Focus on teaching using video

In my undergraduate course work, I took a class in which we had to do a video tapped lesson. Yes- VHS. And I know that dates me. Once we received our videos back we had to look at them and write a paper about our performance. Unfortunately, we did not have access to any checklists or ideas for what we should be looking for. We were not even novices in the teaching world and that experience proved to not be very valuable. Today some certification programs require video lessons and it is a central component of the National Teaching Board certification process. 

A few years ago I was able to take an online course on coaching that extensively used video as a way to highlight the good things occurring and where challenges occurred. Further since it was used in monthly observations for new teachers, it was able to showcase growth.

Through the years I have thought about recording lessons to help me grow, especially when I have had less than critical evaluations. When Jim Knight's Focus on Teaching: Using Videos for High-Impact Instruction came across my door, I was curious if it could provide some of the guidance regarding using video for self improvement. 

First he is a huge proponent of using video with coaching, team work, evaluation and self development IF the teacher is willing. He does not feel that when it is an imposed structure, it can be nearly so worthwhile and will encounter resistance that may well render it useless. 

On page 13 he quotes Fritz saying," Growth involves two factors a clear picture of the current reality and a clear goal." In order to continue to develop, people need to objectively understand where they stand. In spite of Danielson era matrixes for evaluation, teachers often do not trust the results as accurate and the improvement goals may be impossible to achieve. (I have worked in many districts where top scores are not able to be achieved.) When an individual can watch themselves teach, however, they can spot some of the highs and lows and then formulate goals that will help them improve.

The book contains some simple data gathering charts to use while watching the video. These include areas such as ratio of interactions (positive/negative, male/female), mindset, consistency of corrections, opportunities to respond, types of question, instructional v non-instructional time, time on task. If I had been given a checklist of things to look for when I had been watching my preservice self, the experience would have been far more valuable. Further, it suggests taping only a segment of class rather than the whole thing to facilitate being able to spend the time required to evaluate the video. There may be, however, times to tape a whole lesson- for example, watch interactions with a particular student or group to better understand interactions and plan interventions.

The structure of the book is clear and concise. Each chapter starts with a concept map of the important ideas in the chapter. Then it clearly discusses the work. At the end there is a section on turning ideas into actions- looking at things from the viewpoints of students, teachers, coaches, principals and system leaders. There is a bulleted summary followed by recommendations for going deeper.

Since Jim's area of focus is coaching, he is particularly focused on that through the book. Lots of ways to use video in coaching lessons are presented. That said, this is not a book with an audience of only coaches. He distributes ideas around a variety of roles. Although quotes abound throughout the text, vignettes would have been a great addition. Links to videos of the various aspects of video use could have been super-useful.  

Disrupting class

 Clayton M. Christensen, Michael B. Horn and Curtis W. Johnson got together and published Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns based on the concept of disruption in business. Their 2008 (and subsequent 2011 edition) book, presented the idea that education will become personalized and computer based. They predicted that "by 2019, about 50 percent of high school courses will be delivered online" (p. 98-99). While they did not imagine the pandemic, I am sure they would have predicted that leveraging that world event would have led to even more online programming today. This thesis clearly has not come into being. True there are more online courses available to students. Some small districts are leveraging online platforms to offer classes they cannot do so in house. Some districts are utilizing online college classes for advanced students. Many homeschooled children are using online classes to access material. In general, however, these classes are simply a different setting for the same education rather than a different arrangement of education for students.

Early on in their book they describe the purposes of education.

Purpose for education	details
Preserve democracy and inculcate democratic values	Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, and Horace Mann Basic universal education to prepare citizens to participate in democracy and instill morals Melting pot for children from different backgrounds to teach social norms and American culture Elite education for the meritorious and upper class to lead the country wisely as elected officials
Prepare everyone for vocations	Late 1800’s emerges: 1905 1/3 children made it to high school; 1930 75% went to high school; 1960 69% graduate from high school Continue to prepare for democracy Wide offerings to suit a wide variety of interests and skills Add social services (school lunches, medical care), recreational activities and extracurricular activities “Complex and expensive as they offer a historically unmatched array of offerings” (p. 57)
Keep America competitive	Sputnik; growth of Japanese companies Standardized test use rises- look at improvement in average test scores Students have TOO many choices and are not completing the important classes
Eliminate poverty	Johnson’s Great Society; Head Start; NCLB Every child in every demographic must improve so that proficiency will lead to an elimination of poverty Even more standardized testing to promote growth
Fun and socialization	What children and adolescents want out of schools

The first three fully embrace the idea that society expected access to education. When it came to eliminating poverty, however, the goal became ensuring achievement. While they mention the student motivation throughout the book, they fail to include it as a purpose. This perhaps is the biggest reason why many students are not seeing different education. Although the sage on the stage teaching style is slowly eroding and still present, we have entered more of an upside-down clown stage where teachers are expected to engage students with entertainment so that kids have fun. Unfortunately, the fun and socializing bit is often at odds with other purposes of education. In fact the authors point out that "students languish unmotivated... [because] education is not a job they are trying to do" (p. 169). In spite of this acknowledgement, they argue that personalized instruction can solve this problem.

Over the pandemic many students checked out of learning. Millions did not have reliable internet access with a device other than a phone. They might log in, turn the camera off and wander off. Many checked out completely. Estimates vary, but perhaps 3 million students are unaccounted for (out of a roughly 77 million in total). Students grasped their idea of what education should be and flew with it- using their phones more than ever. Seeking learning or play pods. While parents did their best, competing interests, like jobs and health concerns, allowed supervision of children to decline. 

Instead of leveraging the opportunity for flipped classes, an idea that originated in 2007 by Jonathan Bergman and Aaron Sams, teachers often doubled down on strategies they knew- presentations, readings and videos followed by worksheets, aka Google forms. In some districts personalized programs like iReady and IXL were used to reinforce learning, but to truly leverage these programs, expensive subscriptions needed to be obtained. Many personalized platforms require huge teacher investments in selecting modules for students, providing corrective instruction and recording results. Personalized has most often meant that the teacher is designing pathways for each student or group- a very labor intensive activity.

The authors point out that "companies typically improve their products at a much faster pace than customers need, so that products, which at one point were not good enough, ultimately pack in more features and functions than customers can use" (p. 45). So many platforms are slowly starting to overcome some of these shortcomings, but certainly not at a rate that was able to leverage the disruption of the pandemic.

Do I believe that personalized education is the future? Sort of. We need to first overcome the ennui of students toward education. Project based learning will not encourage students who would rather be watching cat videos or playing online games. Constant communication with friends through texting is hard competition. Students in America are competing in a global marketplace where being the best enables you to have indoor plumbing. People in other nations are hungrier. That makes for tough competition. Is allowing students to have more choice in instruction important- yes- but the choice cannot be study English or text with friends. Is allowing students to adjust the pace of their instruction important? Yes, but what do we do with kids who finish a year's worth of instruction in 3 months or with kids who need 3 years to master the material? These questions have bogged the contracts of the 70's and mastery learning of the 90's. Without reenivisioning education, many of the authors' concepts are dandelion fluff- cozy to look at, reemerging with different names over time but amounting to little. Until we get over the graduation rate is students spending 4 years in high school and learning to read should take three years our education cannot leverage individualized learning.