Learning Stream 1
The Learning Stream: Video of Evidence-Based Practices
Lisa A. Dieker
University of Central Florida
Holly B. Lane
University of Florida
David H. Allsopp
University of South Florida
University of North Carolina—Charlotte
Tyran Wright Butler
University of Florida
James Madison University
James Madison University
Nicole S. Fenty
University of Louisville
Please send correspondence to:
College of Education – 315F
4000 Central Florida Blvd
Orlando, FL 32816-1250
Learning Stream 2
A process was developed to create web-based video models of effective instructional practices
for use in teacher education settings. Three video models, created at three university sites,
demonstrated exemplary implementation of specific, evidence-based strategies in reading, math,
and science. Video models of strategies were field-tested with preservice and practicing teachers
working with diverse student populations. This paper provides an explanation of the video
development process and presents field-test data that demonstrate the influence of video
modeling on teacher learning.
Learning Stream 3
Evaluating Video Models of Evidence-Based
Instructional Practices to Enhance Teacher Learning
One of the most enduring problems in education is the gap between research and practice
(Carnine, 1999; Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher, 2003; Martinez & Hallahan, 2000). This problem
poses a challenge for teacher educators to find methods to help practicing and preservice teachers
learn and implement evidence-based practices effectively. In an attempt to address the research-
to-practice gap, we developed and evaluated a process for creating and applying video models of
effective practices for teacher education. The use of video shows promise as a method for
making practices more accessible for teachers (Dhonau & McAlpine, 2002; Kpanja, 2001). The
use of technology is increasing in all aspects of society, making dissemination of information
easier than ever and providing a tool to bridge the research-to-practice gap. The purpose of The
Learning Stream project was to develop an effective process for creating video models of
exemplary instructional practices in reading, math, and science. More specifically, the project
focused on creating video appropriate for online delivery and ensuring that the videos aided
teachers in understanding and retaining information about evidence-based practices. The
secondary purpose of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of video models created using
Potential for Video Models in Teacher Education
The national shortage of teachers in fields such as special education continues to be
chronic and severe (McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2004). As the shortage of teachers in many
fields continues at a critical level, states are using more alternative certification routes
(Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2001). In some states, at least temporary teacher certification can be
obtained by anyone holding a bachelor’s degree who can pass the certification examination (e.g.,
Florida, see Florida Department of Education, 2006). Despite NCLB’s requirement for highly
qualified teachers, many educators are not certified in the areas they are assigned, which
contributes to the attrition problem (Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Miller, 1997). These issues
Learning Stream 4
pose an even greater problem for teachers who work with students with special needs and related
learning problems (Office of Policy Research and Improvement, 2002). Therefore, high quality
teacher preparation and professional development methods for teachers is essential.
Teachers who are entering the field are faced with increasing demands and accountability
for student progress. Novice teachers typically have had limited exposure to expert teaching, and
out-of-field teachers may have had no exposure at all. Out-of-field teachers do not have the same
luxury as those prepared in a teacher education program to watch and learn from a master level
teacher. Because teachers learn to teach by relying on a combination of their experience as
students and skills gained through teacher education (Goodlad, 1994), out-of-field teachers must
rely on how they were taught in school, which may or may not represent effective practices.
McMaster and Fuchs (2005) note that many teachers struggle to translate effective learning
theories into practice.
Although the use of visual models of effective practices can be a beneficial tool for
developing teachers (Beck, King, & Marshall, 2002), college courses typically provide only
limited access to video examples. Research on the use of video instruction in teacher education is
limited, but findings thus far support its use in the preparation of teachers to implement effective
practices. For example, Friel and Carboni (2000) used a video pedagogy approach in a
mathematics teacher education program. Findings suggested that the use of video pedagogy
enabled pre-service teachers to move beyond didactic instruction to more student-centered
reflective practice. The video enabled the preservice teachers to broaden their understanding of
the development of mathematical thinking and how to provide instruction with these concepts in
mind. Schrader, Leu, and Kinzer (2003) conducted research on the preparation of pre-service
teachers to provide literacy instruction. Their study was conducted using traditional instruction,
commercially produced instructional video, and case-oriented video, and their results indicated
that pre-service teachers developed greater confidence in their ability to implement research-
based practices in literacy instruction after viewing video as a supplement to traditional
instruction. Qualitative differences favored the more interactive use of case-based video
Learning Stream 5
examples. O’Brien, Dieker, and Platt (2006) used video models to teach learning strategies
directly to students. Data analysis, both qualitative and quantitative, suggested that video models
improve the practicality of implementing effective instruction.
Drawing from the work of the Cognition and Technology Group (1990), several
researchers (e.g., Glaser, Rieth, Kinzer, Colburn, & Peter, 1999; Rieth et al., 2003) in the areas of
instructional technology, teacher education, and special education have examined the potential of
video-based anchored instruction. Their research has suggested that video serves as a strong
learning tool enabling instructors to build upon or bypass basic text-based instruction. The use of
anchored instruction has recently begun to extend to the preparation of pre-service teachers via
multimedia case-based learning, interactive video being an essential part of these cases (Kinzer
& Risko, 1998). Video models of effective teaching provide a variation of anchored instruction,
defined as learning within a meaningful, problem-solving context (Bransford, Sherwood,
Hasselbring, Kinzer, & Williams, 1990).
As indicated in several meta-analyses, there are numerous pedagogical benefits to using
video models (Bosco, 1986; Fletcher, 1989, 1990; McNeil & Nelson, 1991). Digital technology
can enable teacher educators to use instructional methods that are more effective than traditional
lectures, potentially providing effective ways to engage students in active learning and offering
easy access to vast amounts of information (Teh, 1999). Interactive video, the term typically
used in the literature, allows the learner to interact with the media (i.e., stopping to read overlaid
text, replaying segments). Rather than passively viewing an instructional video on television or
in class with an instructor playing clips, interactivity refers to the learner’s ability to control the
video and monitor their own learning (Wetzel, Radtke, & Stern, 1994). When people are actively
involved in a self-driven learning project, they learn more and remember it longer than when
they are passively sitting and listening (Newman & Scurry, 2001).
