Growing student teachers’ reflective practice: explorations of an approach to video-stimulated reflection

ABSTRACT

In Swedish teacher education, student teachers commonly work with assignments in small groups. To enable student teachers to grow, both personally and professionally, they need to reflect both individually and collectively with their teacher educators and fellow student teachers. However, research shows that there is a risk in teacher education to narrow reflection into a tool for teacher learning, and not recognizing it as an activity that challenges thought. To avoid this risk, the approach to video-stimulated reflection (VSR) explored in this study, considers not only the notion of reflection, but also the reflective process itself, and its potential for growing student teachers to create a reflective space collaboratively. Three groups of student teachers participated in the VSR on a field practice at a local science center. Two of the groups were preparing for teaching science in lower and upper primary school. The third group was preparing for teaching science in secondary school. A reflective cycle analysis was applied to detect reflection in the VSR interviews. The results demonstrate that the approach to VSR enabled a reflective process in all three groups. The affordances and constraints of the VSR and the role of the facilitator are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Video-stimulated reflection
• student teachers
• reflective cycle
• small group reflection

Introduction

Teaching can be everything from challenging, surprising, and confusing, to rewarding and stimulating. Teachers and student teachers who share teaching concerns, especially ones of a challenging nature, has proven to be essential for their personal and professional development. When listening to other teachers’ concerns, teachers may come to think about their own experiences in other ways. Moreover, sharing apprehensions with supportive peers, who may have similar experiences, can make teachers feel less alone (Loughran, 2010). Furthermore, sharing concerns with other teachers, enables an identification and discussion about problematic situations in teaching, on a collective level (Collin and Karsenti, 2011; Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015; Loughran, 2010).

In Swedish teacher education, whether it be university-based courses or field-based practice, it is common for student teachers to work with assignments in small groups. When student teachers plan lessons and teach to students, they take departure from their own ‘preconceptions of what a teacher is and the role of learning in the classroom’ (Meierdirk, 2017, p. 556). If these preconceptions are to be challenged, the student teachers need opportunities to reflect on their beliefs and experiences. Beauchamp (2015) suggests that they should do this not only individually, but also collectively. It is, therefore, essential in teacher education to enable student teachers to reflect together with fellow student teachers on and for practice, to grow both personally and professionally (Calderhead, 1987; Loughran, 2010; Valli, 1997).

However, Danielowich (2007) argues that there is a risk of narrowing reflection into a tool for teacher development, and not recognizing it ‘as a complex intellectual act’ (p. 630). The approach explored in this study, therefore, seeks to avoid this risk, by considering not only the dimensions of reflection – in, on and for action, but also the reflective process itself. That is, its potential for growing student teachers to create spaces for collective experiences (Dillon, 2011); spaces in which they can imagine how they would improve their practice (Beauchamp, 2015; Lee & Loughran, 2000; Thompson & Pascal, 2012).

Theoretical concepts

When a teacher experiences situations as problematic, pleasant, confusing, or surprising, he or she may reflect in ‘the midst of action without interrupting it’ (Schön, 1983, p. 26). This kind of reflection in action is referred to as ‘knowing in action’ and is often understood as a practitioner’s tacit knowledge (Adler, 1991; Schön, 1983). This tacit knowledge constitutes a large part of teachers’ practice and involves ‘actions, judgment, recognitions’, which teachers ‘know how to carry out spontaneously … unaware of having learned these things’ (Schön, 1983, p. 54). However, the ability to stop and reflect in the ’midst of’ teaching is a skill that student teachers gradually develop through experience (Danielowich, 2007). According to Schön (1983), a student teacher would more often respond to a puzzling situation by ‘thinking back’ on what ‘the knowing-in-action may have contributed to’ (p. 26). Reflection in action is in this way, ‘not only a broad abstraction of the complex, situated and embodied skillfulness of practitioners but also an object that it is itself possible to reflect upon’ (Erlandson & Beach, 2008, p. 415).

