Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 454e463
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Teaching and Teacher Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
Connecting theory to practice: Using preservice teachers' beliefs,
theories and video-recorded teaching to prompt a cycle of praxis
Jane Tilson*, Susan Sandretto, Keryn Pratt
University of Otago College of Education, 157 Union Street East, P.O Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand
h i g h l i g h t s
 How to prompt preservice teachers' praxis.
 PSTs' beliefs, theory and teaching recursively inform one another.
 Details interactions where PSTs affirm and/or change their practice.
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 23 September 2016
Received in revised form
18 July 2017
Accepted 21 July 2017
Available online 1 August 2017
1. Introduction
A perennial challenge for teacher educators is how to support
preservice teachers (PSTs) to make meaningful connections be-
tween theory and practice. This challenge has recently been exac-
erbated by international trends in initial teacher education (ITE)
which have seen some programmes place a greater emphasis on
school-based experiences (Alcorn, 2014; Mayer, 2014; Murray &
Passy, 2014; Zeichner, 2014). Such a pathway might mean PSTs
receive only a few weeks of university-based theory and the
remainder of their course involves a preparation of observation and
teaching in schools (Anderson & Freebody, 2012). A key issue with
ITE programmes that are largely school based is the diminished
opportunities for PSTs and teacher educators to articulate and un-
derstand how theory informs practice and practice informs theory.
Within this context, to ensure ITE programmes remain significant
for PSTs, it is imperative teacher educators support PSTs to make
meaningful connections between theory and practice.
The primary purpose of this paper was to explore how to sup-
port PSTs to make meaningful connections between theory and
practice using video recorded teaching. We have two foci: (1) When
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jane.tilson@otago.ac.nz (J. Tilson).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.012
0742-051X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PSTs discussed their beliefs and theories as they viewed their video
recorded teaching, did this prompt a cycle of praxis that supported
them to make informed decisions about their practice? And, (2):
How did the PSTs reflect on their video recorded teaching?
Praxis as a term has its origins in Ancient Greece and captures a
moral propensity to act in a just and wise manner, a disposition
named by Aristotle as phronesis (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). Phronesis
expresses itself in praxis as “informed committed action” (Carr &
Kemmis, 1986, p. 190). A distinction between informed
committed action and habitual taken-for-granted action, is when a
practitioner is prepared to place their practice and theories in a
critical framework of understanding (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). Praxis,
thus requires a conscious theorising of one's practice, and where a
practitioner is prepared to take a critical stance on both their
practice and the theories underpinning their practice. Praxis em-
phasises the dialectical relationship between theory and practice,
where theory and practice have potential to cyclically inform and/
or reconstruct the other. While theory and practice may recursively
inform each other in praxis, any changes to either are always guided
by a moral disposition to act wisely and prudently in any given
moment of time (Carr & Kemmis, 1986).
In education, praxis is a term synonymous with the social
activist Paulo Freire (1921e1997). In his words the term praxis in-
volves “reflection, and action upon the world in order to transform
it” (Freire, 1999, p. 33). His notion of reflection is underpinned by
criticality wherein people were taught how to read societal in-
equalities, and were then encouraged to take action against unjust
situations to create change (Freire, 1999). To create societal change
required people's reflection and action, and for Freire, praxis en-
compasses both. Praxis involved carefully considered and
consciously theorised action, in his words praxis “requires theory to
illuminate it” (Freire, 1999, p. 106). Freire's notion of praxis reflects
its original Greek meaning to take informed action underpinned by
social justice. The focus on social justice firmly locates praxis in the
 J. Tilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 454e463
family of theories known as critical theory (Kincheloe & McLaren,
2005). In summary, praxis engages a metacognitive process
(Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lo
pez, 2003), where teachers can
consider and re-consider the theories (personal and formal) that
inform their teaching. When teachers engage in praxis, they criti-
cally reflect on their practice in order to act in productive ways for
their students. (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Freire, 1999).
This paper proposes that in order for PSTs to make warranted
assertions about their practice (Gelfuso, 2016), they need to be
supported to make connections between their personal beliefs,
formal theories and their teaching practice. While a number of
studies have researched teachers’ beliefs in regard to their practice
(Fives & Buehl, 2012; Pajares, 1992; Zheng, 2013), we have been
unable to locate empirical studies that have explicitly explored
teachers’ beliefs and formal theories around their video recorded
teaching practice, and whether such discussion prompted a cycle of
praxis. Praxis provides a strong theoretical platform for this paper,
from which to examine how theory and practice interact when PSTs
are repeatedly asked to consider their theories in relation to their
video recorded teaching practice.
2. Literature review
The literature review examines key constructs that were pivotal
to this research inquiry; first we explore the importance of teach-
ers’ theories (personal and formal), followed by a rationale for using
PSTs' video recorded teaching to capture examples of their practice.
This section concludes with a justification of why this research
project used Larrivee's (2008) typology of four reflective lenses to
examine how PSTs were reflecting on their videorecorded teaching.
2.1. Personal beliefs
PSTs arrive in teacher education programmes with eclectic be-
liefs shaped by years of observation in classrooms (Lortie, 1975).
These beliefs carry many tacit assumptions, for example, how
students ought to behave in school, or their expectations for stu-
dents' learning. Their personal beliefs act as “personal practical
theories” (Levin, He, & Allen, 2013, p. 202) which powerfully guide
and shape their classroom practice. There is a danger that if PSTs'
beliefs or personal theories are left unspoken with no room for
critique or debate, they may remain taken-for-granted (Fives &
Buehl, 2012) and resistant to change (Korthagen, 2010). It has
also been suggested in order for PSTs to shift or transform their
teaching; they first need to understand how their beliefs are
influencing their teaching (Fives & Buehl, 2012; Zheng, 2013). In
line with these assertions, PSTs were asked to discuss their personal
beliefs around how best to support students’ learning, and to
repeatedly examine whether their beliefs were evident in their
video recorded teaching.
2.2. Formal theory
Teacher education programmes introduce PSTs to an array of
competing and at times conflicting formal theories; possibly as
diverse as the personal theories they arrive with. How to support
PSTs to connect theory and practice in meaningful ways remains a
key challenge for teacher educators (Korthagen, 2010). Carr and
Kemmis (1986) describe both theory and practice as practical un-
dertakings that are guided by a practitioner's reflective conscious-
ness, whereby a practitioner's reflective consciousness is in itself an
act of theorising. However, none of this is simple when traditionally
academics outside of classrooms develop theory for teachers to
adopt and use in classrooms. A number of studies have found
traditional theory-to-practice teacher education models have had
455
little or no impact on teacher candidates (Korthagen, 2010), or that
theory became washed out during school experiences (Zeichner &
Tabachnick, 1981).