Video streaming technology makes video readily accessible and allows the user to control
the rate and repetition of their viewing (Fill & Ottewill, 2006). Streamed video is produced in a
digital format that allows easy access via the Web. Deal (2003) explained that accessing
Learning Stream 6
streaming video is analogous to “drinking from a water fountain as compared to filling a glass of
water and then drinking—you don’t have to fill the glass first” (p. 19). Unlike traditional VHS or
DVD video formats, streamed video can be shared free of charge and can be made available on
an ongoing basis, thereby providing teachers flexibility in when and where they engage in
professional learning. Other interactive features can be integrated into streamed video, such as
audio narration and text elaboration, to enhance the learning experience. (MacDonald, Stodel,
Farres, Breithaupt, & Gabriel, 2001). The digital format also allows for customized viewing
options for novice or veteran teachers and for teachers who are interested in a particular element
of instruction. Despite the potential impact of web-based video models on teacher and student
learning, research in this area is sparse and the effects unclear (Hughes, Packard, & Pearson,
2000). However, a web-based video library of effective teaching practices could provide
beginning teachers with an array of actual classroom examples that (a) consistently represent
exemplary practice, (b) are constantly accessible during their preparation and (c) continue to be
available throughout their career.
The Learning Stream Project
The Learning Stream project was a collaborative endeavor across three Florida university
sites: University of Florida (UF), University of Central Florida (UCF), and University of South
Florida (USF). The primary purpose of this project was to develop an effective process for
creating videos of exemplary instructional practices in reading, math, and science. The
responsibility for each content area was divided among the three universities (i.e., reading at UF,
math at USF, and science at UCF). A secondary purpose was to collect preliminary data on the
use of these models on teacher understanding and retention of information on effective practices.
To address the intent of the study, each university site focused on (a) developing a video model
in one content area and (b) evaluating teacher learning gains related to that video. Video footage
was collected at a university research school, and the participating teachers were selected for
their expertise in the content area, as well as for their reputations as exemplary teachers. The
project was conducted across two phases. In the first phase, the university teams worked
Learning Stream 7
collaboratively to develop and implement the video production process. In the second phase,
each site team worked independently to test the effect of its finished product on teacher learning.
During the second phase, all sites placed preservice and/or inservice teachers into two randomly
assigned groups and provided these teachers with either a video model or a verbatim transcript of
the lesson presented in the video model. These preliminary data were evaluated at each site to
determine if and how viewing video models influenced learning outcomes.
Video Development Process
To evaluate the effects of web-based videos, we first developed a process to create video
models of exemplary teaching. We identified evidence-based practices, identified the essential
characteristics of these practices, developed video vignette scripts, collected video footage, and
edited to ensure demonstration of the teaching practice. At various steps in the process, we
obtained feedback from experts in the field and from teachers and university students regarding
the quality of the content and social validity of streamed video models. The experts were
researchers who had studied the chosen strategy and could validate that the products accurately
reflected the critical components of each specific strategy. These experts were critical in ensuring
that the observation tools created were valid and that they reflected the key components of the
strategy being measured. The following is a brief summary of the “step by step” process used by
the Learning Stream.
Selection of Evidence-Based Practices
Review of research. This stage involved an extensive review of the literature related to
effective practices in each of the content areas. This process allowed us to select evidence-based
practices and to identify the essential characteristics of these practices that must be portrayed in
the video models.
Practice outline. Once the project team members identified the research-based instructional
practice to be captured on video, the key elements of the instructional strategy and essential
characteristics of effective implementation were outlined. To accomplish this, in addition to
reviewing research literature, we consulted with researchers who had either developed the
Learning Stream 8
strategy or evaluated its effectiveness to ensure that we understood what was necessary for
effective strategy implementation.
Vignette Script Development
First draft. Different approaches were employed to develop scripts, from writing all dialogue
expected from teacher and students to providing an outline of essential lesson components and
letting the teacher generate the dialogue naturally. The outcomes were similar in that, in each
case, a lesson was produced that reflected the components of “best practice.”
Script revisions. An expert reviewer was essential in determining whether the plan for the
lesson reflected the key components of evidence-based practice, if the script was appropriate for
the proposed student audience, and whether the lesson was flexible for meeting the needs of all
learners. A teacher also reviewed each script to ensure that the dialogue or practices were
plausible in a classroom setting.
Storyboard development. Once a project team developed the final script, storyboards were
created to map out the scenes of the lesson. These storyboards were typically sketches of the
scene consisting of essential information such as location of the cameras and positioning of
teachers and students in the shot. The video shoot was based on these storyboards. One team
creatively used Power Point and clip art to stage each shot to be captured of the evidence-based
Internal review. Team members met across sites via videoconference on a regular basis to
provide internal review and critique during each stage of the project. These meetings also served
to maintain communication about challenges and procedural issues.
Video shoot preparations. Prior to shooting the video, many issues related to equipment
needs, technology, teachers, students, and instructional materials were carefully considered and
addressed. Preparation for a video shoot requires more than having the correct equipment and
technology. The day of the shoot must be planned for explicitly with all details organized and
any problems anticipated.
Learning Stream 9
Video shoot fidelity. During the shoot, taping followed the pre-determined script and
storyboards with as much fidelity as the energy of the moment allowed. The teachers and
students were not actors, so the shoots had to allow for natural interactions that may have varied
from the planned script. The researchers were present during the video shoot to ensure that each
essential strategy component was captured satisfactorily.
