Teachers’ responses to representations of writing instruction: when is critiquing learning?

Mary K Sheard Colin Harrison

The University of NottinghamSchool of EducationLearning Sciences Research Institute

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005

Abstract

The paper reports early findings from a research project in which participants respond in oral protocols and written text to two video extracts of writing instruction in a computer learning environment provided by Interactive Classroom Explorer (ICE), a computer-mediated interface for viewing and critiquing digital video online or offline. While the study has produced a large data set, data analysis is currently at an early stage. The data and findings presented in this paper draw on the protocol responses of one pair of participants and one individual participant as they engaged in an online task requiring a response to a video extract of writing instruction. How critiquing in teachers’ discourse around representations of teaching performs as epistemic activity is investigated in three distinct ways. Firstly, examples of depth and complexity in critiquing are discussed along with their associated linguistic markers; secondly Lye’s (1995,i) descriptors of how critiquing is performed are evaluated; and thirdly the relationship between critique and other epistemic activities is illustrated.Findings support applying the descriptors of epistemic critiquing adapted from Lye (1995,i) to an analysis of learning from video. In addition, the findings suggest that critiquing incorporating features of depth and complexity adapted from Lye (1995,ii) results in creating new pedagogical meanings and insights, and that this presents the site for constructive learning.Implications for future research are highlighted.

Key words: critiquing, epistemic activity, depth, complexity, discourse, constructive learning.

Contacttexmks@nottingham.ac.uk

0

Teachers’ responses to representations of writing instruction: when is critiquing learning?

Mary K SheardColin Harrison

The University of NottinghamSchool of EducationLearning Sciences Research Institute

Introduction

The tradition of using video extracts as representations of exemplary practice to support the development of professional competence and expertise is well established (Brophy, 2004), and has featured significantly in the approach to training and professional development adopted by the National Literacy Strategy (DfEE,1998).However, little research is currently available regarding how and what teachers learn from such visualisations of practice, and how, if at all, shared representations of practice might contribute to a professional knowledge base (Hiebert et al, 2002) within various communities of practitioners (Wenger, 1998).The research question and focus of the present paper is “What do teachers’ responses to visualisations of writing instruction reveal about their learning?” In particular, the paper attempts to explore the relationship between critiquing and learning with representations as evidenced in teachers’ discourse around digital video extracts of writing instruction. The theoretical framework adopted draws on recent work on computers as cognitive tools (Lajoie, 2000), on Ohlsson’s (1995) theory of epistemic activities and discourse as the medium for learning; and on literary theory and critique (Lye,1995 ,i,ii).From this theoretical position, the paper reports early findings from one phase of a wider research project in which participants respond to 2 video extracts of writing instruction in a computer learning environment provided by Interactive Classroom Explorer (ICE), a computer-mediated interface for viewing and critiquing digital video online or offline (Harison et al, 2003). ‘Video-as-method’ is adopted as a research tool that appears to offer a significant advance for researching how teachers learn from visualisations of practice (Sheard et al, 2005).Using epistemic activities (Ohlsson, 1995) and features of critiquing as analytical lenses, the paper attempts to reveal insights into teachers’ learning individually and in a pair in an online learning environment.

1

How the paper is organised The paper is organised into 4 sections; firstly an overview of ICE as a cognitive tool for critiquing digital video is presented; secondly the theoretical framework underpinning the present inquiry is outlined, drawing on computers as cognitive tools, epistemic activities, and critique in Literary Theory; thirdly a summary of the design, method, and analysis of a research project and early findings of the relationship between critiquing and teacher learning with representations is provided; and finally conclusions and directions for future research are discussed.

Interactive Classroom Explorer (ICE)

Interactive Classroom Explorer (ICE) is a computer-mediated interface for viewing and critiquing digital video. Professional conversations are facilitated “by offering an environment that can permit much closer attention [than traditional video systems afford] to the content, discourse and pedagogy of a lesson or other teaching and learning event” (Harrison et al, 2003). ICE allows users simultaneous access to video extracts and accompanying transcripts, commentaries, and artefacts (see Figure 1). It incorporates a flexible facility for textual responses, such as assignments, position papers, or reflective notes. It also features an online discussion board. A major component of the ICE learning environment is the facility for video quotation, whereby teachers select their own video extracts that can be pasted into emails or discussion board messages.