To impact PSTs, theory needs to be perceived be useful. Dewey
(1904) described formal theory as a tool practitioners may use to
inform and reflect on the merits of their practice. Richardson (1990)
expanded on Dewey's view, advising that teachers need to critically
examine both their personal and formal theories in order to either
affirm or reject particular practices. In this way, critical reflection on
both one's personal and formal theories become a site from which
one can make warranted assertions about one's practice (Gelfuso,
2016). However, because of the highly contextualised nature of
teaching, when considering the usefulness of theory, PSTs must first
determine its merits, or lack of, for their particular context (Luke,
2000).
In terms of usefulness, theory has potential to be practical
(Lewin, 1945). To illustrate, through theory PSTs are typically
introduced to a range of pedagogies to enact in their practice, how
to teach reading and writing and so forth. By introducing PSTs to
mainstream educational ideas and practices, teacher education
programmes risk reinscribing current practices or the status quo.
Ball (1995), however, suggests theory may embody quite the
opposite function, theory offers the “possibility of disidentification”
(p. 267) from hegemonic everyday practices, and may invite one to
imagine possibilities beyond one's current field of vision
(Villaverde, 2004). That is to say, theory may offer teachers possi-
bilities of practice and ways of thinking beyond the status quo.
While Zeichner and Gore (1990) suggested it is hard for PSTs to
impact established patterns of practice in schools, this paper pro-
poses introducing PSTs to cutting edge theory carries the potential
to position them as agents of social change, or whose practice may
transcend the status quo in schools (Tilson, 2014).
This project asked PSTs to discuss whether or not their personal
beliefs and formal theories were evident in their video recorded
teaching, and examined if such discussion prompted them to affirm
or shift their teaching practice as part of a cycle of praxis. As such,
both their beliefs and formal theories became a metacognitive
source (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lo
pez-Torres, 2003) from which to
illuminate their practice, and in turn where their practice became
an expression of theory. PSTs’ video recorded teaching was used to
prompt this cycle of praxis.
2.3. Why use video recorded teaching?
As early as the 1970s, video recorded teaching has been iden-
tified as a useful strategy with which to support teachers to reflect
on their practice (Fuller & Manning, 1973). Since the 1970s, video
technologies have become more user-friendly and accessible,
making the technology increasingly desirable for teacher educators
(Tripp & Rich, 2012). Studies have shown multiple benefits of
employing video recorded teaching; for example, opportunities to
observe and articulate connections between theory and practice
(Harford, Gerry, & McCartan, 2010), and to collaboratively decon-
struct and reconstruct practice in dialogue with an other (Calandra,
Brantley-Dias, & Dias, 2006; Harford & McRuaire, 2008). Being able
to pause and repeatedly watch video recorded teaching affords
opportunities for focused analysis (Tan & Towndrow, 2009), where
teachers can notice, reflect, and re-consider specific moments and
aspects of their practice (Hamilton, 2011; van Es & Sherin, 2008).
Even the opportunity to deconstruct one's more challenging or
mediocre lessons has potential benefits, where teachers gain
insight into the challenges of teaching, prompting problem-solving
and changes in practice (Marsh & Mitchell, 2014).
In education, video technologies have been operationalised in
diverse ways, for instance: case studies involving examination of an
456 J. Tilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 454e463
'other' (Beck, King, & Marshall, 2002; Newhouse, Lane, & Brown,
2007), of exemplary practice (Ethell & McMeniman, 2000), or
focused on a teacher's own practice (Calandra et al., 2006; Clarke,
1995; Harford & McRuaire, 2008). This research study positioned
the PST as the subject of the video. This decision was informed by
Scho€ n's (1983) conceptualisation that reflective practice is
personally constructed, and is situated in the immediacy of the
action setting, and studies which recommend strengths in
capturing one's own practice on video, and subsequently analysing
one's video recorded teaching (Clarke, 1995; Harford & McRuaire,
2008; Orland-Barak & Rachamim, 2009; Sharpe et al., 2003;
Zhang, Lundeberg, Koehler, & Eberhardt, 2011). Other studies have
compared the benefits of teachers watching their own videotaped
teaching versus watching other teachers' videotaped practice and
have recommended watching one's own practice has the most
potential to impact teachers' reflective thinking and teaching
(Seidel, Prenzel, Schwindt, Kobarg, & Meyer, 2005; Zhang et al.,
2011).
Given the focus of this project was to prompt a cycle of praxis,
using video recorded teaching offered opportunities for PSTs to
examine the difference between their espoused theories (Argyris &
Scho€ n, 1974) and their actual video recorded teaching. This is in line
with previous studies that emphasised how exposing dissonance
between teachers’ espoused and their actual teaching practices
created powerful leverage for change in their reflective thinking
and/or practice (Orland-Barak & Rachamim, 2009; Rosaen et al.,
2010). As such, this study asked PSTs to identify congruence and/
or dissonance between their espoused theories and video recorded
teaching practice, and examined whether or not this prompted
their use of a range of reflective lenses with which to discuss their
practice, and/or prompted them to affirm or make changes in their
practice.
Despite their affordances, video technologies are far from a
neutral intervention. Student feedback reported in Sharpe et al.
(2003) and Wing-mui So's (2012) studies foregrounded a number
of potential perils, such as; the artificiality of video footage where
children being filmed may present their best or worst behaviour,
feelings of stress and self-consciousness sharing video footage, and
the time required to view and comment one's own or others'
teaching. The students' comments from these studies highlight this
is brave and vulnerable work, and researchers need to create a safe
environment when using video technologies.
2.4. Charting changes in PSTs’ reflective practice
An outcome of asking PSTs to discuss their beliefs and theories
around their video recorded teaching was their reflective practice.
The secondary focus of this paper was how the PSTs were reflecting
on their practice. Reflective practice has long been described as the
hallmark of professional competence for teachers (Zeichner &
Liston, 2014), and recognised as a central component in a teach-
er's daily work (El-Dib, 2007). The desire to prepare reflective
teachers has become an aspirational professional standard, leading
many ITE programmes internationally and in New Zealand to adopt
reflective practice as the foundation of their programmes (Alcorn,
2014; Thompson & Pascal, 2012). In New Zealand, a number of
policy documents, for example, the Code of Ethics for Certificated
Teachers (New Zealand Teachers Council, 2015a) and the Gradu-
ating Teacher Standards (New Zealand Teachers Council, 2015b)
both name reflective practice as a required standard in the teaching
profession.
Within academic literature the term reflection carries diverse
and contested meanings (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Loughran, 2002;
Spalding & Wilson, 2002) with multiple typologies or ways of
thinking about reflective practice (Tilson, 2014). Typologies are
useful in that they provide teacher educators with potential
frameworks and a metalanguage with which to explain an other-
wise complex and obscure concept (Jay & Johnson, 2002). Based on
an extensive review of the literature, Larrivee (2008) identified
three levels that most reflective practice typologies incorporate,
comprising;
 an initial level focused on teaching functions, actions or skills,
generally considering teaching episodes as isolated events;
 a more advanced level considering the theory and rationale for
current practice;
 a higher order where teachers examine the ethical, social and
political consequences of their teaching, grappling with the ul-
timate purposes of schooling. (p. 342)
The levels Larrivee (2008) identified encompass a continuum of
reflective thinking and practice, that arguably move from trivial to
more profound, including pre-reflection, technicist, theoretical and
critical lenses. While some authors dispute the notion of levels
where technical reflection might be regarded as a poor cousin to
critical reflection (Bleakley, 1999; Fendler, 2003), others argue that
because a teacher's daily work engages with technical, practical and
ethical events, teachers in fact need multiple reflective lenses to
make sense of their work (Killen, 2003).
In order to track changes in PSTs' reflective thinking, we
employed Larrivee's (2008) typology of reflective practice with its
four levels of pre-reflection, technical, pedagogical and critical
reflection. Larrivee defined the four levels as follows: pre-reflection
where students' needs are not considered and teachers' actions are
taken-for-granted; technical reflections focus on strategies to ach-
ieve predetermined goals with no recourse to others' perspectives
or theory; pedagogical reflections draw upon personal and/or
formal theories to make sense of one's practice, and may identify
congruence and/or dissonance between one's espoused beliefs and
actual practice; at the fourth level of critical reflection, one is aware
of how wider factors (historical, institutional social, cultural, po-
litical) are impacting one's practice. Larrivee's (2008) typology
enabled us to chart how PSTs were reflecting on their practice.
3. Methodology
This paper reports findings from a wider qualitative research
project (Tilson, 2014) situated in a New Zealand undergraduate
three-year (primary) teacher education degree programme. This
paper presents findings from three participants who were all in
their final year of a three-year (primary) teaching degree. In qual-
itative research, there is a marriage between the theoretical
framework and the methodology, where each recursively inform
each other (Guba & Lincoln, 2008). As seen in sections 3.2 and 3.3,
praxis has informed our design of the methods, namely the data
construction (interview questions) and the data analysis.
3.1. Participants and contextual information
The three participants for this paper were selected from the
wider study (Tilson, 2014), using the following rationale. In the
wider study, the original six participants drew upon theory to make
sense of their practice in surprisingly diverse ways. The six par-
ticipants' continuum of responses ranged from; a total reluctance to
discuss theory unless requested to do so, resistance to listen to and/
or use theory as part of course work, a preference for learning from
their associate teacher's practice and/or their peers, using theory as
a point of resistance and/or affirmation, to blending theory with
practice to the point where theory had become an embedded part
of their practice. While it is regrettable that we cannot share all
 J. Tilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 454e463
participants' research experiences, the three selected for this paper
richly illustrate the breadth of that continuum and how they did, or
did not use theory to inform their practice.
To protect the participants’ anonymity, they are hence coded as:
Participant A (PA), Participant B (PB) and Participant C (PC). In terms
of gender, PA and PC are female and PB male, and at the time of the
study their ages were; PA 36, PB 21 and PC 20. When asked about
ethnicity, PA identified as New Zealand M aori and PB and PC as of
New Zealand European descent. While all three participants in
their final year taught students in either year seven or eight (stu-
dents aged 10e13 years) their state (or public) schools included a
mix of intermediate and full primary settings. In New Zealand, in-
termediate schools comprise only year seven and eight students. PA
and PB were located in separate intermediate schools, PA taught a
year seven, and PB a year eight class. PC was placed at a full primary
with students from years one-eight (aged five-13 years), and taught
a year eight class. Their schools were all in an urban location in the
South Island of Aotearoa, New Zealand. Their participation was
voluntary and prior to beginning, university procedures for gaining
informed ethical consent were followed for all parties.
3.2. Data construction
In order that participants could reflect on artefacts of their own
teaching (Harford & McRuaire, 2008), each participant was video
recorded teaching a lesson on three occasions in March, May and
September. Participants chose the curriculum area/s for their three
video recorded lessons and each lesson lasted 30e40 minutes. After
each video recorded lesson, participants met with the first author
to discuss their video recorded lesson, with each interview lasting
between 35 and 60 minutes (See Appendix for interview guide). In
order to desensitise seeing themselves on film, participants had the
opportunity to privately view their video recorded teaching
(Hennessy & Deaney, 2009), prior to their one-on-one interviews.
When time permitted, participants took up this opportunity, it
enabled them to think about which parts of the video recorded
lessons they wished to focus on prior to their interview, and to
become accustomed to seeing and hearing themselves on video.
In the wider project (Tilson, 2014) from which this paper is
drawn, all participants engaged in five interviews coded as follows:
initial interview (II), three interviews (VI1), (VI2) and (VI3), and an
exit interview (EI) using video recorded artefacts of their teaching
to prompt a cycle of praxis. This paper reports findings from each of
the participant's three interviews using video recorded teaching.
The interview (see Appendix A) comprised a mix of unstructured
and semi-structured elements (Kvale, 1996). The unstructured
section enabled participants to set the agenda for discussion where
they had agency to pause, fast forward or rewind the video (Clarke,
1995), in order to focus on areas of personal interest. The semi-
structured section asked a homogenous set of questions focused
around this paper's research inquiry, and asked participants to
discuss their personal beliefs and formal theories in relation to their
video recorded teaching, in order to prompt a cycle of praxis. The
questions listed in Appendix A were modified slightly after each
participant's interview to respond to their individual commentary
across interviews. The first author transcribed all interviews and
participants had the opportunity to edit transcripts, to ensure they
captured as much as possible a verbatim record of the dialogue
prior to analysis.
3.3. Data analysis
All interview transcripts were imported into to a qualitative data
analysis tool HyperRESEARCH, which operates on a case basis. One
case was constructed for each participant containing all of their
457
interviews using video recorded teaching (VI1, VI2, VI3).
Each participant's interview set was coded in its entirety.
The first author initiated analysis by reading and re-reading
transcripts, and generating codes using HyperRESEARCH. The first
cycle of analysis generated codes focussed on identifying when
participants were drawing upon their personal and formal theories
to make sense of their video recorded teaching practice (Reported
in section 4.1). In addition, the first cycle generated codes to capture
when participants identified dissonance and/or congruence be-
tween their espoused theories and actual practice (Reported in
section 4.2). The first cycle of analysis examined instances of praxis
where interactions between theory and practice where made
explicit in the participants’ reflective dialogue.
The second cycle of analysis considered how participants were
reflecting on their practice. This was coded using Larrivee's (2008)
typology of pre-reflection, technical, pedagogical and critically
reflective lenses. Using Larrivee's typology enabled the first author
to consistently code how each participant was reflecting on their
practice. The second cycle of analysis examined how PSTs reflected
on their practice. In the discussion section, we illustrate how par-
ticipants used different reflective lens across their three interviews
using video recorded teaching.
A number of strategies were enacted to build trustworthiness
across the data analysis process (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Using the
professional qualitative data management tool HyperRESEARCH
enabled a vast amount of interview data to be coded and re-coded
using recognised methods in the qualitative data analysis process
(Saldan~ a, 2009). To further the trustworthiness of the study, the
second author coded a random selection of transcripts indepen-
dently to confirm the codes from the first cycle of analysis, and the
third author repeated this process to confirm the codes from the
second cycle of analysis (Saldan ~ a, 2009).