During-shoot logging procedures. An important aspect in the shoot process was logging of
critical times and events on a logging sheet to aid in later editing. This logging process aided the
editing team when they captured the raw video into the computer editing station. The researchers
logged specific events that were essential and others that should be cut.
Editing process. Once the video footage had been shot and logged, the video was captured
and the editing process began. At this point, the video production team worked to create a highly
engaging final product. Each video went through several stages of editing and review.
Review of video products. The project team members who selected the research-based
practice were at a disadvantage for developing the final edited product because they were too
close to the instructional strategy. At this point in the process, it was essential to ensure that the
strategies were portrayed in an accurate and understandable way. As the final product was
developed, we engaged our experts again for a second external review. They were instrumental
in helping the team determine whether video accurately reflected the research-based instructional
practice. We also asked novices to view the video and to explain what they learned from it. This
novice review helped us ensure that practices were portrayed in an understandable way.
Streaming. The final step in video development was the streaming of the video models. The
streaming process typically involves two separate processes. The first process involves
compressing the video that has been gathered into a format that can be stored on the hard drive
(e.g., AVI, MOV or MPEG). In the first part of the process the file size is reduced to varying
degrees, depending on the rate of the speed in which the data is being transmitted to the end user.
The second part of the streaming process was buffering the file. Buffering is a process in which a
reserve of video is being loaded during the first few seconds so that that file is started almost
Learning Stream 10
immediately and can be played without interruption. For our project, we selected RealOne
formatting and a type of coding that has allowed for greater flexible and product development.
The videos were developed using Synchronous Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL), which
allows the video products to be modified to fit specific user needs. The strength of using SMIL is
that the video does not have to be recreated for different users but, instead, the entire video can
be placed on the streaming server and the delivery modified according to the user (e.g., extensive
voice and text elaboration for a novice teacher and a brief clip with little explanation for a
veteran). Using SMIL, the research team can continue to develop and add various support
material (e.g., slides with voice overlay) to assist the learner in understanding the video models.
This type of interface allows maximum flexibility of video produced for use across multiple sites
The first phase of the project focused on the creation of a video development process that
would result in video that accurately portrays evidence-based instructional strategies and content
specific learning strategies for a diverse learning population. The second phase of the project
focused on evaluation of learning through field-testing of the videos. Specifically, the university
teams were interested in measuring the influence of web-based video models of effective
practices on teacher learning about evidence-based strategies. The primary research questions
addressed in this phase were (a) what were the effects of web-based video models on teachers’
knowledge of evidence-based teaching practices? and (b) what were the effects of web-based
video models on teachers’ implementation of evidence-based teaching practices? The field
testing was preliminary in nature. The data collected were not intended to demonstrate
statistically significant differences but to determine if and how the model of videos influenced
teacher’s learning and retention of the practices portrayed and which elements required further
Data collection for this project included a variety of methods and procedures that were
uniquely tailored to each content area and to each university’s teacher education program. The
Learning Stream 11
three participating universities serve predominantly White, middle class, female students in their
teacher preparation programs; therefore, the evaluation phase was carried out with this
population. The preservice component was conducted within required courses, one at the
graduate level and two at the undergraduate level. Central to the use of video models in teacher
education is the capacity to adapt the implementation to teacher educators’ goals, methods,
audiences, and styles. The purpose for using video models may be to introduce a strategy to a
class of undergraduates new to the field, to improve the performance of student teachers nearing
the end of their teacher preparation, or to enhance the practices of experienced teachers.
Therefore, the university sites selected participants, video implementation procedures, and data
collection methods that would naturally occur in our preservice and inservice teacher education
efforts and that addressed one or more of the research questions. Each of the three university
teams conducted field-testing of the video model related to its content-area focus. The results of
these field tests are reported accordingly.
University of Florida Team: Reading Instruction
The work at University of Florida (UF) focused on a reading strategy called Text Talk.
Text Talk is a read-aloud strategy developed by Beck and her colleagues (Beck & McKeown,
2001; Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002) to enhance comprehension. A key focus of Text Talk is
vocabulary development. In a Text Talk lesson, the teacher introduces new words explicitly by
providing student-friendly definitions. For each word, she engages students in activities that
make them interact with the word’s meaning. The strategy is complex and difficult to carry out
effectively. For this project, the focus was on the elements of Text Talk related to explicit
vocabulary instruction. The team evaluated the effects of the video model on prospective
teachers’ knowledge of the strategy and on practicing teachers’ implementation of the strategy.
Participants in the first study were a group of students in a methods course on language
and literacy instruction for students with disabilities. The group included 23 preservice teachers,
including 22 females and 1 male; 19 were White, 2 Black and 2 Hispanic. To evaluate the
Learning Stream 12
prospective teachers’ pre-existing knowledge of the strategy, participants were asked to write a
description of the Text Talk strategy before receiving instruction on the strategy. All participants
then received traditional lecture-style instruction about the strategy and were subsequently
randomly assigned to one of two groups. The Video group (N=12) viewed the video model of a
Text Talk lesson while the No-Video group (N=11) read a detailed description of the same lesson
that included a verbatim transcript of the videotaped lesson dialogue with descriptions of teacher
and student actions. The groups had continued access to either the video (via the web) or the
written lesson description for one week.