Besides reflecting in action and reflecting consciously on teaching after a lesson, student teachers should be supported to reflect for action. That is, to imagine and transform one’s reflections of experiences into possible actions in the classroom (Dillon, 2011; Korthagen et al., 2006), which, according to Thompson and Pascal (2012) is often overlooked. Beauchamp (2015) argues that this is a crucial aspect of teacher learning and a condition for an altered practice.

When student teachers – as well as teachers – view video footage of their teaching, some things come to the fore, and other things remain in the background. What is in the foreground of attention for one individual may be very different from what is in the foreground of others. In other words, depending on their previous experiences and preconceptions of practice, they pay attention to different aspects of situations in teaching, and we may interpret these aspects differently (Marton & Booth, 1997). Furthermore, what aspects they discern are critical for how the situation is understood (Marton, 2015; Runesson, 2006).

In the connection with viewing and discussing teaching, emotions and values may drive motivation to attend to a situation in practice. This attention can be understood as a concern (Lee & Loughran, 2000). A concern may arise in the conflicts between what student teachers – as well as teachers ‘want to do, what they think they are doing, and what they actually do’ (Danielowich, 2007, p. 630). Thus the reflective process becomes an act of recognizing conflicts or problematic situations and making reconsiderations of the ‘how’s’ and ‘why’s’ in teaching (Danielowich, 2007). However, a problematic situation in teaching cannot be discerned and defined by a teacher educator, mentor, or researcher alone, since it may exclude the teachers’ own ways of experiencing the situation (Zeichner & Liu, 2010). Moreover, teachers may not recognize the problematic situation, ‘as the differences in experience influence not only what the problem is but also how it might be seen’ (Loughran, 2002, p. 35). This view is supported by Marton (2015), who argues that in order to understand a situation in teaching in a more powerful way than before, the teacher needs to encounter a variety of ways of understanding the situation and discern those aspects that are critical for this new understanding. This implies that teachers need to learn to discern aspects of problematic situations in teaching themselves, in order ‘to experience differences’, because ‘ … .nobody can experience differences for someone else.’ (p. 220). Accordingly, for reflection to be initiated when sharing and listening to each other’s teaching concerns, teachers need the ability to view a problematic situation in new ways. The ability of framing – to identify a problem, and reframing – to view the problem from another perspective (Schön, 1983), ‘offers insights into how and why a situation might be perceived in a particular way’ (Loughran, 2010, p. 400). Furthermore, it provides opportunities to see new possibilities for future actions (Lee & Loughran, 2000). However, facilitating reflective practice is as Russell (2005) argues, not about ‘telling people to reflect and simply hoping for the best’ (p. 203). The facilitator (e.g. researcher or/and teacher educator) need to use her or his own reflections in action together with thoughtfulness, explicitness and endurance. Finlay (2008) emphasizes the need for the facilitator to take into account the affordances of the context for reflective practice.

Drawing upon Schön (1983, 1987)) notion of framing and reframing, this study attempts to explore an approach to video-stimulated reflection (VSR), in terms of its affordances and constraints for facilitating a reflective process, in which student teachers can develop their reflective abilities and come to think about their science teaching in new ways.

Materials and methods

Context of the study and participating student teachers

Three groups of student teachers participated in the approach to VSR. Group 1 was made up of four student teachers preparing for lower primary school. They were recruited from a cohort of student teachers reading a compulsory course in science and technology with a focus on subject-matter didactics (15 ECTS). Group 2 was made up of four student teachers preparing for teaching science in upper primary school, belonging to a similar, but more extensive (30 ECTS), course as Group 1. Although the two science and technology courses were different in extent, they were largely coordinated. Thus, the field practice assignment at the science center was such a coordinated course element.