Figure 1. ICE screen shot

The present paper reports on a research project in which ICE was piloted as a research tool and as a cognitive tool for teachers to respond to, critique, and share their ideas around video extracts.

Theoretical framework

2

Computers as cognitive tools for constructive learningLajoie (2000) suggests that the concept of computers as cognitive tools, including semantic organisation tools, knowledge construction tools, and conversation tools, enables us to consider how learners represent what they know in different ways. The present paper adopts this position in reference to computer-mediated digital video and teachers’ critiques. Lajoie (2000) argues persuasively that as computers engage learners in a range of cognitive activities individually and collaboratively, the concept of computers as cognitive tools is resulting in the emergence of a new third way of conceptualising constructive learning. This third way blends both the individual construction of knowledge and knowledge building within a community, where issues of dialogue, context, knowledge organisation, knowledge representation, and affect are central themes (Lajoie, 2000). It would therefore seem important to consider how these issues impact on and feature in teachers’ critiquing. From their survey of the literature on constructive learning, Akhras et al (2000) identify constructiveness, cumulativeness, self-regulatedness, and reflectiveness as the properties that a learning process should possess. This identification by Akhras et al (2000) prompts the following questions: “Are natural language descriptions of constructive learning present in teachers’ critiquing of video extracts? Do they feature and how do they operate in teachers’ critiquing of video extracts?” The present paper attempts to address these questions in the context of identifying and exploring teachers’ critiquing of video extracts.We now turn our attention to considering work reported in the literature on how cognitive processes are performed in discourse, and how this analysis might provide insights into how critiquing functions as a cognitive activity for enhancing teacher learning.

Cognitive Epistemic ActivitiesOhlsson (1995:51) argues that “abstract concepts, ideas and principles find their primary expression in cultural products, not in goal attainment. In particular, there is a deep connection between abstract knowledge and discourse.” Ohlsson (1995) concludes that the study of higher order learning might begin by asking what people do when they produce discourse, and by identifying the canonical tasks involved when people talk and write.Ohlsson’s (1995) taxonomy of epistemic activities connects understanding with discourse. Ohlsson’s taxonomy includes describing, explaining, predicting, arguing, critiquing, explicating, and defining. Ohlsson (1995:51) equates the epistemic activity of critiquing with evaluating, and defines to critique a cultural product as “to fashion a discourse such that the person who partakes of that discourse becomes aware of the good and bad points of that product”. Ohlsson (1995:52) argues that “understanding seems to be peculiarly exercised and engaged” when epistemic activities are performed, and highlights the need to understand what people are doing when they perform epistemic activities, and how relevant knowledge is represented in memory. Ohlsson (1995:56) further suggests that new hypotheses about how epistemic activities are performed, and how abstract declarative knowledge is encoded, are needed to generate new hypotheses about change.A more detailed operational definition of critiquing than that offered by Ohlsson (1995) may be useful in determining in how critiquing performs as an epistemic activity leading to learning. For this reason, the paper adapts a Literary Theory approach to critiquing to refine and redefine the analysis of critique in discourse, as outlined below.