4. Discussion and findings
We next share snapshots of three participants’ research expe-
riences with two different foci. The first section examined what
happened when participants were repeatedly asked to discuss their
personal beliefs and theories in relation to their video recorded
teaching. The second section explored what transpired when par-
ticipants identified moments of dissonance between their
espoused theories and their video recorded teaching.
4.1. Beliefs, theory and video recorded teaching
An unanticipated finding of the wider research project (Tilson,
2014) was the diverse ways participants reflected on their per-
sonal beliefs and formal theories to make sense of their video
recorded teaching practice. Excerpts from participants’ research
experiences next illustrate that diversity.
4.1.1. Participant A: “Theory is shaping who I am” (VI1)
In her first interview using video recorded teaching, PA stated
she valued theory highly; “theory can show you what you're
thinking and feeling … and it gives it a name” (PA, VI1). Theory not
only gave PA a language with which to reflect on and name her
teaching practice, her statement “theory is shaping who I am” (PA,
VI1), illustrated how theory was also informing her emerging
teaching practice. It was important for PA that theory needed to
align with her personal beliefs, which, in her words, were strongly
underpinned by social justice. One belief in particular was her
desire to support student autonomy, and this belief led to her
resistance of some ideas presented in her course:
458 J. Tilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 454e463
PA: In our recent paper …, the psychology paper where they talk
about the authoritative teacher?
Interviewer: Yes
PA: I don't want to be a teacher that is controlling and over-
bearing, I want to be one that allows freedom within the
learning. (VI2)
Here, PA's critique of a theory prompted her to employ peda-
gogies that were more commensurate with her personal beliefs.
When discussing her third video recorded lesson, she explicitly
commented on how her teaching was becoming more congruent
with her personal beliefs around supporting student autonomy and
agency. For example, she had allowed students to choose the moot
for a class debate, and how they presented their outcomes, because
“I don't want to over-power because they're in control” (PA, VI3).
Across these two interview transcripts, we evidenced a shift in PA's
reflective thinking from a pedagogical lens to a critically reflective
lens (Larrivee, 2008), underpinned by her belief in social justice.
Her resistance to a particular theory also prompted a cycle of praxis,
where her beliefs, theory and practice recursively informed one
another. Across her video recorded lessons, PA could identify and
verbalise how her beliefs were informing her practice and the
changes she was making to her practice as a result of her reflective
dialogue.
4.1.2. Participant B: “It's been so long since we've been at class and
learnt about that stuff” (VI3)
When initially asked which theories he drew upon to make
sense of his video recorded practice, PB was reluctant to make any
connections with theory, instead stating he preferred to “do what
feels natural to me as a teacher …, without trying to think too
deeply about what I'm supposed to be doing as such” (PB, VI1).
Despite his tentativeness, the first author persisted in asking him to
make theory to practice connections as he discussed his video
recorded teaching across his interviews.
In his second lesson, he focused on footage where he had
employed one of his classroom teacher's management strategies,
the use of a marble jar. This strategy involved adding or removing
marbles from a jar to coerce students' positive behaviour (Edwards
& Watts, 2008). Whilst discussing this strategy, PB drew upon the
work of Kohn (1993), whose work critiques schools' use of extrinsic
rewards and punishments. He commented, “you know based on his
theory …, I would probably have never thought about it otherwise
…, I've started to question the whole thing” (PB, VI2), and he
described how the marble jar was not working for his year eight
students. Making connections to formal theory prompted PB to re-
imagine his practice (Ball, 1995) in ways beyond his current context.
In his final video recorded lesson he had replaced the marble jar
with a system of house points, which he only used to reward, rather
than punish students' behaviour. This shift in his practice more
strongly aligned with his personal beliefs, where he did not want to
see “the whole class … punished for one student's [behaviour]” (PB,
VI3).
While we evidenced a cycle of praxis across this sequence,
where PB's critical reflections on his personal beliefs and formal
theories incited changes in his practice, it must be viewed with
scepticism. In his course work, the first author had introduced PB to
the work of Kohn and a critical reading suggests he was naming
theory he knew his lecturer valued. However, her persistence of
repeatedly asking PB to make theory to practice connections was
powerful; he had used Kohn's work to critique and resist observed
practices that might otherwise have become an engrained part of
his practice. PB's focus on theory, however, was not sustained.
When asked to discuss theory in his third video recorded lesson, he
was unable or chose not to make any theory to practice connec-
tions, stating, “Yeah, can't really, it's been so long since we've been
at class and learnt about that stuff” (PB, VI3). His comment sug-
gested PB may only have valued theory for his course work and
exams, and perhaps only when directly prompted would connect
theory to his classroom practice.
4.1.3. Participant C: “It's a new way of teaching and learning” (VI3)
When asked to discuss theory in relation to her video recorded
teaching, PC stated that theory needed to work in context for her
students, “where I'm doing it for a reason, like theory has become
part of what I do” (PC, VI2), noting that if theory “didn't work, I'd
adapt it or go back to something else” (PC, VI2). Her dialogue
around her video recorded teaching often focused on her peda-
gogy; this was not surprising when she was often trialling
teaching strategies for the first time. For example, in her third
lesson PC employed a critical multiliteracies pedagogy, where her
students were asked to identify five semiotic systems (linguistic,
audio, visual, gestural and spatial) in order to deconstruct how a
multimodal television commercial communicated meaning
(Anstey & Bull, 2006). To enact such practices she drew upon
future focused literacy theory from her teacher education course
(Sandretto & Tilson, 2014). She recognised her practice engaged “a
new way of teaching and learning” (PC, VI3) and that theory not
only “put a name to it” (PC, VI3), but gave her confidence to trial
literacy practices beyond those in her classroom teacher's literacy
programme.
Her critical reflections (Larrivee, 2008) on her practice reveal
her courage and knowledge that she had potential to move beyond
the status quo of how literacy is traditionally taught in New Zealand
primary schools. While Zeichner and Gore (1990) suggested it is
difficult for PSTs to impact established patterns of practice within
schools, we have included this example to illustrate how PC's
introduction to future focused literacy theory and her willingness
to trial new practices positioned her as a potential agent of change
within her school (Tilson, 2014).
4.1.4. Summary
Across the three participants, we have evidenced how asking
PSTs to repeatedly discuss their theories in relation to their video
recorded teaching prompted a cycle of praxis, wherein they were
able to draw upon theory to either affirm and/or shift their practice.
However, even in this small number of participants, their pro-
pensity to make theory to practice connections could not be
assumed, and we argue it was the act of repeatedly asking them to
do so in relation to their video recorded teaching that supported
them to consider how theory might productively inform their
practice. As evidenced in their resultant dialogue, participants used
theory in diverse ways: PA used theory as a point of resistance and
identified in her final lesson how her pedagogies were becoming
more congruent with her personal beliefs around student auton-
omy; when PB was repeatedly asked to discuss theory, he replaced
observed management practices to better reflect his personal be-
liefs around social justice; and PC drew upon theory to name and
affirm her future focused literacy practices.