The course element aimed to enhance student teachers’ awareness and preparedness of what, and how, learning opportunities for school students can be created in a science-learning environment outside the classroom. Teacher educators at teacher education and pedagogues at the local science center had developed the course element, including the field practice assignment in 2014. In short, the assignment included planning and conducting a 30 minutes science lesson on an assigned topic in one of the science center’s exhibitions, in smaller groups. The lessons, which would be held twice with different student groups, would be evaluated individually and in groups.

At the time of the VSR interviews, which were carried out about three months after the field practice at the science center (September 2016), both groups 1 and 2 were at the end of their fifth semester of a four-year-long teacher training program. They all had previous experience of teaching science in primary school (e.g. internship and as substitutes). The third group of student teachers, Group 3, consisted of three student teachers, preparing for teaching science in lower and upper secondary school. They were recruited from a cohort of student teachers, half-way through a one-year-long teacher training program aimed at those who have at least a bachelor in engineering or science. The recruitment was carried out a couple of weeks before their one-week internship at the science center (May 2016). At the time of the VSR interview, this group was at the end of their one-year program. Independent of teacher education program and courses, all three groups of student teachers carried out the same field practice assignment at the science center. The reflective practice was not included as a purpose or objective of the field assignment at the science center.

The design of the VSR and data generation

The design of the VSR (see Table 1) was not primarily to have the student teachers recall what they were thinking at the time of teaching at the science center, but to facilitate a reflective process in which they could recognize, share and reflect upon problematic situations in their teaching together. In order to allow the student teachers autonomy in their reflective process, a semi-structured interview protocol was employed as background support (Lee & Loughran, 2000). Each VSR interview took about two hours and was audio recorded.

Table 1. The structure of the VSR interview.

	The structure of the VSR interview	Description
1	VSR on the first lesson, including the subsequent discussion (60–75 minutes)	The student teachers could pause the video footage at any time to share their teaching concerns. In the subsequent discussion about lesson 1, the student teachers were asked to share their concerns about the first lesson.
2	VSR on the second lesson, including the subsequent discussion (60–70 minutes)	The student teachers could pause the video footage at any time to share their teaching concerns. In the subsequent discussion, the student teachers were asked to share their thoughts and feelings about the second lesson in relation to the first.

Ethical procedures and considerations

These VSR interviews are a part of more extensive research concerning student teachers’ practice of planning and implementing science lessons in an out-of-school science environment. The student teachers were informed about the VSR study and what participation would entail, 1–2 weeks before carrying out the field practice assignment at the science center (May 2016 and September 2016). On the day of introduction at the science center, the study was presented once more, and the consent form (Appendix A) was handed out to the whole cohort. The student teachers were also informed that they could, at any time, withdraw their participation. In this step, they needed to understand what they had been informed about to make reasonable decisions about whether they wanted to participate or not (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012). It was essential to ensure that the student teachers truly felt that participating in the research was voluntary and not something that the researcher had been imposed on them (Comer, 2009). However, Gaudin and Chaliès (2015) argue in a review of video viewing in teacher education that this kind of activity can offer opportunities to collaborative spaces ‘in which the traditional hierarchies and boundaries between actors (trainee, trainer and researchers) and knowledge (academic, professional and practical) are disrupted’ (p. 59).

To make sound ethical decisions, which takes into account the student teachers ability to understand what is expected of them, what their participation will mean in practice and for the larger group they represent, their ability to understand the purpose of the video research and how it will be used and shared was crucial. It was, therefore, essential to create a permissive atmosphere allowing the student teachers to control the video viewing and articulate ideas, beliefs and, feelings about their teaching without determining the direction of, limit, or interrupt their reflective process (Beauchamp, 2015; Powell, 2005).

