Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Video-stimulated recall as a catalyst for teacher professional learning

Geiger, Vince, Muir, Tracey, Lamb, Janeen·2016·Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education
DOI 10.1007/s10857-015-9306-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10857-015-9306-y

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Alger, C. (2006). ‘What went well, what didn’t go so well’: Growth of reflection in pre-service teachers. Reflective Practice, 7(3), 287–301. · doi:10.1080/14623940600837327
  2. Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Johnson, D., & Wiliam, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy. London: School of Education, King’s College.
  3. Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers. (1997). Numeracy = Everyone’s Business Report of the Numeracy Education Strategy Development Conference. Adelaide: AAMT.
  4. Blomberg, G., Renkl, A., Sherin, M., Borko, H., & Seidel, T. (2013). Five research-based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education. Journal for Educational Research Online, 5(1), 90–114.
  5. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417–436. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Seago, N., & Mangram, C. (2014). Facilitating video-based professional development: Planning and orchestrating productive discussions. In Y. Li, E. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices, advances in mathematics education (pp. 259–282). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-04993-9_16 . · DOI
  7. Borko, H., Koellner, K., Jacobs, J., & Seago, N. (2011). Using video representations of teaching in practice-based professional development programs. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(2), 175–187. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2004). Advances in research on teaching. Using video in teacher education (Vol. 10). Elsevier: Oxford.
  9. Brophy, J. (2007). Discussion. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 287–304). Bingley: JAI Press.
  10. Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Longman.
  11. Clarke, D. M. (1997). The changing role of the mathematics teacher. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 278–301. · DOI
  12. Clarke, D., Sullivan, P., Cheeseman, J., & Clarke, B. (2000). The early numeracy research project: Developing a framework for describing early number learning. In J. Bana & A. Chapman (Eds.), Mathematics education beyond 2000 (Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 180–187). Perth, WA: MERGA.
  13. Cobb, P., Zhao, A., & Dean, D. (2009). Conducting design experiments to support teacher’s learning: A reflection from the field. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 165–199. doi: 10.1080/10508400902797933 . · DOI
  14. Coles, A. (2013). Using video for professional development: The role of the discussion facilitator. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(3), 165–184. · DOI
  15. Coles, A. (2014). Mathematics teachers learning with video: The role, for the didactician, of a heightened listenin. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education Mathematics Education, 46, 267–278. doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0541-3 . · DOI
  16. Davies, N., & Walker, K. (2005). Learning to notice: One aspect of teachers’ content knowledge in the numeracy classroom. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce, & A. Roche (Eds.), Building connections: Research, theory and practice (Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 273–280). Sydney: MERGA.
  17. Day, C. (1998). Working with the different selves of teachers: Beyond comfortable collaboration. Educational Action Research, 6(2), 255–275. · DOI
  18. Day, C. (1999). Professional development and reflective practice: Purposes, processes and partnerships. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 7(2), 221–233. · DOI
  19. Geiger, V., & Goos, M. (2006). