e.g., social and affective learning) and whether they promote pedagogical and critical level of reflections to improve teaching practice.

Conclusion

Previously, few TPD studies have integrated different types of video to explore their influence on teachers’ perceptions of learning and reflections on practice. Similarly, few studies have examined the influence of external facilitation on teacher learning and reflective practice. Our findings highlight the value of observing other teachers in action as well as viewing video footage of teachers’ own practice. The findings also demonstrate the importance of external facilitators in supporting teacher learning and changes in teaching practice; however, more focus needs to be placed on how facilitators engage with teachers to develop critically reflective thought. The results from this study reinforce the importance of researchers, teachers, and facilitators delivering and participating in TPD collaboratively, using stock and own video-based clips of teachers’ lessons to provide opportunities for more specific pedagogical learning in teachers’ own school and classroom contexts. Future research should focus on strategies that may increase the depth of teacher reflection on their own practices, which is considered a first step toward changing classroom practice and improving student outcomes.

Footnotes

Appendix

Teacher:	School:	Facilitator:	Date:
AMPED Peer Observation and Facilitator Form
Action Plan Strategies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.			Goals from Workshop %MVPA: Start time: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Key Feedback Point 1.		Key Feedback Point 2.	Key Feedback Point 3.
Peer teacher’s notes (focus on Action Plan Strategies and Goals):
Teacher’s notes (focus on Action Plan Strategies and Goals):

Note. AMPED = Activity and Motivation in Physical Education; MVPA = moderate to vigorous physical activity.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: An Australian Research Council Discovery Grant (DP130104659) funded this research.

ORCID iD

Louisa R. Peralta

Author Biographies

Louisa R. Peralta is a senior lecturer in Health and Physical Education and program director at the University of Sydney, Australia. Her research and teaching expertise focuses on preservice and inservice teachers’ learning and teaching practices, and designing, implementing, and evaluating school-, university-, and community-based health promotion programs that aim to increase students’ physical activity levels, motivation, and healthy eating outcomes. She has worked with generalist primary and secondary physical education (PE) teachers in Australian schools, community-based programs with school outreach, and physical activity promotion strategies.

Andrew Bennie works on Darug Country and is the director of the Health and Physical Education Program at Western Sydney University, Australia. He has expertise in sports coaching and PE research and practice. His research and teaching focuses on coach education, Indigenous sport participation, as well as physical activity and motivation during PE. He has worked with professional sport teams, Indigenous coaches in community and high-performance settings, and PE teachers in schools across New South Wales, Australia.

Jennifer Gore is Laureate Professor of Education at the University of Newcastle, visiting professor at the University of Oxford, and a fellow of the American Educational Research Association. She is director of the Teachers and Teaching Research Centre and head of the Quality Teaching Academy at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Her research focuses on quality and equity, teacher development, pedagogical reform, and enhancing student outcomes. Her current agenda focuses on the impact of Quality Teaching Rounds on teachers and students and the formation of educational aspirations during schooling.

Chris Lonsdale is associate dean (research) for the Faculty of Health Sciences at Australian Catholic University (ACU). He is also a professor and program leader for the Motivation and Behaviour Research Program at the Institute for Positive Psychology and Education at ACU. His research examines the motivational underpinnings of behavior in a variety of contexts, including education, health care, and physical activity. He seeks to translate this knowledge into feasible and scalable interventions that have benefits for society.

References

Aelterman

Vansteenkiste

Van Keer

De Meyer

Van den Berghe

Haerens

(2013). Development and evaluation of a training on need-supportive teaching in physical education: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 64–75.

Arya

Christ

Chiu

M. M.

(2014). Facilitation and teacher behaviors: An analysis of literacy teachers’ video-case discussions. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 111–127.

Beauchamp

(2015). Reflection in teacher education: Issues emerging from a review of current literature. Reflective Practice, 16, 123–141.

Beisiegel

Mitchell

Hill

H. C.

(2018). The design of video-based professional development: An exploratory experiment intended to identify effective features. Journal of Teacher Education, 69, 69–89.

Borko

Jacobs

Eiteljorg

Pittman

M. E.

(2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 417–436.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Braun

Clarke

(2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. SAGE.

Brockbank

McGill

(2012). Facilitating reflective learning: Coaching, mentoring and supervision. Kogan Page Publishers.