Analytical tool for detecting reflection

To identify acts of reflection in the VSR interviews, a modified version of Mackinnon’s ‘clue structure’ (Mackinnon, 1987, p. 140) was used as an analytical lens. According to Mackinnon (1987), the ‘clue structure’ was developed to identify and separate student teachers’ acts of reflection from rationalization. This meant separating reflection from actions that ‘justify, or defend, a particular teaching behavior’ (Mackinnon, 1987, p. 139). The first clue in Mackinnon’s clue structure, seeks to identify the phases of the reflective cycle. That is, to detect acts of framing and reframing in the student teachers discussions. The second clue identifies shifts of perspectives from which the student teachers’ view situations in their teaching. For example, shifting from teacher-centered to student-centered perspective. The third clue, seeks to detect if acts of reframing lead to new conclusions about the situation or new reflections for future actions (implications). Finally, the fourth clue, looks for evidence of shifts from viewing their teaching from their own experiences as school students to make sense of their students point of view (Mackinnon, 1987). In this study, the fourth clue has been merged with the second clue. The three clues were then used as guidance in detecting reflection and link it to of the reflective cycle. In Figure 1, the model of the reflective cycle, inspired by Lee and Loughran (2000), is presented. The word implication used by Mackinnon (1987) and (Lee & Loughran, 2000), is in this study changed to the synonym reflections for possible future actions. The reason is to highlight that this is a dimension of reflection which is an essential ability in teacher practice (Beauchamp, 2015).

Figure 1. The Figure 1, illustrates thereflective cycle model, adapted from Lee and Loughran (2000). The model is subdivided into the three phases, I–III of the reflective cycle.

Analysis

All parts of the audio-recorded VSR interviews were transcribed verbatim. In the first step of the analysis, the focus was on detecting acts of framing and reframing of problematic situations attended to by the student teachers in connection with video viewing their teaching. In order to do such an investigation, the analysis began with identifying student teachers’ concerns (as perceived by the student teachers and not the researcher). A concern could be identified in connection to the pausing of the video footage of the lesson, or the discussion, taking place within the same pause. These concerns could be related to the same topic or a completely different one. For example, a student teacher could pause the video footage, articulate a concern, and initiate a discussion, or the concern could be left open and not further attended. Instead, the student teachers might focus on another concern. A reflective process could thus be started based on this other concern. An event of framing and reframing of a problematic situation in the VSR interviews is referred to as an episode.

In this phase of the analysis, it was evident that the most concerns, in all of the three groups, were articulated in the VSR on the first lesson. These concerns were initially framed (phase I) and tentative in nature. Fewer concerns were articulated in the subsequent discussions and in the VSR on the second lesson. Instead, the student teachers often returned to concerns they already had articulated and initially framed. On many of these occasions, the reflective process moved into reframing (phase II). In addition to these episodes, the student teachers made more reflections for possible future actions, imagining an altered way of pedagogy. In the subsequent discussion after viewing the first lesson, the salient topic of concern in all of the three groups was the difficulty to tie together the different aspects of the overall object of learning (the meaning of ecosystem, evolution, and living in micro-gravity), to enable learning. Another concern shared by all three groups was the lack of knowledge of what the students had learned. In addition to the concerns mentioned above, the two groups of primary student teachers (Group 1 and 2) found it challenging to explain science phenomena and concepts and to provide opportunities for the students to explore the exhibition for themselves. In the group of secondary teachers (Group 3), a slightly different concern emerged, but still related to the same topic, which had to do with asking productive questions (see e.g. Harlen, 2001) that would support the school students’ thinking and exploration of the environment.

By using the modified ‘clue structure’, the final step of the analysis aimed to detect and separate reflective processes – situations of framing and reframing, in the student teachers discussions about concerns, from situations of justification. In the following section, the results from the analysis will be presented by a selection of excerpts, illustrating episodes of how the student teachers’ reflective process move through the phases of the reflective cycle.

A selection of excerpts illustrates how the reflective process moved through the phases of the reflective cycle, in the different parts of the VSR interview. However, due to the amount of data and the extended nature of the reflective process, the episodes (excerpts) are selected from the VSR interview with the same group of student teachers (Group 1). This group was assigned the Space exhibition and to teach about the life on International Space Shuttle, ISS. The first episode (Excerpt 1) illustrates how the student teachers are at the beginning of the reflective cycle, initially framing a problematic situation, phase I, and then move into reframing, phase II. The second episode (Excerpt 2) illustrates how the same group reconsiders the problematic situation once again and how the reflective process moves into the very beginning of resolution, in which the students imagine a possible solution to the problem, phase III. The model of the reflective cycle and its subdivision into the three phases (Figure 1), is referred to in connection to each excerpt.