4.2. The power of dissonance in triggering a cycle of praxis
We next illustrate what happened when participants identified
moments of dissonance between their espoused theories (personal
 J. Tilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 454e463
€ n, 1974) in
and formal) and their theories-in-use (Argyris & Scho
relation to their video recorded teaching.
4.2.1. Participant A: “I think language and explaining exactly what I
wanted, wasn't clear” (VI1)
Across her three interviews using video recorded teaching, PA
identified she needed to build an explicit curriculum language base
with which to support her teaching:
PA: I was trying to explain to them to pick something out of it,
it's the whole language, I really struggled with how to explain
what I really wanted them to do, about finding an issue in that
[news] paper.
Interviewer: Mmm, hmm.
PA: Getting that um, and them trying to … um, see, still can't
find the words now … so yeah, I think language and explaining
exactly what I wanted, wasn't clear
Interviewer: Wasn't as clear as you liked?
PA: Good enough, yeah. (VI1)
Drawing upon Larrivee's (2008) reflective lenses, PA's discussion
of her use of language functioned at a technical level; she noted
because of her mediocre instructions students were unsure of their
task. While she was prepared to critique her practice, she did so in a
surface or technicist manner (Larrivee, 2008). Nonetheless, seeing
and hearing herself teach was powerful and incited her goal of
building an explicit curriculum language base with which to inform
her teaching.
The focus of PA's second video recorded lesson was geometry,
specifically the teaching of angles. This was an unfamiliar area to PA
that required her in-depth research of both content knowledge and
pedagogy prior to teaching. She sought collegial help from school
and university staff, and immersed herself in the specialist lan-
guage of angles, and how to use a protractor and interactive
whiteboard resources to inform her teaching. After viewing her
geometry lesson, her dialogue revealed how insights from her first
video recorded lesson actively informed her second lesson, and
what had changed.
PA: Well just my demeanour, I think. It's different
Interviewer: And you can see that?
PA: Yeah, yeah, and I think in my first one if I remember
correctly, I was worried about content knowledge, language
Interviewer: Yep and you've certainly done all your homework
here …, very evidently
PA: Yeah, and so I know what, and why I lack confidence, and it
was content, and getting quite knowledgeable about geometry,
because I actually knew nothing about geometry before that
posting, I had to go and learn it all pretty much from scratch, um
so, definitely content knowledge is the go. (V2I)
In this excerpt, PA noticed a change in her teacher presence; that
she now looked and felt more confident as a teacher. She under-
stood her preparation and secure content knowledge were crucial
in fostering her emerging self-confidence. Her dialogue (and
practice) underpinned by recourse to formal theory operated at a
pedagogical level (Larrivee, 2008). The act of seeing herself teach
across video recorded lessons supported her to name and own
resultant changes.
In the same geometry lesson, PA theorised her practice and her
459
focus shifted from herself to her students.
PA: I want to encourage them, like the students to make sense of
their own learning …, instead of me just plopping information
into their minds
Interviewer: Mmm hmm
PA: Um, I can't even remember what that one's called, it is
theory but that they just grasp it and manipulate it and move it
around try and make sense of it themselves
Interviewer: You've kind of talked about that watching your
lesson haven't you, like how do you get it back to them, to get
them doing it?
PA: Yeah
Interviewer: In a variety of ways …, and revisiting it and
building their memory and they have to own it, don't they?
PA: Yeah so they can, it's slightly higher order thinking and they
can critique it themselves
Interviewer: Metacognition, is that what you're thinking about?
You're theorising your own practice here, aren't you?
PA: Yeah
Interviewer: All good
PA: I am, cool. (V2I)
In this excerpt, PA drew upon both personal and formal theories
to make sense of her practice. Her personal belief of having enough
specialist language and content knowledge had shifted from a focus
on herself to supporting her students, and she emphasised it is her
role to ensure students know, remember and can use specialist
language. In her statement rather than “simply plopping informa-
tion in their minds” (V2I), PA resisted traditional transmission
models of teaching that position students as passive learners
(Richards & Richards, 2013). In keeping with her personal beliefs,
she suggested alternative pedagogies to support students' greater
independence. Across her first and second video recorded lessons,
PA's reflective discussion shifted from a technicist lens to a peda-
gogical lens (Larrivee, 2008). PA drew upon both her personal be-
liefs and formal theories as “intertwining tendrils of knowledge”
(Griffiths & Tann, 1992, p. 71), which actively grew and fed her
practice. Her courage in identifying dissonance between her
espoused theories and theories in-use (Argyris & Scho €n, 1974),
sparked a cycle of praxis prompting shifts in practice across her
lessons. This recursive process meant her teaching became more
aligned with her personal beliefs and formal theories, and she was
able to draw upon both to rationalise her practice.
4.2.2. Participant B: “Timing, it's probably my weakest spot” (VI1)
When asked to identify areas of dissonance between his per-
sonal beliefs, theories and video recorded practice, in his first lesson
PB's dialogue focused on what at first appears a technical or
mundane aspect of his practice, his timing.
PB: I think at the end I was becoming … probably see it in the
tape later on, but I become a bit worried about the, yeah worried
about time, I think I was watching the clock a bit by the end
Interviewer: It is yeah
PB: Yeah. I always find um, when I'm planning, yeah timing it's
probably my weakest spots. Um the lesson either goes a lot
faster than I, you know than I'd planned for or it would drag on
for a lot longer
460 J. Tilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 454e463
Interviewer: It is, it's a really hard thing and without experience
it is very difficult
PB: Yeah it's hard to, it's hard to know how the children will,
how they'll cope with the task, how long they'll need. Okay,
maybe a task that would you know, seems simple to you or me,
we could do it a matter of minutes, but to a child it's
Interviewer: It could take a lot longer than you think?
PB: Yeah. (V1I)
His reflective dialogue captured his anxiety around timing and
his uncertainty of predicting how long an activity might take. An
affordance of video is how one can select a particular lens with
which to focus (Tan & Towndrow, 2009), and PB was able to pause
and rewind the footage to scrutinise the timing of sections of his
lesson, for example, the lesson introduction, body and conclusion.
In his dialogue we evidenced PB's conflict; on the one hand, he
knew his introduction needed enough substance so students knew
what to do, and conversely if it was too long, he risked disen-
franchising their interest. His introduction was 5 minutes in length,
and he commented how his nervousness in front of his year eight
class was also a factor in keeping it brief (PB, V1I). Across video
recorded lessons he focused on improving his timing and in his
second video recorded lesson, we illustrate how this prompted
benefits for his confidence and practice.
