1

Teaching Video Analysis

Angel Perez

Department of Secondary Education, CSU Fullerton

EDSC 591: Professional Seminar in Secondary Education

Dr. Susan Glassett Farrelly

October 9, 2020
 2

As the students got settled in, the teacher asked students to listen closely. He asked them

to each take out a sheet of paper as he handed out the review packet. He instructed the class to

work in groups of three or four to complete the packet, stating that some students were still

"shaky" about graphing linear equations. He asked a couple students to remind the class about

the two ways he taught how to graph. Groups were instructed to finish the first page and have the

teacher check their work before continuing to the second page. Although collaboration was the

idea behind working in small groups, it was unclear whether answers should be written

collectively on one paper or individually on each member's paper. The students began working,

but were unsure about who should do what. Individual student roles in their group were unclear,

so the teacher stopped class to give better instructions about group tasks and materials. Clearly,

though, the lesson was meant for review and practice.

Immediately after, the teacher spent several minutes moving from group to group,

answering questions and giving guidance to start solving the problems. Every group had at least

two questions regarding the problems or the process of completing the packet, so the teacher was

on-the-move often. He encouraged students to work together, compare answers and ask each

other for help. His intentions were good, but his words were sometimes harsh or discouraging.

He questioned students that did not use his methods, which created self-doubt in exploration. We

know that “prior experiences, acquired during years in classrooms as students, heavily influence

how teachers interpret what they are learning and how they end up teaching,” (Hiebert, Morris,

Berk & Jansen, 2007, p. 47) which led to this teacher wanting students to only use the ways he

taught. He used phrases like "you already forgot," "you just want to be on camera," "smartest kid

in class," "you at least remembered," "obviously," "lazy" and others. He also used phrases, like

"good job" and others that encourage students, but his expectations were unclear and feedback
 3

was vague. After about 20 minutes, he stopped class again to discuss negative slopes and how

they affect graphing the equations. Students continued working on the packet, while the teacher

answered more and more questions.

Hiebert et al. (2007) discuss two kinds of knowledge: subject matter knowledge or

pedagogical content knowledge and a collection of dispositions, knowledge, and reasoning skills.

The teacher’s objective, which was accomplished, was mainly content knowledge (graph linear

equations). However, he did not allow student dispositions in solving problems, nor give

opportunity for students to share reasoning skills with the class. Perhaps better preparation for

the lesson at the beginning would have reduced the amount of questions. For example, one

revision would be to lead a discussion about graphing two separate equations, each using a

different method, and allowing students to show their work on the board. That way students

could refer to it as they worked.

In order to discern whether learning goals were achieved, we must ask ourselves, “What

did students learn, and how and why did instruction influence such learning? How could lessons

based on this information be revised to be more effective when teaching them next time?”

(Hiebert, Morris, Berk & Jansen, 2007, p. 48). As mentioned earlier, this lesson was meant for

review, so it should not have been the students’ first time graphing linear equations. Although

the review and practice was necessary for this class, the preparation and directions for instruction

were not adequate. In order to better influence learning, another revision would be to incorporate

some form of technology or web application. Desmos would have been a great resource in this

situation. Assuming that part of the learning goal was for students to graph using a pencil and

paper, better directions should have been given regarding what is expected from each group

member and what their finished product should look like. I would revise student roles in their
 4

group, instead of allowing certain members to do most of the work. One example would be to

mark the desks A, B, C, and D and give the following roles: A = table maker, B = choose

appropriate x-coordinates, C = solve for y-coordinates, and D = graph maker. This way, students

are encouraged to communicate and collaborate.

The teacher expressed his fatigue and frustration, but should have thought about how the

words he used could be interpreted. Try not to use phrases like "smartest kid in class" or other

words that compare students or degrade them. All students make mistakes and should be

encouraged to learn from them. Although the students were given the opportunity for practice,

future review sessions should be more engaging. Keep two or three of the written problems, but

the rest should be fun, like a matching game - match the equation to its corresponding graph. The

review session could have gone faster and allowed time for class discussion where groups can

explain their answers. Nonetheless, the teacher should allow enough time for students to

complete the packet, share their work with the class, and check their answers. This will take

another class period.