After one week, all participants wrote another description of the strategy. Pre- and post-
instruction strategy descriptions were scored based on inclusion and accurate description of six
key lesson elements:
1. Teacher reads story aloud and leads discussion using open-ended questions.
2. Teacher introduces 3-5 appropriate target words.
3. Students say the word to reinforce phonological representation.
4. Teacher introduces a student-friendly definition of the word.
5. Teacher engages students in activities that prompt them to think about the word’s
6. Teacher engages students in activities that require them to use and interact with the word.
As evidenced by the pre-assessment, only three participants had any prior knowledge of
the strategy, and even this knowledge was extremely rudimentary. One of these participants
wrote, “Text Talk is a strategy for discussing text and gaining vocabulary info from the
discussion.” Another simply explained, “Kids build vocabulary through book discussions.” The
third said, “Text Talk is using text to pick out vocabulary as a stepping stone for discussion.”
Given the name of the strategy and the fact that instruction was in the context of a section of the
course addressing vocabulary, such descriptions may actually reflect a prediction rather than
prior knowledge of the strategy. All the remaining participants indicated that they did not know
anything about the strategy.
Learning Stream 13
Post assessment yielded evidence of far better understanding from both groups. All
participants were able to describe some strategy elements, but those in the Video group
demonstrated that they remembered more details about strategy implementation, and had a better
understanding of the essential elements of the strategy.
The percentage of students in the Video group incorporating the six effective strategy
elements represents a clear contrast with students in the No-video group. Only 45% of students
in the No-video group included element one (Reading and discussing the story) as compared to
100% of students in the Video group. Similarly, only 27% of students in the No-video group
included element 6 (Teacher engages students in activities that require them to use and interact
with the word) compared to 83% of students in the Video group. Further 75% students in the
Video group included elements 2 (Teacher introduces 3-5 appropriate target words) and 4
(Teacher introduces a student-friendly definition of the word) in their strategy description,
compared to 45% and 27% of the students in the No-video group, respectively. Consistently low
was the inclusion of elements 3 (Students say the word to reinforce phonological representation)
and 5 (Teacher engages students in activities that prompt them to think about the word’s
meaning) in the strategy description. Fifty percent of students in the Video group included these
elements as opposed to 9% and 36% of students in the No-video group.
The participants were asked to report whether and how much they had reviewed the
materials (video or lesson description) independently during the week. Eleven of the 12
participants in the Video group reviewed the video at least once, and four of those reviewed it
more than once (2 or 3 times). Only three of the 11 participants in the No-Video group reported
reviewing the lesson description, and those three each reread it only once. All participants were
encouraged to review the strategy in the intervening week, but it was not a requirement. The
greater gains of Video group in the development of their knowledge about the strategy may have
been attributable to the additional exposure to the strategy as opposed to any superiority of the
video method. However, it is interesting to note that nearly all the participants in the Video group
were motivated to review the strategy and very few in the No-Video group were so motivated.
Learning Stream 14
Students in the Video group reported that the video was engaging and helped them understand
the strategy more deeply. Following the post-test, participants in the No-Video group were given
access to the video and participants in the Video group were given access to the written lesson
description. All of the participants in the No-Video group reported finding the video helpful,
even after reading the description. In contrast, none of the Video group participants found the
written description helpful after viewing the video.
The UF team also wanted to evaluate the effects of the video model on the
implementation of the model by practicing teachers. As part of an ongoing professional
development effort at a high-poverty elementary school, practicing teachers were engaged in a
three-month study of vocabulary instruction. Teachers were provided with an overview of recent
research related to vocabulary development and instruction, and they read and discussed
Bringing Words to Life (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002), a book that includes a detailed
explanation of each element of Text Talk. They then received further, more explicit training on
the elements of the strategy. This training consisted of a lecture with a PowerPoint presentation
and modeling, guided practice developing student-friendly definitions, and guided practice
developing Text Talk lesson plans. After this, the teachers developed detailed lesson plans
independently. Lesson plans of eleven K-3 teachers were evaluated using the same criteria as in
the examination of preservice teachers’ descriptions. Two researchers reviewed the teachers’
lesson descriptions and scored the lessons according to the rubric. Inter-rater agreement was
100%. The teachers consistently included all the elements of the strategy, but there was a wide
range of quality, especially in the development of student-friendly definitions.
Observation of teacher implementation of the strategy in their classrooms was necessary
to understand more fully how teachers were using the strategy. Using an observation tool that
focused on implementation of Text Talk, two kindergarten teachers were observed before and
after viewing the streamed video. Two researchers conducted the observations simultaneously,
and inter-rater agreement was 100%. Before viewing the video, both teachers included each
Learning Stream 15
element of the strategy in their lessons, but the level of student engagement—a critical element
of Text Talk—was low. The activities the teachers chose were not particularly engaging (e.g.,
raise your hand if you think this is “extraordinary”), and neither teacher spent much time
checking for students’ understanding of the target words. Following the first observation,
teachers watched the Text Talk video model. They then developed another lesson and were
observed a second time. During the second observations, both teachers not only included each
element of the strategy, they also implemented more engaging activities, provided clearer
student-friendly definitions, and checked each student’s understanding of the target words. They
both reported that, from watching the video, they learned about nuances of the strategy that were
not clear from either reading the book or participating in the training. They also reported that
they were far more confident in their lesson implementation after viewing the video model. One
teacher stated, “Seeing another teacher do what I had tried to do made it clear to me how I
needed to improve.” The second teacher reported, “It wasn’t until I watched the video that I
really understood the strategy. I thought I understood it before, but I really didn’t. A picture’s
worth a thousand words (or maybe more)!”
University of South Florida Team: Mathematics Instruction
The work at University of South Florida (USF) focused on the Dynamic Assessment in
Mathematics strategy. Dynamic Assessment in Mathematics integrates four research-supported
assessment practices in mathematics for use by classroom teachers to determine what to teach
and how to differentiate instruction based on the level or levels of understanding their students
possess: (a) student interest inventory, (b) concrete-to-representational-to-abstract assessment,
(c) error pattern analysis, and (d) flexible math interview (Bryant, 1996; Ginsburg, 1987;
Howell, Fox, & Morehead, 1993; Kennedy & Tipps, 1994; Liedtke, 1988, Mercer & Mercer,
2004; Van de Walle, 1994; Zigmond, Vallecorsa, & Silverman, 1981).