3

Critique in Literary Theory"Literary theory," sometimes designated "critical theory," or "theory," and now undergoing a transformation into "cultural theory" within the discipline of literary studies, can be understood as the set of concepts and intellectual assumptions on which rests the work of explaining or interpreting literary texts. Literary theory refers to any principles derived from internal analysis of literary texts or from knowledge external to the text that can be applied in multiple interpretive situations. In this way, Literary theory is said to provide a rationale for what constitutes the subject matter of criticism—"the literary"—and the specific aims of critical practice—the act of interpretation itself (The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2005). These two principles (what constitutes the subject matter of criticism, and the interpretive act), may also be applied to an analysis of critique and critiquing in discourse. Critiquing may be considered a creative act incorporating subject, domain, and field, in that it is the field’s legitimisation of the subject’s engagement with the domain (Thompson, 2005). The epistemic activity of critiquing may therefore be personal sense making from an informed perspective, resulting in learning that is constructive, cumulative, self-regulated, and reflective (Akhras et al, 2000). Literary Theory offers specific pointers to understanding how critiquing may function as an epistemic activity. We would argue that Lye’s (1995,i) descriptors of how critiquing is performed offers a potential template for the performance of critiquing in discourse. In particular, creating meaning and defending an interpretation;exploring the ideology represented; and representing ‘reality’ as a logical existential proposition appear to offer a powerful set of functional descriptors.In addition, Lye (1995,ii) proposes complexity and depth as features of critique. Adapting Lye’s (1995) ideas to provide analytical lens, we conceptualise complexity as recognising the interplay of interacting factors, and depth as different levels of abstraction including the use of linguistic symbol systems such as metaphor, simile and analogy. Using these perspectives, the present paper aims to identify linguistic markers of complexity and depth in teachers’ critiquing.

Summary of the research project

Design and method The study reported below piloted ICE as a research tool to explore how teachers use representations of teaching to enhance their own learning.Thirteen primary school teachers participated in the research either as individual respondents from different schools (7 teachers) or in pairs from the same school (6 teachers from 3 schools). The participant group represented a range of ages and teaching experience and closely reflected the gender profile of the profession (women = 10; men = 3). Participating schools were located in 3 neighbouring Local Education Authorities in the North of England. Each participant or pair was issued with a computer disc containing materials for engaging in offline and online tasks using ICE. Two extracts of training and professional development videos produced by the National Literacy Strategy (DfEE, 1998) were selected as stimulus material to promote professional discourse about the subject content, pedagogical content, and teachers’ learning. One video extract focused on creating a suspense paragraph, while the other focused on the use of powerful verbs to develop characterization. The video

4

extracts featured the instruction of classes of Year 4 pupils (9 year olds) and Year 6 pupils (11 year olds), matching the pupil age range taught by the participating teachers (Years 4, 5, or 6).The research design required the offline task to precede the online task, while alternating the presentation order of video extracts across participant groupings. Tasks were undertaken by participants in their own time within the constraints of the research project. In both offline and online conditions, participants were asked to undertake a think-aloud protocol as they engaged with and responded to the video extracts. The protocol was followed by a textual word- processed response including a video quotation focus (an additional focus of particular professional interest selected as a short clip from the video extract). In addition, the online condition required the participants to post into an integral discussion board and to respond to the posts of others where appropriate.

AnalysisProtocols, word-processed responses, and discussion board posts were analysed for units of discourse performing as critique, either as evaluative utterances (Ohlsson, 1995) or as examples of articulation of and defence of an interpretation (Lye, 1995,i). The features of literary critique (depth, complexity, and quality) presented by Lye (1995,ii) were used as analytical tools in the first instance, but were subsequently adapted to provide more appropriate lenses through which to analyse how epistemic critique is performed in discourse and how relevant knowledge is represented in memory (Ohlsson, 1995:52). Adaptation of Lye’s features of literary critiquing as an analytical tool in the present study focuses on 2 main features of critiquing: complexity and depth. The analytical framework and component strands is presented in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Analytical framework for epistemic critique

Complexity Recognises a number of interacting factors in the learning environment: social, physical, and technological, as well as cognitive, semantic and affective

Captures detail that illumines the representation of pedagogy

Recognises the conflicting and supportive relationships between pedagogic ideas and events

Makes sense of pedagogic tensions and ambiguities

Depth Focuses on different levels of abstraction; use of abstract nouns

Uses symbol systems including metaphor, simile, and analogy

Early findingsThe data and findings presented in this paper draw on the protocol responses of one pair of participants and one participant responding individually as they engaged in the online tasks.