Brookfield

(1995). Adult learning: An overview. International Encyclopedia of Education, 10, 375–380.

10.

Brouwer

C. N.

Robijns

(2014). In search of effective guidance for preservice teachers’ viewing of classroom video. In Calandra

Rich

(Eds.), Digital video for teacher education: Research and practice (pp. 54–69). Routledge.

11.

Brunvand

(2010). Best practices for producing video content for teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 247–256.

12.

Calandra

Gurvitch

Lund

(2008). An exploratory study of digital video editing as a tool for teacher preparation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 137–153.

13.

Calandra

Sun

Puvirajah

(2014). A new perspective on preservice teachers’ video-aided reflection. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(3), 104–109.

14.

Cheon

S. H.

Reeve

Moon

I. S.

(2012). Experimentally based, longitudinally designed, teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more autonomy supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34(3), 365–396.

15.

Clarke

D. J.

Mesiti

O’Keefe

L. H.

Jablonka

Mok

I. A. C.

Shimizu

(2008). Addressing the challenge of legitimate international comparisons of classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(5), 280–293.

16.

Crawford

B. A.

Patterson

(2004, January). Scaffolding videotape reflections to enhance teacher candidates’ practice [Paper presentation]. International Conference of the Association for Education of Teachers in Science, Nashville, TN, United States.

17.

Darling-Hammond

(2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314.

18.

Desimone

L. M.

Garet

M. S.

(2015). Best practices in teacher’s professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263.

19.

Fadde

Sullivan

(2013). Using interactive video to develop preservice teachers’ classroom awareness. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 156–174.

20.

Fox

Brantley-Dias

Calandra

(2006, November). Promoting preservice teachers’ reflective practice through digital video and critical incident analysis in secondary English education [Paper presentation]. 56th National Reading Conference, Los Angeles, CA, United States.

21.

Gaudin

Chaliès

(2015). Video viewing in teacher education and professional development: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 16, 41–67.

22.

Goldman

Pea

Barron

Derry

S. J.

(2014). Video representations and the perspectivity framework: Epistemology, ethnography, evaluation, and ethics. In Goldman

Pea

Barron

Derry

S. J.

(Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 17–52). Routledge.

23.

Goldsmith

L. T.

Seago

(2011). Using classroom artifacts to focus noticing. In Sherin

M. G.

Jacobs

V. R.

Philipp

R. A.

(Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 169–187). Routledge.

24.

Goodyear

V. A.

Casey

(2015). Innovation with change: Developing a community of practice to help teachers move beyond the “honeymoon” of pedagogical renovation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(2), 186–203.

25.

Hargreaves

(2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching, 6(2), 151–182.

26.

Harlin

E.-M.

(2014). Watching oneself teach—Long-term effects of teachers’ reflections on their video-recorded teaching. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 23(4), 507–521.

27.

Hatton

Smith

(1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49.

28.

Hughes

J. E.

Kerr

S. P.

Ooms

(2005). Content-focused technology inquiry groups: Cases of teacher learning and technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 367–379.

29.

Kemmis

(2011). A self-reflective practitioner and a new definition of critical participatory action research. In Mockler

Sachs

(Eds.), Rethinking educational practice through reflexive inquiry (pp. 11–29). Springer.

30.

Körkkö

Kyrö-Ämmälä

Turunen

(2016). Professional development through reflection in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 198–206.

31.

Korthagen

(2017). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: Towards professional development 3.0. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 387–405.

32.

Lampert

Ball

D. L.

(1998). The Practitioner Inquiry Series. Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigations of real practice. Teachers College Press.

33.

Larrivee

(2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher. Reflective Practice, 1(3), 293–307.

34.

Larrivee

(2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341–360.

35.

Le Fevre

Richardson

(2002). Staff development and the facilitator. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(4), 483–500.

36.

Lemke

(2007). Video epistemology in-and-outside the box: Traversing attentional spaces. In Goldman

Pea

Barron

Derry

S. J.

(Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 39–51). Routledge.

37.

Lieberman

Pointer-Mace

D. H.

(2009). The role of “accomplished teachers” in professional learning communities: Uncovering practice and enabling leadership. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 459–470.

38.