Reflection on reflections in action: from dissatisfaction to the appreciation of pedagogy of teaching

In the following episode (excerpt 1), the student teachers have just finished watching the video of their first lesson. Katrin articulates concern about the lack of a good ending of the lesson. Cecilia agrees and recalls how dissatisfied she was at the implementation of the lesson how the ending did not go as planned. This dissatisfaction is shared in the group, and the problem of not having any idea about what the students had learned is initially framed. The episode (Excerpt 1) begins with the interviewer asking (line 584) the student teachers if they have the same feeling now (at the time of the interview). Katrin reconsiders her initial view of the teaching and comes to see it from the students’ perspective and in a more appreciating way (see line 586–603). She perceives that the students have developed an understanding of how it is to live at ISS (The International Space shuttle). In the last line (608), Sandra agrees and shifts perspective to viewing their lesson from her being a young learner. Both these shifts in perspective indicate that the student teachers draw initial conclusions about their teaching in terms of the students learning. In this episode, the reflective process moves into phase II, reframing (see Figure 1).

Excerpt 1, group 1

• 586. Interviewer: But now, when you view your teaching afterwards. Do you have the same [feeling]?

• 587. Katrin: No, but I feel or I get the feeling that, that they have learned … and I didn’t have that feeling …

• 588. Interviewer: No

• 589. Katrin: … directly after.

• 590. Interviewer: What are your perception? I’m thinking about the students’ learning … how do you know what they have learned?

• 591. Katrin: No, but I sensed in the beginning, first gravity.

• 592. Interviewer: Yes

• 593. Katrin: .and they [the students] were, ‘ah what’s that?’ and then sleep [how astronauts sleep at ISS], so you fly around [if you do not buckle up]

• 594. Interviewer: Yes

• 595. Katrin: And then it gets a little … yes they build an understanding.

• 596. Interviewer: Mm [Yes]

• 597. Katrin: And then this one with the [space] toilet, you float around if you don’t buckle up, and then in the end [of the lesson] you [learn] that you can’t eat [as usual in space].

• 598. Interviewer: Mm [Yes]

• 599. Katrin: That way I feel they have increased [their knowledge] … that it’s not like living on earth.

• 600. Interviewer: And you think that their questions or their answers show that they have followed? And that they have learned?

• 601. Katrin: Yes, because it feels like … well they [the students] were more engaged in the end.

• 602. Interviewer: Yes.

• 603. Katrin: And answers and stuff like that.

• 604. Interviewer: Yes.

• 605. Sandra: They get a general picture.

• 606. Interviewer: Yes.

• 607. Sandra: It may not be very accurate, but they will think ’yes exactly, it’s actually exactly the same needs you have in space as on earth’, but it is a bit different and they will maybe not remember exactly how it is.

• 608. Interviewer: Right

• 609. Sandra: But some kind of understanding, because I had not reflected on this when I was a kid. How does astronauts live? I had no idea about that.

Reconsidering reframing and moving into imagined resolution: seeing the teaching narrative in new way

In the discussion that takes place directly after viewing the second lesson, which precedes the episode below (Excerpt 2), the same student teachers (Group 1) frame the problematic situation of making changes in teaching in such short of time and that those changes in pedagogy do not always make it better. However, in the case of gaining better knowledge about the students’ learning, the group is more satisfied with the ending of the second lesson in comparison with the first.