5

Three extracts of transcript are presented below as semantic units to give the reader a sense of teachers’ discourses in uninterrupted form.The first transcript is part of the pair’s verbal protocol in response to a video clip, and the second is their verbal protocol as they respond to an online discussion post. The third transcript is part of the individual participant’s protocol in response to a video clip.How critiquing in teachers’ discourse performs as epistemic activity is reported in 3 distinct ways. Firstly, examples of depth and complexity are presented and discussed along with their associated linguistic markers; secondly Lye’s (1995) descriptors of how critique is performed are evaluated in the context of teachers’ discourse; and thirdly the relationship between critiquing and other epistemic activities is illustrated.

Transcript extracts

Transcript 1Lee and Sue are responding to a video extract on the use of powerful verbs to develop characterisation in which the teacher models writing.

L: I mean, there’s probably nothing wrong with the situation. We would be interacting more with the children possibly with the whiteboard, I don’t know. It’s very good, it’s very good, because it is the author of work and the choice of ( )S: I think she is just recapping.L: Yeah, but just now she was writing and she was, you know, just looking at the whole thing so farS: Yeah, yeah(Continue video to end)L: What I find here technologically is that it is very different to commit comments to writing than it is to just chatting, because if you are going to write something here then it has to be more significant.S: So this is where we have to write our comments?L: MmmS: Okay. So, mmmm. Can I say something?L: Oh you certainly can!S: (Reads as types) “When I have tried this I feel very conscious of silence and no interaction from the children, and it is very off putting, so I curtail it and ask them to help me write.” Also, she gave them four or five instructions to think about, no to include in their writing, and my class would have found that rather a lot to manage, remembering all the other bits”. What about you, [name supplied]?L: Well I was just musing with an idea which may or may not have any validity, which is (reads as types) “ I would be interested in trying out a modelling and demonstration where I videoed myself writing”S: Mm I like thatL: “and editing the text e.g. writing a weak verb and crossing it out and using a more powerful one , then showing the video and doing a commentary on it with the option of pausing it.”S: MmmL: Not sure about how you, it seems to me there is two layers, there’s the writing of work and there is the commentary on the writing work, although the commentary is an internal commentary, and of course as a writer you don’t actually, you are not as explicit in your internal commentaryS: NoL: It’s just the idea of separating the two personasS: MmmL: And this would also provide the security of the hard bit. Because the writing is quite hard, and you have said you obviously compose the piece in advance, so you know what you are going to write, but you also have got to try, in neither of the examples we’ve seen do they appear to have been referring to a text unless they have memorised it, so that’s quite stressful.S: MmmL: So you get all that stress out of the way, the process, that’s in the can

6

S: YesL: and then you can do the commentaryS: I like the idea. I think it’s a really good idea. Shall we post it then?_____________________________________________________________________

Transcript 2Lee and Sue are responding to an online discussion post about a video extract on creating a suspense paragraph in which the teacher models annotating her own text using pupils’ responses.

L: “Children were far too passive” (Reads on ) Oh, that’s the ‘suspense’, so you can respond to the response. So, when someone is saying children were too passiveS: But that was the whole point of itL: Well that was what I was thinking, that, the two clips are fused in my mind now, but in both of them the children seemed to have been attentive to the modellingS:YeahL: And there is a case for that. You said you found it scary when there’sS: NoL: It was scary, but that doesn’t necessarily make it invalidS: No, but I felt that, I always feel that I like interaction, I respond to interaction, and I always feel that L:MmmS: to keep focussed on what it is I am trying to dol: Yes. We could say something like (reads as writes) “Re: not interacting with children, if the teacher L: truly modelling a writer’s composing method, then in order for them to be better at it, that is a solitary activity”S: And they need to listen.L: Yes (Reads as writes) “And they need to just observe it”S: Yes. I agree. Shall we leave it at that?