Participants were 22 preservice teachers in a single, intact mathematics methods course.
All participants were female and White. Instruction included a brief introduction, followed by a
Learning Stream 16
PowerPoint presentation with class discussion, including handouts that further illustrated
important aspects of the strategy. Participants were then randomly assigned to either the Video or
After class instruction, the No-Video group (n=10) moved to a nearby classroom. In
addition to the handouts that all students in the class received, participants in the No-Video group
were provided a lesson plan that illustrated the Dynamic Assessment strategy. The lesson plan
was the same one used by the teacher in the video. First, each student in the No-Video group
individually reviewed the lesson plan and other handouts. Then, they broke into smaller groups
and responded to questions structured to facilitate discussion about important aspects of the
strategy. The Video group (n=12) sat together in small cooperative groups to view the video and
discuss what they learned by responding to the same questions about the strategy as the No-
Video group. Students in both the Video and No-Video groups had access to the same
information about the strategy, but the video group also had access to the video.
Students responded to a questionnaire about the strategy before and after instruction. The
questionnaire included four items that required participants to identify important features of the
strategy (e.g., the name of particular assessment techniques, their purposes, etc.). It also included
a narrative prompt that required participants to describe how they would implement the strategy
in a classroom context. A scoring rubric was used to evaluate responses for both types of items.
The scoring rubric for the first four questions included a 5-point rating scale for each item, with a
total possible score of 20. The narrative scoring rubric evaluated each student’s response on the
extent to which it incorporated seven important features of the strategy:
1. Included all 4 assessment strategies
2. Dynamic Assessment steps included/appropriate
3. Dynamic Assessment steps put in correct sequence
4. Importance of conceptual & procedural understanding included
5. Importance of receptive and expressive abilities included
6. Teacher use of data to make instructional decisions included.
7. Application to classroom context included.
Learning Stream 17
Each feature was evaluated using a 5-point rating scale as well. The total possible score was 35.
Scoring procedures included two scorers. Two researchers met to discuss the scoring rubrics and
to reach consensus regarding what type responses warranted each score on the 5-point scale. The
researchers then completed scoring the response sheets and compared scores to determine
agreement. In several instances the two scorers discussed their different scoring interpretations
and reached consensus regarding the scores. Scorers did not know the identity of the responders
or whether they were in the Video or Non-video group.
On the first measure, mean scores for members of the Video group were 3.4 Pre and 3.7
Post for the item “Describes purpose(s) of Dynamic Assessment” compared to 3.0 Pre and 3.4
Post for No-video. For the item “Names four assessment strategies integrated within DA” mean
scores for the Video group were 3.2 Pre and 4.8 Post compared to 3.3 Pre and 4.9 Post for the
No-video students. For the item “Describes purpose for each of four integrated assessment
strategies” mean scores for the Video group were 2.5 Pre and 4.7 Post compared to 2.9 Pre and
4.8 Post for the No-video group. Finally, for the item “Describes important elements/ideas
related to each of the four integrated assessment strategies” Video group mean scores were 1.6
Pre and 4.4 Post, as compared to No-video group mean scores of 2.5 Pre and 4.8 Post. Scores
from the seven element rubrics are reported as mean ratings for total scores for the written
narrative response. Students in the Video group scored 7.8 Pre and 9.4 Post compared to the No-
video group with scores of 7.4 Pre and 8.9 Post.
All of the preservice teachers enrolled in this mathematics methods class demonstrated
greater knowledge of the strategy from pretest to posttest. It should be noted that there were
differences between groups at prettest with the No-Video group scoring higher on three of the
four recall prompts and the Video group scoring higher on the narrative prompt. On the recall
Learning Stream 18
questions, differences between the groups ranged from .13 to .92 of one rating point on a five-
point scale. Therefore, mean gain scores were used to evaluate group performance. On the
responses to the narrative prompt, the difference between the mean composite score was .35 of
one point (a total of 35 possible points could be obtained with ratings of five on each of the seven
DA elements). No apparent outward differences between groups can be attributed to the
differences in pretest scores. The Video group demonstrated greater overall gains from pretest to
posttest compared to the No-Video group. On the four recall prompts, the Video group gained
8.3 rating points and the No-Video group gained 6.3 points. On the narrative prompt, the Video
group gained 1.66 points, and the No-Video group gained 1.5 points. Gains for recall were
generally more pronounced for both groups while gains in the ability of participants to apply
knowledge in context were less impressive. Participants in both groups demonstrated little ability
to describe in detail how they would apply the strategy in a classroom context.
Two factors that may have influenced the performance of both groups were the complex
nature of the Dynamic Assessment strategy (it integrates four different research-supported
assessment strategies) and the short time frame allowed for learning the strategy (approximately
one hour). These factors may have had the greatest impact on the written narrative because this
task requires deeper levels of understanding and synthesis. It was noted by faculty administering
the posttest that students appeared more tired at the end of the lesson compared to the beginning,
so fatigue could have also played a role in the performance of both groups. Finally, although
students were randomly assigned to groups, some differences existed between groups at pretest.
No pattern was observed regarding these differences. Informal discussions with the preservice
teachers who viewed the video revealed that they appreciated the opportunity to observe a real
teacher implementing the strategy rather than simply hearing how it should be implemented from
Learning Stream 19
their instructor. One student commented that, “I liked both seeing the teacher do it and hearing
what she had to say about it.”