In the episode (Excerpt 2), the group comes to see their teaching in a more complex way. On the one hand, they see the benefits of their pedagogy and narration about ‘life in space’ (compared to life on earth) and on the other hand seeing their pedagogical efforts as ‘telling’ science, suggesting that the students were given the role of passive receivers of science. In addition to this more complex view, the student teachers not only reconsider their teaching in relation to the environment but also reflect for possible future actions, from a more student-centered perspective (line 1177–1178). Although the reflective process does not move into resolution, phase III (see Figure 1), the group reflects on an imagined solution to the problem.

Excerpt 2, group 1

• 1146. Cecilia: … But according to the conditions, I think we did our outmost, but it might be mentioned that in connection with the planning, we took a fairly clear starting point in the environment. We did that from the beginning. To take advantage of the exhibition about ISS and talk a lot about it.

• 1147. Interviewer: Mm[Yes]

• 1148. Cecilia: Although there was more [about astronomy] for grade six in the knowledge requirements [Curriculum for compulsory school], it was maybe a little bit too high level for a third grade. For third grade, it was about what we have just read [in the science and technology course]. About the phases of the moon and about the earth and that maybe … yes, it wasn’t much about that in the space exhibition at that time. Therefore, we decided to take departure from the [exhibition], but it also made it a bit, I don’t know …

• 1149. Sandra: Yes

/ … /

• 1151. Katrin: We thought, after all, that this was something they [the students] could relate …

• 1152. Cecilia: To themselves.

• 1153. Katrin: Yes

• 1154. Cecilia: All the time because we had this point of reference – what it’s like to live on earth.

• 1155. Interviewer: Mm [Yes]

• 1156. Cecilia: Which they [the students] know a lot about.

• 1157. Interviewer: Mm [Yes]

• 1158. Cecilia: Since that is what they do [living on earth], we could use it to compare, but of course it was hard to find appropriate sections in the curriculum that suited our [third grade students].

/ … /

• 1162. Katrin: Yes, because I felt afterwards that ‘oh, how bad it went, we should have done something else’.

• 1163. Cecilia: Mm [Yes]

• 1164. Katrin: But when I look at it now, I can see that they [the students] were still interested.

• 1165. Interviewer: Mm [Yes]

• 1166. Katrin: So …

• 1167. Cecilia: But that’s how it is, you are always very critical towards yourself. So of course, you feel afterwards that you could have done this or that instead. But, when you view this now, it does look like they, yes …

• 1168. Sandra: I think they had fun.

/ … /

• 1174. Katrin: Then you can think like this, what we did here, you could have done in a regular classroom. So the environment at the science center you could have … used in a little better way or get a …

• 1175. Interviewer: Do you think about what the students could have done or how … ?

• 1176. Katrin: Yes that they had the opportunity …

• 1177. Cecilia: To explore more.

• 1178. Katrin: To try things and so on and so forth. Let them try the [space] toilet and such. Because, to stand and talk [as a teacher], you can do in a classroom.

• 1179. Interviewer: Mm [yes].

• 1180. Katrin: On the other hand, the students probably understand it in another way here [at the science center], though.

• 1181. Interviewer: Mm [yes].

• 1182. Cecilia: You’re right about that. Katrin: But, you have to think about the environment [exhibition].

Discussion

Reflections on affordances and constraints of the approach to VSR

The present study aimed to explore an approach to VSR, in terms of its affordances and constraints of enabling a reflective process, in which student teachers share and listen to each other’s concerns, and collaboratively frame and reframe problematic situations in their teaching. In accordance with findings reported by Danielowich (2007), the results of this study demonstrate that the reflective process became an act of recognizing conflicts, share and discuss those with each other in the group. By attending to the student teachers’ articulations of concerns, it was possible to understand how the field practice assignment was experienced, which supports evidence from previous observations by Lee and Loughran (2000), Thompson and Pascal (2012) and Zeichner and Liu (2010).