Transcript 3Kathy is responding to the video on creating a suspense paragraph.(Early in the transcript)…I liked the way she explained everything she’d done, why she’d put that in, sort of thinking aloud which then gives the children ideas for when they’re writing, encouraging them to think about their writing and what they want to impact in the reader. So I thought it was very effective in developing pupils’ understanding of how a writer may introduce and build suspense…. … I don’t know if I have learned anything from this material. There weren’t things in there that I felt were particularly new. So I don’t know if I’ve learnt anything. It was very good. But looking at a text and asking them to highlight effective phrases and effective sentences isn’t something new. So I suppose I haven’t learnt anything, but that’s not because I didn’t think it was any good. Just because I just don’t feel it’s anything new…(At the end of the transcript) I feel it raises an important issue of…why it’s important to discuss and to share the children’s ideas. And that needs to be developed in teaching so that the children understand how to write effective suspense, which I think is quite difficult. To make it spine chilling or really make you start to think. It’s not easy to write effective suspense, so the discussion that comes before it is really important…… So in teaching this aspect of writing, I think that clip raises an issue, an important issue about the importance of child talk and children’s ideas. You can assess whether they’ve got it or not. She can’t really say why Kayleigh thought that was an effective sentence, because she didn’t ask her why.

7

Findings related to complexityTranscript 1, from Lee’s idea of separating the two personas to the end, reveals the relationship between critiquing and learning where Lee presents a resolution to the complex problem of recognising and managing the interplay of a number of elements in pedagogic practice, including cognitive, social, physical/technological, and affective elements.Sue’s revelation in transcript 1, “When I have tried this I feel very conscious of silence and no interaction from the children, and it is very off putting, so I curtail it and ask them to help me write.”suggests hidden tensions between Sue’s own professional beliefs and confidence and the perceived cultural expectations in the wider community of practice. Complex interactions of cognitive, social, semantic, and affective factors are implied. Confronting and articulating this complexity as part of the critique may be considered a preparatory stage of learning, which takes on an executive learning function in collaboration with Lee (von Hout Wolters et al, 2000).Similarly, Lee’s reference to the relationship between explicitness and ‘internal commentary’ attempts to make sense of pedagogic ambiguity, and his discourse around providing security in demonstrating writing suggests a recognition of the full potential meaning of the pedagogical issues and events represented in the video.In transcript 2, which features critiquing a critique of a video clip, comparison and nuance provide a further insight into the representation of pedagogy around modelling writing and interaction. The entire extract represents making sense of pedagogic tensions and ambiguities around modelling writing.Similarly, in transcript 2 we see a recognition of the complex interaction of cognitive, social, and semantic factors with affect, which results in clarification and an increased professional certainty about the pedagogical validity of pupils’ listening role as writing is modelled in teaching episodes.In transcript 3, Kathy emphasises the interaction of cognitive, social, and semantic factors in learning in her critiquing of the video clip, particularly in her criticism of the teacher in underplaying the role of pupil discussion for learning. We see in the final part of the transcript how Kathy’s critiquing also operates in making sense of pedagogic tensions and ambiguities in the video clip and in formulating a reflective response to them.Discourse markers of complexity in critiquing are located in references to the interaction of factors (cognitive, social, semantic and affective) in learning, and to the influences on learning of the social, physical, and technological learning environments. The findings suggest that discourse around uncertainty and ambiguity may also indicate complexity in critiquing.

Findings related to level of abstractionTranscript extracts 1 and 2 are punctuated with abstract nouns including ‘silence’, ‘interaction’, ‘idea’, ‘validity’, ‘internal commentary’, ‘security’, and ‘stress’. This indicates that Sue and Lee are engaging conceptually with images of pedagogy derived from the video clips, and that some cognitive restructuring may be taking place. This is supported by Lee’s references to ‘musing with an idea’, being ‘interested in trying out’, and ‘it seems to me there is 2 layers…’, which indicate inference.