University of Central Florida Team: Science Instruction
The focus of the work at UCF was science instruction. The strategy depicted in the video
model was the 5E Learning Cycle, a method for directed inquiry in science that includes five
steps: Engage, Explore, Explain, Extend, and Evaluate. Although it is important that the steps of
the 5E strategy are implemented correctly, the most critical element of strategy implementation
is a focus on inquiry through effective questioning and guidance of student exploration. Two
field tests were conducted–one with 11 preservice teachers and another with six practicing
All 11 preservice teachers were female, two were Black, nine were White including one
student with a hearing impairment. A science education professor provided a 1-hour lecture on
the 5E Learning Cycle to a class of preservice special education teachers. Following the lecture,
11 students completed a pre-intervention assessment of their knowledge of the 5E Learning
Cycle based upon the traditional lecture and were then randomly assigned to either the Video or
the No-Video group. The Video group received the URL for the streamed video that they were to
view prior to the next class meeting. The No-Video group received a detailed written description
of the same lesson that was implemented in the video model. Following exposure to either the
video or the written description, all students completed a post-intervention assessment.
Although the Video group demonstrated slightly better gains in knowledge of the names
of the steps of the 5E Learning Cycle (10% gain, compared with a 3% gain in the No-Video
group), no significant differences were noted between groups in their ability to explain the steps.
Unfortunately, the area surrounding UCF experienced severe weather conditions, and there was
an unplanned two-week delay in the collection of post-test data. We believe the delay and the
Learning Stream 20
inherent distraction and disruption likely influenced the outcome data. Participants who watched
the video model reported consistently positive impressions of their experience.
The second field test examined the effects of video on practicing teachers’ understanding
of the strategy. The six practicing teachers were 4 females and 2 males; all were White. The
teachers were randomly assigned to either the Video or No-Video Group. All participants
completed pre- and post-assessment of their knowledge of the 5E Learning Cycle. The
researchers conducted observations of the teachers’ implementation of the strategy. A rubric was
used to evaluate each lesson’s adherence to the 5E model and the quality of implementation.
Neither group received any type of explicit instruction in the instructional strategy prior to
random assignment or after they received the written plan and the video. The Video group was
given a web link to access the streaming video available from the university server. This video
presented a lesson in a science classroom implemented with the 5E Learning Cycle instructional
strategy. Included in the video was a series of text slides with narration intended to further clarify
the strategy and elaborate on the activities in the video. The No-Video group was given a written
description of the lesson depicted in the video model, but they did not watch the video. The
written description fully explained all elements of the 5E Learning Cycle lesson, including an
explanation of each step and activities to correspond to those activities.
All participants completed a pre-test to assess their 1) knowledge of the steps of the 5E
Learning Cycle to (i.e., Engage, Explore, Explain, Extend, Evaluate) and 2) description of the
activities and rationale related to each of these steps. Two separate scores were obtained. The
participants’ understanding of rationale and activities was evaluated using a rubric indicating
Knowledge of Strategy Steps. Regarding knowledge of the steps, one participant in the
No-video group demonstrated a very strong grasp of the steps of the learning cycle (100%
knowledge) prior to assignment to one of the instructional groups. One other participant in the
Video group had some prior knowledge of the steps (20% knowledge); however, the remaining
Learning Stream 21
four participants in both groups were completely unaware of the steps (0% knowledge of the
Following their random assignment to Video and No-Video groups, participants
completed a post-test of their knowledge of the 5E Learning Cycle steps. Participants in the
video group showed improvement regarding knowledge of the steps (100%, 80%, 100%) for a
mean score of 93% as opposed to participants in the No-video group (100%, 20%, 100%) for a
mean of 73% accuracy. Further, the Video group demonstrated a greater mean improvement in
knowledge of the strategy steps (difference of 86%) as compared to the No-video group
(difference of 40%).
Knowledge of Activities and Rationale. Rubric scores for knowledge of the
rationale/activities for each of the 5 E steps are reported as percentage scores based on a total
rubric score of 30 points reflecting a range of response from no knowledge to in-depth
understanding. Prior to random assignment, two participants exhibited a fair to strong knowledge
of the rationale and activities implemented in an inquiry-based strategy such as the 5E Learning
Cycle (77%, 50%), one participant had moderate knowledge (43%), and the remaining
participants had virtually no knowledge of the strategy (0%). Following random assignment,
participants in the Video group scored 80%, 87%, and 77% accuracy on description of the
activities and rationale, as opposed to participants in the No-video group who scored 77%, 27%,
Interesting to note was the marked improvement in knowledge of the rationale and
activities incorporated in the 5E Learning Cycle among members of the Video group (pre-post
difference of 63%) as compared to the No-video group (difference of 10%). Two participants in
the Video group, who had no prior understanding of this instructional strategy, had the highest
rubric scores of the total group on the post-test (scores of 80% and 87%). All members of the
Video group improved in their knowledge of the steps, rationale behind the steps, and activities
to implement, whereas members of the No-Video group made very little or no improvement in
their knowledge of rationale and activities. In fact, the participant who had previously
Learning Stream 22
demonstrated a high rubric score (77% accurate) for rationale and activities did not improve at
all on the post-test (again 77%), despite a fair amount of room for improvement.