PB: I've given an instruction that they will have five minutes to
discuss as a group their views. And after that they will be
sharing their views with the class
Interviewer: Yes
PB: So giving them that time limit means they have to get on to
it
Interviewer: Absolutely, that sounds like a very good idea
PB: I've found with other lessons I haven't been clear in setting
time, and it just goes on, it never ends
Interviewer: And they don't get things finished do they?
PB: No
Interviewer: So I think using a clock is one of your great
strategies
PB: Yeah, time management has been one of the things I have
been working on and that's improving
Interviewer: Excellent, and it is about watching the clock when
you know you have a given amount of time to get things done
PB: When I first started teaching I couldn't believe how fast the
time goes, and how little time you really have
Interviewer: Mmmm
PB: But uh, I think now in my third year I am starting to get used
to that and especially in lessons like English and maths that are
so structured and the same everyday I am starting to get used to
that and I know I have 50 minutes per lesson
Interviewer: So pace, you have to pace
PB: And I know how long each lesson takes yeah, so I will get
used to it. (V2I)
While timing might be considered a taken-for-granted aspect of
a teacher's practice, PB's dialogue revealed multiple and complex
skills that cannot be assumed. At a micro level every minute counts,
PB knew this, and now confidently signalled to students that they
had 5 minutes to prepare before being called upon for whole class
sharing, and that this was non-negotiable. This conscious shift in
his practice motivated students to complete tasks in a given time
period and reinforced his more confident teacher persona. At a
macro level he now understood he needs to work within a school
wide timetable with 50 minutes timeslots for curriculum areas,
revealing his critical reflection (Larrivee, 2008) on wider institu-
tional forces that he was learning to work productively within.
Across these two video recorded lessons, PB's identification of
dissonance around a technical and often taken-for-granted aspect
of his practice prompted a cycle of praxis; wherein he shifted his
practice in beneficial ways for his students and his emerging
teaching practice.
4.2.3. PC: “It looks like I'm sort of lecturing them” (VI1)
PC's first lesson was video recorded near the beginning of the
school year and captured her first whole class lesson. Using an
interactive whiteboard and PowerPoint, she modelled for her year
eight class how to write a science report. In the opening scenes, she
identified dissonance between her personal beliefs and practice.
When I first watched it back I could immediately see I've spent
far too long explaining and talking about report writing, and
there's not enough doing, so the people on the mat would've
switched off sort of thing, some of them would've still been
engaged, yet looking back I, you know about ten minutes in, I
could, could've sent them off to do an activity and then brought
them back. (PC, V1I)
Her dialogue focused on multiple aspects of her teaching she
wished to refine and change. She noted how her long introduction
and imbalance of teacher-student talk had risked disengaging
students’ interest, and how her actions positioned students in a
passive rather than agentic role. Her following commentary was
similarly critical.
When I look at it, I think it looks like I'm sort of lecturing them,
and sort of like the teaching style of lecturing, whereas next
time I would like to sort of have them go and do something and
then bring it back, and then have them work independently on
their own. (PC, V1I)
Here, she bravely critiqued her use of a pedagogy, that in her
words, resembled the lecturing style of teaching she had at times
been subject to within her university course. Her critique carried a
double-edged sword, she both critiqued her own practice and
speaks back to the academy resisting traditionalist styles of
teaching where the teacher is positioned as the source of all
knowledge and students as passive recipients (Richards & Richards,
2013). PC realised her lesson needed to be more interactive where
students were engaged with tasks more quickly. It is our belief that
PC's critique subtly asks teacher educators to critically reflect on
their own delivery of formal theory, least we see pedagogies not
designed for the primary classroom mirrored back to us by students
whom we have taught.
Her second lesson was video recorded in May when she had
established more in-depth relationships with her class, “in the first
video I did a lot of guess work, I didn't know as much as I know now,
so that would bring [it] back to my knowledge of the learner, and
how important it is” (PC, V2I). Her personalised knowledge of
learners meant her lesson was now tailored to meet students'
diverse needs, and her practice in-action (Scho € n, 1983) better
 J. Tilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 454e463
aligned with her personal beliefs. Her critique of her pedagogy in
her first video recorded lesson had instigated changes in her
practice. In her second lesson she observed, “so seeing … thinking
of the difference, it's quite different [she laughs], and I'm used to
sending them away and getting them back and sharing ideas,
because it is now quite interactive” (PC, V2I). PC's identification of
dissonance between her beliefs and practice in her first lesson was
powerful; instead of passive recipients, her students were now
positioned as interactive and independent, and with video as a
mirror on her practice, she could chart productive changes in her
practice.
In her third video recorded lesson PC noted how her teaching
had become more relaxed and with stronger relationships estab-
lished with her students, she enacted a more playful, even drama-
like role.
Interviewer: Were you happy with your own teaching on that
video?
PC: Yes, because I feel like I can when I do give the examples or,
I'm sort of careless like when …
Interviewer: Mmm
PC: I'm giving the example of Harvey Norman [advertisement] I
don't mind [she giggles] switching into that role and making the
sound of the coke and things
Interviewer: So, you can be a bit carefree?
PC: I think because we've built good relationships and things,
they enjoy that
Interviewer: They definitely do
PC: And even when I'm when I was giving the examples of the
video I'm looking at their faces to see, to see how they're
watching the movie, whether they're enjoying it. Yeah, cause
that's what it's all about having a bit of fun. (V3I)
Across her video recorded lessons, PC's initial critiques of her
pedagogy have prompted productive changes for herself and stu-
dents. Video afforded her the opportunity to closely examine her
own practice (Tan & Towndrow, 2009), and to observe her students'
engagement and reactions to her teaching in a way normally un-
available to her extended gaze. In her words, she described her
teaching “as far more like myself” (PC, VI3), where her beliefs,
theories and practice now worked in greater harmony.
4.2.4. Summary
Across all three participants' research experiences we have
evidenced how discussing dissonance between one's espoused
theories and actual practice prompted a cycle of praxis leading all
participants to change their practice in productive ways for them-
selves and their students. Dissonance acted as a trigger that sup-
ported all participants to find greater congruence across their
personal beliefs, theories and practice.
5. Concluding reflections
How teacher educators can support PSTs to make meaningful
connections between theory and practice has formed the central
focus of this paper. Such work remains imperative, particularly
against the spectre of recent international trends, which appear to
increasingly privilege apprenticeship-based models of teacher ed-
ucation (Anderson & Freebody, 2012). Apprenticeship based
models problematically diminish opportunities for teacher educa-
tors to support PSTs to connect theory with practice (Alcorn, 2014).
461
This paper offers teacher educators a way forward to support
PSTs to draw upon theory to richly inform their practice via a cycle
of praxis. Praxis requires one to make “informed committed action”
(Carr & Kemmis, 1986, p. 190) and this paper has argued making
connections between theory and practice is pivotal in such action. A
key strategy employed in this research project involved providing
PSTs multiple opportunities to discuss their theories (personal and
formal) in relation to their video recorded teaching. Participants’
research experiences have highlighted three key findings teacher
educators may draw upon to support PSTs to engage in a cycle of
praxis.