The results also indicate that the articulation and sharing of concerns during the video viewing of lesson 1, lead to the initial framing of problematic situations. However, episodes of reframing, such as shifts from teacher-centered to student-centered perspective, or seeing problematic situations from one’s own experience of being a young learner, occurred in the subsequent discussions (after viewing lesson 1 and 2). This may depend on the nature of the VSR interview during the video viewing of the first and second lessons. Just as the student teachers were eager to stop the video and articulate their concerns, they were equally anxious to continue viewing their teaching. In addition to this limitation, the reflective process did not move into a real resolution, phase, III. This had to do with the difficulty of knowing what the students learned. These results accords with earlier observations by Mackinnon (1987) and Lee and Loughran (2000), who found that in order for student teachers to resolve a problematic situation, they need, not only to engage in acts of reframing, but to draw real conclusions about ones pedagogical efforts in relation to their students’ learning. Even if they seemed to do so, they were justifying and defending their pedagogical efforts, not those of their students. However, the viewing of the second lesson in relation to the first provided a variation that afforded further reconsiderations of initially framed (and reframed) situations. These findings are in accordance with those of Jay and Johnson (2002), who found that in order to engage in reflective processes, student teachers need to become aware of some aspect of their practice, to view that aspect from different perspectives, through framing, reframing and listening. In addition to these results, the approach to VSR enabled the student teachers to imagine future actions in practice and make connections between practice and theory, which, according to Beauchamp (2015) is an essential ability for altering and improving practice.

Although the primary goal was not to have the student teachers to recall situations in teaching, the video viewing stimulated reflections on concerns that emerged in the ‘midst’ of teaching. In all three groups, these reflections included reconsiderations of their initial views on pedagogical efforts and performance; they had at the time of implementation and reflections for possible future actions. This result indicates that the elapsed period between the field practice assignment and the VSR interview enabled the student teachers to ‘step outside’ their practice and view it from ‘a distance,’ which opened for seeing one’s own and fellow students’ pedagogical efforts in new ways. These results accords with earlier observations by Danielowich (2007), who suggests that ‘the instances teachers identify as moments of reflection-in-action could be used as resources for their reflection-on-action’ (p. 631). However, caution must be applied about whether the data reported here support the assumption that VSR is a way to reveal student teachers’ explicit and tacit knowledge (see e.g. Muir, 2010; Powell, 2005; Smith & Krumsvik, 2007). According to the Schönian way of thinking, tacit knowledge comes into play in the actual teaching situation and is difficult to reveal through reflection on action (Erlandson & Beach, 2008).

Finally, this study reveals the complex nature of reflection and the conditions that need to be met in order for the student teachers to create a reflective space. Although the VSR with the groups of student teachers enabled a reflective process, the role and competence of the facilitator are crucial. In this study, it was this therefore important to, on the one hand, take a step back, listening and triggering (Mackinnon, 1987) reflection, without directing the student teachers’ discussions. On the other hand, it was essential to disrupt taken-for-granted conceptions to allow for other ways of seeing problematic situations in teaching. However, this was a balancing act, since it is next to inevitable for a facilitator (e.g. researcher or teacher educator) not to bring her or his preconceptions into the discussion. This finding was also reported by Meierdirk (2017).

Taken together, the results of this study demonstrate that the approach to VSR enabled the student teachers to gain a greater awareness of one’s own and others’ views on problematic situations in their teaching. In addition, they reached a better understanding of the affordances of the learning environment in relation to their pedagogical efforts. Although concerns and framed problematic situations in the video viewing of the first lesson, were, left without further reflection, they were essential for creating a reflective space, in which the student teachers could grow personally and professionally.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at here.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alexina Thorén Williams

Alexina Thorén Williams is a doctoral student at the Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology at the Gothenburg University. Her research interest is on initial science teacher education and student teachers' development of subject didactic knowledge in out-of-school science contexts, such as a science center. Alexina has a background as a science teacher in primary and secondary school. Before entering her doctoral studies, she worked as an educator at Universeum science center in Gothenburg, developing school programs and teacher training courses in science and technology. In parallel with her doctoral studies, she works as a teacher educator at the initial teacher education in Gothenburg.