Strategy Implementation. Participants were assessed on their ability to implement the 5E
Learning Cycle using an observation guide, which included what were determined to be the
critical elements of this inquiry-based strategy. Critical Elements included the steps Engage,
Explore, Explain, Extend, Evaluate, appropriate establishment of the learning environment, and
provision of necessary accommodations for diverse learners. On several of the 5 steps, there
were sub-elements, which were critical to exemplary implementation of this strategy:
1. Created interest and generated curiosity in the topic of study (Engage)
2. Raised questions and elicited responses from students to assess prior knowledge
3. Gave students opportunities to work together without direction from the teacher
4. Prompted students to explain concepts in their own words, ask for evidence and
clarification, and listen critically to one another’s and the teacher’s explanation (Explain)
5. Prompted students to apply concepts and skills in new situations using formal labels and
6. Asked open-ended questions and looked for answers that use observation, evidence, and
previously accepted explanations (Evaluate)
7. Asked questions that would encourage future investigations (Evaluate).
Participants were scored as effective or ineffective on 10 total elements. Two researchers
reviewed the preservice teachers’ performances and scored the lessons according to the rubric.
Inter-rater agreement was 100%.
Again the Video group appeared to outperform the No-Video group in their
implementation of this strategy. The percentage of critical elements implemented effectively for
members of the No-Video group was 40%, 50%, and 30% based on the possible 10 effective
elements, whereas the Video group members scored 80%, 100%, and 80%. This indicates that
Learning Stream 23
the members of the Video group were more effective in using the strategy in their classroom.
Although, members of the No-Video group implemented activities and steps of the strategy, their
lessons all lacked a true inquiry focus. Participants who viewed the video consistently
demonstrated a stronger use of open-ended questioning, student-directed exploration, and
clarification, demonstrating genuine inquiry. It seemed that members of the Video group
developed a stronger sense of the “essence” of the strategy, whereas teachers in the No-Video
group demonstrated only surface-level knowledge of the strategy.
We sought to develop a replicable process for creating web-based video that accurately
represents exemplary implementation of evidence-based practices. Such a process has the
potential for making video development more cost effective for individual faculty members
without having to outsource video development to private vendors. We believe that a systematic
video development method will also lead to video models that accurately capture the essential
instructional features of evidence-based practices.
With these established procedures in place, we wanted to know, what are the effects of
web-based video models on teacher knowledge of evidence-based practices, on implementation
of these practices, and on student learning. Although our field-testing of the video models is
clearly preliminary, it has produced some promising results. Video models enhanced learning of
both prospective and practicing teachers across the three university sites. Both novice and
veteran teachers expressed a preference for viewing video models of exemplary implementation
of strategies over simply reading about or hearing about the strategies.
We also learned some unexpected lessons as we conducted this series of field tests. For
example, novice teachers may not learn best from simply watching expert examples. Although
the novice teachers shared that they enjoyed watching the videos, many expressed uncertainty
about what it was they were supposed to gather from the different video clips. Our anecdotal
evidence indicates that, with a simple introduction (either in person or via voice or text
elaboration), novice teachers can learn from streamed videos of expert teaching examples. Our
Learning Stream 24
novice teachers also indicated that a model can be too good, making effective implementation of
a strategy appear to novices to be an unattainable goal. We used outstanding teachers in our
models, and some novices responded to their strategy implementation with an attitude of “I could
never do that.” New technologies allow personalization of the viewing experience. Using SMIL
technology, several versions of a video model can be produced from a single videotaped lesson.
A novice can watch the lesson with substantial support from text and voice elaboration, while a
more expert teacher can view the lesson uninterrupted by explanation. Much more work is
required to determine which supports are appropriate for which learners.
We also learned that the evaluation of teachers’ understandings of and abilities to
implement newly introduced instructional practices is difficult. We used a variety of evaluation
methods, including recall instruments, narrative writing prompts, and observations, in an attempt
to evaluate learning outcomes at multiple levels. The evaluation of teachers’ ability to recall
important features of an instructional practice was a simple and straightforward process and the
results were easy to analyze. However, our attempts to evaluate deeper levels of understanding
by teachers and their ability to synthesize or apply that knowledge proved difficult. For example,
the narrative writing prompt used at the math field-test site did not provide much useful
information. Responses to the prompt were brief in many cases. Perhaps we expected too much
in such a short time frame. Perhaps teachers demonstrate deeper levels of understanding if given
more time to reflect on what they experienced with the video. Evaluation methods for capturing
teachers’ understandings of evidence-based practices need to be refined in order to better capture
higher order learning outcomes of teachers.
The results of our field-tests, although preliminary, are promising in terms of the
potential impact of web-based video on teachers and student outcomes; however further research
into this area is needed. The three separate field tests reported in this paper represent our initial
inquiry and were not designed to determine effect or to generalize our findings. Each field test
site used slightly different processes for evaluating the respective videos. This was done because
each selected content-based instructional practice and university context was different in content,
Learning Stream 25
complexity, and class structure. Nonetheless, we learned some important information about the
use of web-based video in teacher education. Importantly, positive effects from video on teacher
outcomes were found across the three separate sites. This finding is encouraging, particularly
given the variations in the instructional practices and the contexts of each field-test site. We
learned that web-based video can be used in a variety of teaching contexts and can be tailored to
meet the realities and needs of different teachers.
A picture—or in this case a video—is worth at least a thousand words, and we believe
that no lecture or textbook can come close to conveying the practice as well as the dynamics of a
video model of exemplary classroom instruction. Although the use of video models of evidence-
based teaching practices holds substantial promise for enhancing knowledge and practice of
prospective and practicing teachers, numerous questions remain. How generalizable would our
findings be with larger scale implementation? Can teachers effectively generalize a strategy to
age groups or populations significantly different from what is depicted in the video model? How
effectively can the video models we produce be used by other teacher educators? What is the role
of multiple viewings of a web-based video model? How replicable is our video model creation
process? Further research in this area is clearly needed.
Learning Stream 26
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud experiences for
young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 10-20.
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York: Guilford.
Beck, R. J., King, A., & Marshall, S. K. (2002). Effects of videocase construction on preservice
teachers' observations of teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4), 345.