The first finding was the surprisingly diverse ways participants
drew upon theory to make sense of their practice; for example, as a
point of resistance, as a fulcrum from which to re-consider and shift
one's practices, and as a source from which to name and affirm
one's practices. Importantly, theory for all participants invited them
to re-imagine their practice (Ball, 1995), and when used in a cycle of
praxis, enabled them to affirm and/or shift their teaching practice
in productive ways. We suggest when working with theory that
teacher educators create multiple spaces in which PSTs can affirm
and resist theory, and that PSTs are supported to critically consider
the usefulness of theory in terms of their context (Luke, 2000).
The second finding relates to the power of dissonance. The
strategy of repeatedly asking PSTs to identify dissonance between
their espoused theories (personal and formal) and their video
recorded lessons (Argyris & Scho € n, 1974), was powerful. This
strategy prompted a cycle of praxis in which participants selected a
specific aspect of their practice to refine and change, and where
across time they were able to find greater congruence between
their personal beliefs, theories and practice. We argue enabling
participants repeated opportunities to observe their teaching, and
that they, rather than an expert other, targeted areas to refine were
key factors in initiating a cycle of praxis (Tilson, 2014). In this way,
theory became a source from which to illuminate their practice
(Freire, 1999), and in turn their practice became an expression of
theory (Carr & Kemmis, 1986).
These two findings underscore the inseparable nexus of theory
and practice (Carr & Kemmis, 1986), where theory acted as a
fulcrum against which participants could affirm and/or change
their practice. However, none of this is simple, and one participant's
comment regarding theory still troubles the researchers, “… it's
been so long since we've been at class and learnt about that stuff’
(PB, VI3). While PB is but one voice from a group of six PSTs, we
suggest that teacher educators may potentially have one PB in
every cohort with whom they work. PB's candid remark provides a
salient reminder that we cannot assume that all PSTs will inde-
pendently value or make any connections between their teaching
practice and theory. The cycle of praxis modelled in this paper is
designed to support teacher educators and PSTs to work together to
achieve that goal.
A third finding from this paper relates to the reflective lenses;
technical, pedagogical and critical (Larrivee, 2008) participants
employed as they discussed their video recorded teaching. In a
recursive cycle across lessons, their use of one reflective lens often
incited them to employ another, and it appeared regardless of
which reflective lens participants employed, their dialogue ignited
a cycle of praxis from which they either affirmed and/or targeted
areas to change in their teaching practice. Providing repeated op-
portunities for PSTs to see and make sense of their teaching was
crucial in this process. We suggest that PSTs need multiple lenses
with which to make sense of their work, and that technical,
pedagogical and critical lenses are equally useful (Killen, 2003).
A limitation in the methodology of this paper was the large
investment of time needed to conduct the interviews both for
participants and the first author. The time commitment involved
462 J. Tilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 454e463
would make it difficult to replicate with a larger group of partici-
pants. However, the research design could be modified by having
participants, prior to their interviews, pre-select an aspect of their
video recorded teaching to discuss with the researcher, reducing
the one-on one time for each interview, or alternatively they could
work with a peer, or small group of peers. We propose the rewards
realised in practice for both PSTs and teacher educators warrant
further research.
This paper has demonstrated the potential benefits of support-
ing PSTs to engage in a cycle of praxis. While findings cannot be
generalised from only three PSTs, nonetheless, the process
described and implemented in this study has been evidenced as
productive. Ultimately praxis requires both reflection and action
(Freire, 1999); in this paper we have evidenced asking PSTs to make
connections between their theories and practice supported them to
take informed committed action in the classroom (Carr & Kemmis,
1986), in productive ways for their students. Praxis also supported
them to adopt multiple reflective lenses with which to consider and
re-consider their practice (Larrivee, 2008), and to find greater
congruence between their espoused theories and practice (Argyris
& Scho€n, 1974).
Theory, both personal and formal, lay at the heart of such
change. It remains imperative for teacher educators to employ
strategies that support PSTs to make meaningful connections be-
tween theory and practice. If teacher educators ignore this re-
sponsibility, we may ourselves be complicit in maintaining the
apparently intransigent theory-practice divide that continues to
trouble teacher education today (Anderson & Freebody, 2012).
Appendix A. Full study interview questions using videotaped
teaching episodes
Part one of interview: unstructured
Talk to me about your teaching …
Part two of interview: semi-structured questions
1. What are your personal beliefs about teaching?
Additional (potential) prompts:
 What are your personal beliefs about how children best learn,
you may wish to consider pedagogies, the kind of environment,
teacher identity you wish to construct, teaching strategies you
employ and so forth?
 Where do your beliefs about teaching come from?
 Which factors cause you to maintain or change your beliefs?
2. How does your filmed teaching reflect your personal beliefs?
Additional (potential) prompts:
 Can you discuss ways in which your videotaped teaching reflects
your personal beliefs?
 Are there examples of practice in your videotaped teaching that
do not reflect your beliefs, if so, can you give examples?
3. Which formal theory do you draw upon, to make sense of
your teaching practice?
Additional (potential) prompts:
 Which formal theory/or theories from your teacher education
programme can you draw upon, to support you making sense of
your videotaped practice?
 If unsure: prompt relevant aspects of their videotaped practice
to consider, for example their choice of pedagogies, the way in
which they support children's dialogue etc.
 How has (formal) theory from your course impacted your
teaching practice?
 What is it that causes you to maintain or change your formal
theories?
 Do you, or do you not value theory, and can you give a rationale
for your position?
4. Can you name any broader institutional, cultural, social or
political factors, (for example, recent government initiatives) which
impact on the way you reflect on your teaching?
 How can we reflect on such wider forces, in order to work
productively with them?
References
Alcorn, N. (2014). Teacher education in New Zealand 1974e2014. Journal of Edu-
cation for Teaching, 40(5), 447e460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02607476.2014.956547.
Anderson, M. J., & Freebody, K. J. (2012). Developing communities of praxis:
Bridging the theory practice divide in teacher education. McGill Journal of Ed-
ucation, 47(3), 359e377.
Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times,
changing literacies. Newark, DW: International Reading Association.
Argyris, C., & Scho €n, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effec-
tiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ball, S. (1995). Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational
studies. British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3), 255e271.
Beck, R. J., King, A., & Marshall, S. K. (2002). Effects of video construction on pre-
service teachers' observations of teaching. The Journal of Experimental Education,
70(4), 345e361.
Bleakley, A. (1999). From reflective practice to holisitc reflexivity. Studies in Higher
Education, 24(3), 315e330.
Calandra, B., Brantley-Dias, L., & Dias, M. (2006). Using digital video for professional
development in urban schools: A pre-service teacher's experience with
reflection. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(4), 137e145.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action
research. Oxon, United Kingdom: Deakin University Press.