8

In addition, the final part of transcript extract 1, beginning “Not sure how you ...”, suggests a level of abstraction that captures the representation of writing instruction as a complex activity involving composition and commentary, and the pedagogical challenge of managing such complexity in practice. At this point the critiquing becomes epistemic, and produces a constructive learning outcome in the potential resolution of the identified pedagogic problem.In transcript 3, while Kathy refers to ideas and issues, her discourse operates more at evaluative and affective levels than at an abstract level. There is little inclusion of abstract nouns, and the discourse operates more as deduction than inference.Abstract nouns and examples of inference are therefore suggested as discourse markers of depth in critiquing.

Findings related to the use of symbol systemsThe discourse in Transcript 1 provides rich insights into cognitive processes leading to learning as Lee in particular deploys metaphor as a key epistemic tool. Examples of metaphor used in this way include ‘musing’, ‘layers’, and ‘persona’.Lee’s use of metaphor principally functions to make sense of pedagogic tensions and ambiguities identified through viewing the video clips, and acts as a catalyst to presenting an alterative pedagogical strategy. In this way the use of metaphor in critiquing contributes to constructive learning. In contrast, Transcript 3 includes little in the use of symbol systems. Metaphor, simile, and analogy are not in evidence. However, Kathy’s critiquing does capture details, comments, and incidents that illuminate the video representation of pedagogy and its shortcomings, but do not engage in depth with pedagogic issues or subject content the video raises. Metaphor and the use of comparison present themselves as clear discourse markers for this aspect of depth in critiquing.

Findings related to descriptors of how epistemic critiquing is performedFindings support using the descriptors of epistemic critique adapted from Lye (1995,i), as lenses for investigating critiquing in discourse, and throw some light on the relationships between the descriptors. The data suggests that epistemic critique is performed in the first instance as an articulation of and a defence of an interpretation, and that within the articulated defence there is exploration of the ideology represented as well as the representation or explication of an alternative reality. The main finding refers to the epistemic nature of critiquing leading to learning. Analysis of the data suggests that critiquing incorporating features of complexity and depth adapted from Lye (1995,ii) results in creating new pedagogical meanings and insights, and that this presents the site for constructive learning, as suggested in the transcripts of Sue and Lee’s discourse (transcripts 1 and 2). Analysis of transcript 3 suggests that where use of symbol systems and comparison are negligible, but where pedagogic tensions and ambiguities are considered, critiquing acts to support cumulative learning in which earlier knowledge and understandings are reinforced and enhanced.

Findings related to the relationship between critique and other epistemic activitiesOhlsson’s (1995) tentative taxonomy suggests a bounded and analysable set of epistemic activities in which each has distinctive definition. In extending the concept of ‘critiquing’ from simple evaluation to the articulated defence of an interpretation leading to learning, we see other epistemic activities coming into play. Transcript 1

9

presents a clear example of explication, or the formulation and explanation of an idea, as Lee develops an alternative pedagogical strategy. Transcript 2 reveals the role of explanation and self-explanation in critiquing leading to learning.In transcript 3 we see elements of description, self-explanation, and explication. These findings suggest an interrelationship between epistemic activities in critiquing, where other nested epistemic activities perform a contributory function in learning through critiquing.