Bosco, J. (1986). An analysis of evaluations of interactive video. Educational Technology, 26(5),
Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990)
Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help (pp. 115-141). In D.
Nix & R. Sprio (Eds.), Cognition, education and multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brownell, M. T., Smith, S. W., McNellis, J. R., & Miller, M. D. (1997) Attrition in special
education: Why teachers leave the classroom and where they go. Exceptionality, 7,
Bryant, B.R. (1996). Using alternative assessment techniques to plan and evaluate mathematics
instruction. LD Forum. 21(2), 24-33.
Carnine, D. (1999). Campaigns for moving research into practice. Remedial and Special
Education, 20(1), 2-6.
Deal, W. F., III (2003). The technology teacher’s toolbox: Streaming video. Technology
Teacher, 62(8), 18-21.
Dempsey, B. J. & Jones, P. (Eds.) (1998). Internet issues and applications, 1997-1998. Lanham,
Denton, C. A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading
intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 201-211.
Fill, K., & Ottewill, R. (2006). Sink or swim: Taking advantage of developments in video
streaming. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(4), 397-408.
Learning Stream 27
Fletcher, J. D. (1989). The effectiveness and cost of interactive videodisc instruction. Machine-
Mediated Learning, 3(4), 361-385.
Fletcher, J. D. (1990). Effectiveness and cost of interactive videodisc instruction in defense
training and education. IDA report r2372. U.S. Virginia.
Friel, S. N., & Carboni, L. W. (2000). Using video-based pedagogy in an elementary
mathematics methods course. School Science & Mathematics, 100(3), 118-127.
Florida Department of Education. (2006). Educator certification: Information about teaching for
the career changer or college graduate of a non-education program. Available:
Ginsburg, H.P. (1987). How to assess number facts, calculation, and understanding. In D.D.
Hammill (Ed.). Assessing the abilities and instructional needs of students (pp 483-503).
Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Glaser, C. W., Rieth, H. J., Kinzer, C. K., Colburn, L. K., & Peter, J. (1999). A description of the
impact of multimedia anchored instruction on classroom interactions. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 14(2), 27-43.
Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. New York:
Greenwood, C. R., & Abbott, M. (2001). The research to practice gap in special education.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 276-289.
Howell, K.W., Fox, S.L., & Morehead, M.K. (1993). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching
and decision-making (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Hughes, J. E., Packard, B. W., & Pearson, P. D. (2000). The role of hypermedia cases on
preservice teachers' views of reading instruction. Action in Teacher Education, 22(2),
Kennedy, L.M. & Tipps, S. (1998). Guiding children’s learning of mathematics (8th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kinzer, C. K., & Risko, V. J. (1998). Multimedia and enhanced learning: Transforming
Learning Stream 28
preservice education. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer
(Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic
world. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Liedtke, W. (1988, November). Diagnosis in mathematics: The advantages of an interview.
Arithmetic Teacher, 181-184.
MacDonald, C.J., Stodel, E.J., Farres, L.G., Breithaupt, K. & Gabriel, M.A. (2001). The demand
driven learning model: A framework for web-based learning. The Internet and Higher
Education, 4, 9-30.
Martinez, E. A., & Hallahan, D. P. (2000). Some thoughts on international perspectives in
special education, with special attention to the research-to-practice gap. Exceptionality, 8,
McLeskey, J. L., Tyler, N. C., & Flippin, S. S. (2004). The supply of and demand for special
education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special
education teachers. Journal of Special Education, 38, 5-21.
McMaster, K. N., & Fuchs, D. (2005). A focus on cooperative learning for students with
disabilities. (No. 11): Division of Learning Disabilities and Division of Research of the
Council for Exceptional Children.
McNeil, B. J., & Nelson, K. R. (1991). Meta-analysis of interactive video instruction: A 10 year
review of achievement effects. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(1), 1-6.
Mercer, C.D. & Mercer, A.R. (2004). Teaching students with learning problems (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Newman, F., & Scurry, J. (2001). Online technology pushes pedagogy to the forefront.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(44), B7.
O’Brien, C., Dieker, L.A., & Platt, J.C. (2006). Can academically struggling adolescents learn
to implement inclusive learning strategies from video models? A research brief.
(MURMSI Research Brief No. G-1A). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University,
Learning Systems Institute. Retrieve from http://www.murmsi.org/Reports/reports.htm.
Learning Stream 29
Office of Policy Research and Improvement. (2002). Critical teacher shortage areas 2003-2004.
Tallahassee: Florida Department of Education.
Rieth, H. J., Bryant, D. P., Kinzer, C. K., Colburn, L. K., Hur, S.-J., Hartman, P., & Choi, H. S.
(2003). An analysis of the impact of anchored instruction on teaching and learning
activities in two ninth-grade language arts classes. Remedial and Special education,
Robinson, V. M. J. (1998). Methodology and the research-practice gap. Educational Researcher,
Rosenberg, M. S., & Sindelar, P. T. (2001). The proliferation of alternative routes to
certification in special education: A critical review of the literature. Arlington, VA:
National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education, Council for Exceptional
Children. Available: www.special-ed-careers.org.
Schrader, P., Leu, D., & Kinzer, C.(2003). Using internet delivered video cases, to support pre-
service teachers' understanding of effective early literacy instruction: An exploratory
study. Instructional Science, 31(4/5), 317-340.
Teh, G. P. L., (1999). Assessing student perceptions of internet-based online learning
environments. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26, 397-402.
The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its
relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-11.
Van de Walle, J.A. (1994). Elementary school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (2nd ed.).
White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.
Wetzel, C. D., Radtke, P. H., & Stern, H. W. (1994). Instructional effectiveness of video media.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zigmond, N., Vallecorsa, A., & Silverman, R. (1981). Assessment for instructional planning in
special education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.