Lonsdale

Lester

Owen

K. B.

White

R. L.

Moyes

Peralta

. . .Kolt

G. S.

(2015). An internet-supported physical activity intervention delivered in secondary schools located in low socio-economic status communities: Study protocol for the Activity and Motivation in Physical Education (AMPED) cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 17–22.

39.

Lonsdale

Lester

Owen

K. B.

White

R. L.

Peralta

Kirwan

Kolt

G. S.

(2019). An internet-supported school physical activity intervention in low socioeconomic status communities: Results from the Activity and Motivation in Physical Education (AMPED) cluster randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(6), 341–347.

40.

Lonsdale

Rosenkranz

R. R.

Peralta

L. R.

Bennie

Fahey

Lubans

D. R.

(2013). A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions designed to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in school physical education lessons. Preventive Medicine, 56(2), 152–161.

41.

Lubans

D. R.

Beauchamp

M. R.

Diallo

T. M.

Peralta

L. R.

Bennie

White

R. L.

. . .Lonsdale

(2018). School physical activity intervention effect on adolescents’ performance in mathematics. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 50(12), 2442–2450.

42.

MacDonald

(2011). When nice won’t suffice: Honest discourse is key to shifting school culture. Journal of Staff Development, 32(3), 45–47, 51.

43.

Marcos

J. M.

Sanchez

Tillema

H. H.

(2011). Promoting teacher reflection: What is said to be done. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(1), 21–36.

44.

Marsh

Mitchell

(2014). The role of video in teacher professional development. Teacher Development, 18(3), 403–417.

45.

McKenzie

T. L.

Derby

C. A.

Webber

L. S.

Luepker

R. V.

Cribb

(2003). Maintenance of effects of the CATCH physical education program: Results from the CATCH-ON study. Health Education & Behavior, 30(4), 447–462.

46.

McKenzie

T. L.

Sallis

J. F.

Prochaska

J. J.

Conway

T. L.

Marshall

S. J.

Rosengard

(2004). Evaluation of a two-year middle-school physical education intervention: M-SPAN. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(8), 1382–1388.

47.

Mitchell

Marsh

Hobson

Sornsen

(2008, December). Bringing theory to life? Findings from the evaluation of the University of Sussex In-School Teacher Education Programme (InSTEP). British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Edinburgh, UK.

48.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE.

49.

Santagata

(2009). Designing video-based professional development for mathematics teachers in low-performing schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 38–51.

50.

Schwindt

(2008). Lehrpersonen betrachten Unterricht: Kriterien für die kompetente Unterrichtswahrnehmung [Teachers observe instruction: Criteria for competent perception of instruction]. Waxmann.

51.

Seago

Mumme

Branca

Merecki

(2004). Learning and teaching linear functions: Video cases for mathematics professional development, 6-10. Heinemann.

52.

Seidel

Stürmer

Blomberg

Kobarg

Schwindt

(2011). Teacher learning from analysis of videotaped classroom situations: Does it make a difference whether teachers observe their own teaching or that of others? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 259–267.

53.

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.

54.

Sherin

M. G.

van Es

E. A.

(2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37.

55.

Smith

McGannon

K. R.

(2018). Developing rigor in qualitative research: Problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 101–121.

56.

Smith

McLaughlin

Brown

(2012). 3-D computer animation vs. live-action video: Differences in viewers’ response to instructional vignettes. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 41–54.

57.

Tessier

Sarrazin

Ntoumanis

(2010). The effect of an intervention to improve newly qualified teachers’ interpersonal style, students motivation and psychological need satisfaction in sport-based physical education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 242–253.

58.

Tripp

Rich

(2012). Using video to analyze one’s own teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 678–704.

59.

van Es

E. A.

(2012). Examining the development of a teacher learning community: The case of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 182–192.

60.

van Es

E. A.

Sherin

M. G.

(2006). How different video club designs support teachers in “learning to notice.” Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(4), 125–135.

61.

van Es

E. A.

Sherin

M. G.

(2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244–276.

62.

van Es

E. A.

Tunney

Goldsmith

L. T.

Seago

(2014). A framework for the facilitation of teachers’ analysis of video. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 340–356.

63.

Van Manen

(1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205–228.

64.

Zhang

Lundeberg

Koehler

M. J.

Eberhardt

(2011). Understanding affordances and challenges of three types of video for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 454–462.