Conclusions and directions for future research

While the study has produced a substantive data set, this paper reports on early findings using the discourse of three respondents, and therefore conclusions are tentative. However, findings suggest possibilities for considering when critiquing is learning and how critiquing is performed. This paper proposes that depth (in particular the use of abstraction and symbolism), and complexity (the interrelatedness of cognitive, social, semantic and affective factors in the learning environment) are features of epistemic critiquing in discourse that work on and transform information from video extracts, so creating new visualisations or internal representations.In particular, findings suggest that epistemic critique is performed in the first instance as an articulation of and a defence of an interpretation. Within the articulated defence there is exploration of the ideology represented as well as the representation or explication of an alternative reality. Critiquing is shown to perform as a site for constructive learning when teachers’ discourse incorporates features of depth and complexity adapted from Lye (1995,ii), employing symbol systems and metaphor in particular. In this way, epistemic critiquing results in the creation of new pedagogical meanings and insights, in the resolution of contradiction, ambiguity, and in the exploring and presentation of alternative pedagogic strategies. It may be inferred that epistemic critiquing results in cognitive rehearsal and visualisation (Boud et al, 1985), leading to new internal representations of pedagogical practice.Several implications for future research are raised, including identifying the ‘conditions’ most conducive to epistemic critiquing, whether responding as individuals, in pairs, or critiquing in online discussion posts, and investigating more precisely the relationship between epistemic critiquing and socially constructed learning. Where critiquing is considered epistemic, research could establish what is known and what is learned, and could further define a set of discourse markers to aid the identification of and reflection on professional learning. In addition, future research could usefully investigate when and why critiquing does not lead to learning. In extending the concept of ‘critiquing’ from evaluation to the articulated defence of an interpretation leading to learning, we see other epistemic activities including describing, explaining, and explicating performing a contributory role. While research has focussed on the role of argumentation and (self-)explanation in epistemic dialogue (de Vries et al, 2002; Renkl, 1997), little is currently known about the interrelationships between epistemic activities, how they perform in critiquing, and how they contribute to different kinds of conceptual and procedural learning.More research is therefore required into the relationships between critiquing and other epistemic activities, and into the unique contribution each epistemic activity performs in the learning process.

10

Contact:texmks@nottingham.ac.ukormary.sheard@netbreeze.co.uk

References

Akhras, F. N. & Self, J. A. (2000) Modeling the Process, Not the Product, of Learning. In S. Lajoie (Ed.) Computers As Cognitive Tools Volume 11. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Boud, D., Keogh, R. & Walker, D. (Eds) (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience Into Learning. London: Kogan Page

Brophy, J. (Ed) (2004) Using Video in Teacher Education. Oxford: Elsevier

de Vries, E., Lund, K. & Baker, M. (2002) Computer-Mediated Epistemic Dialogue: Explanation and Argumentation as Vehicles for Understanding Scientific Notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 1, 63-103

Department for Education and Employment (1998) National Literacy Strategy Framework for Teaching. Standards and Effectiveness Unit, London: DfEE

Harrison, C., & Pead, D. (2003) ‘P, not-P and perhaps Q’: a note on how Interactive Classroom Explorer (ICE) can support teacher professional development. School of Education, The University of Nottingham.

Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R. & Stigler, J. W. (2002) A Knowledge Base for the Teaching Profession: What Would It Look Like and How Can We Get One? Educational Researcher, 31, 5, 3-15.

Lajoie, S. (Ed.) (2000) Computers As Cognitive Tools: No More Walls, Volume 11. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lye, J.(i) (1995) Critical Reading: A Guide. http://ww.brocku.ca/English/jlye/critical reading.html (accessed 6/8/2005)

Lye, J.(ii) (1995) Depth, Complexity, Quality. http://www.brocku.ca/English/courses/1F95/depth-etc.html (accessed 6/8/2005) Ohlsson, S. (1995) Learning to Do and Learning to Understand: A Lesson and a Challenge for Cognitive Modeling, in P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.) Learning in Humans and Machines, Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science. Oxford: Pergamon

Renkl, A. (1997) Learning from Worked-Out Examples: A Study on Individual Differences. Cognitive Science 21, 1, 1-29

11

Sheard, M. K., and Harrison, C (2005) Learning from Teachers’ Representations of Learning with Video: a methodological focus on ‘video-as-method’. Paper presented at the EARLI 11th Biennial Conference, Nicosia, August 23-27, 2005

Shuell, T. J. (1992) Designing instructional computing systems for meaningful learning. In M. Jones & P. H. Winne (Eds.) Adaptive Learning Environments. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Literary Theory. http:www.iep.utm.edu/1/literary.html. Accessed 06/08/2005

Thompson, P. (2005) Creativity in Literacy. Seminar, University of Nottingham Literacy Advisory Group, University of Nottingham, June, 2005

Von Hout-Wolters, B., Simons, J.R., & Volet, S. (2000) Active Learning, Chapter 2 in R. J. Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds) New Learning. Dordrecht, Wolters-Kluwer

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

12