Clarke, A. (1995). Professional development in practicum settings: Reflective prac-
tice under scrutiny. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 243e261.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
qualitative research (3rd ed, pp. 1e32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Edwards, C. H., & Watts, V. (2008). Classroom discipline and management (2nd ed.).
Milton, QLD, Australia: Wiley.
El-Dib, M. A. B. (2007). Levels of reflection in action research: An overview and an
assessment tool. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(1), 24e35.
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers “learning to notice” in
the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244e276.
Ethell, R., & McMeniman, M. (2000). Unlocking the knowledge in action of an expert
practitioner. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 87e101.
Fendler, L. (2003). Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors: Historical influences and
political reverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16e25.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the ‘‘messy’’ construct of
teachers' beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they
tell us? I. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors: Vol. 2.
Educational psychology handbook (pp. 471e499). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Freire, P. (1999). Pedagogy of the oppressed (B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY:
Continuum.
Fuller, F. F., & Manning, B. A. (1973). Self-confrontation reviewed: A conceptuali-
zation of video playback in teacher education. Review of Educational Research,
43(4), 469e528.
Gelfuso, A. (2016). A framework for facilitating video-mediated reflection: Sup-
porting preservice teachers as they create ‘warranted assertabilities’ about lit-
eracy teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 68e79. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.04.003.
Griffiths, M., & Tann, S. (1992). Using reflective practice to link personal and public
theories. Journal of Education for Teaching, 18(1), 69e84.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and
emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of
qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 255e286). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hamilton, E. R. (2011). Video as a metaphorical eye: Images of positionality,
 J. Tilson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 454e463
pedagogy, and practice. College Teaching, 60(1), 10e16.
Harford, J., Gerry, M., & McCartan, D. (2010). ‘Lights, camera, reflection’: Using peer
video to promote reflective dialogue among student teachers. Teacher Devel-
opment, 14(1), 57e68.
Harford, J., & McRuaire, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful
reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1884e1892.
Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2009). The impact of collaborative video analysis by
practitioners and researchers upon pedagogical thinking and practice: A follow-
up study. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(5), 617e638.
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lo
pez-Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: Teacher
learning as praxis. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 248e254.
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective
practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73e85.
Killen, L. R. (2003). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice
(4th ed.). Tuggerah, NSW, Australia: Thomson Social Science Press.
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative
research. In N. D. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(pp. 303e343). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentives plans, A's,
praise and other bribes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Korthagen, F. (2010). How teacher education can make a difference. Journal of Ed-
ucation for Teaching, 36(4), 407e423.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers' level of reflective
practice. Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341e360.
Levin, B. B., He, Y., & Allen, M. H. (2013). Teacher beliefs in action: A cross-sectional,
longitudinal follow-up study of teachers' personal practical theories. The
Teacher Educator, 48(3), 201e217.
Lewin, K. (1945). The research center for group dynamics at Massachusetts institute
of technology. Sociometry, 8, 126e136.
Lortie, S. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning
about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33e43.
Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(5), 448e461.
Marsh, B., & Mitchell, N. (2014). The role of video in teacher professional devel-
opment. Teacher Development, 18(3), 403e417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13664530.2014.938106.
Mayer, D. (2014). Forty years of teacher education in Australia: 1974e2014. Journal
of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 461e473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02607476.2014.956536.
Murray, J., & Passy, R. (2014). Primary teacher education in England: 40 years on.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 492e506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02607476.2014.956542.
New Zealand Teachers Council. (2015a). Code of ethics for certificated teachers.
Wellington New Zealand: New Zealand Teachers Council.
New Zealand Teachers Council. (2015b). Graduating teacher standards: Aotearoa New
Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Teachers Council.
Newhouse, C. P., Lane, J., & Brown, C. (2007). Reflecting on teaching practices using
digital video representation in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 32(3), 1e12.
Orland-Barak, L., & Rachamim, M. (2009). Simultaneous reflections by video in a
second-order action research-mentoring model: Lessons for the mentor and
mentee. Reflective Practice, 10(5), 601e613.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307e332.
Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice.
463
Educational Researcher, 19(7), 10e15.
Richards, R. W., & Richards, L. M. (2013). Sponges do not make their own water:
Student engagement through dialogue and the development of reflective
consciousness. Reflective Practice, 14(6), 774e786.
Rosaen, C. L., Lundeburg, M., Terpstra, M., Cooper, M., Fu, J., & Niu, R. (2010). Seeing
through a different lens: What do interns learn when they make video cases of
their own teaching? The Teacher Educator, 45(1), 1e22.
Saldan ~ a, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, United
Kingdom: Sage.
Sandretto, S., & Tilson, J. (2014). The trouble with the future is that it keeps turning
into the present: Preparing your students for their critically multiliterate future
today. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 52e60.
Scho€n, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., Rimmele, R., Schwindt, K., Kobarg, M., & Meyer, L.. (2005). Do
videos really matter? The experimental study LUV on the use of videos in
teachers' professional development. Paper presented at the Eleventh Confer-
ence of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction,
Nicosia, Cyprus.
Sharpe, L., Hu, C., Lachland, C., Gopinathan, S., Swe Khine, M., Moo Ngho, S., et al.
(2003). Enhancing multipoint desktop video conferencing (mdvc) with lesson
video clips: Recent development in pre-service teaching practice in Singapore.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 529e541.
Spalding, E., & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogical
strategies that encourage reflective journal writing. Teachers College Record,
104(7), 1393e1421.
Tan, A. K., & Towndrow, P. A. (2009). Catalyzing student-teacher interactions and
teacher learning in science practical formative assessment with digital video
technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 61e67.
Thompson, N., & Pascal, J. (2012). Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective
Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 13(2), 311e325.
Tilson, J. (2014). An exploration of the use of videotaped teaching and dialogue to
support preservice teachers to critically reflect on their emerging teaching practice.
Dunedin, New Zealand: Doctor of Education, University of Otago.
Tripp, T., & Rich, P. (2012). Using video to analyze one's own teaching. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 43(4), 678e704.
Villaverde, L. (2004). Developing curriculum and critical pedagogy. In J. L. Kincheloe,
& D. Weil (Eds.), Critical thinking and learning: An encylopedia for parents and
teachers (pp. 131e134). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Wing-mui So, W. (2012). Quality of learning outcomes in an online video- based
learning community: Potential and challenges for student teachers. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 143e158.
Zeichner, K. (2014). The struggle for the soul of teaching and teacher education in
the USA. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 551e568. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/02607476.2014.956544.
Zeichner, K., & Gore, J. M. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329e348). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. P. (2014). Reflective teaching: An introduction (2nd ed.). New
York: NY: Taylor and Francis.
Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Are the effects of university based teacher
education washed out by school experiences? Journal of Teacher Education,
32(3), 7e11.
Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. (2011). Understanding the
affordances and challenges of three types of video for teacher professional
development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 454e462.
Zheng, H. (2013). Teachers' beliefs and practices: A dynamic and complex rela-
tionship. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 331e343.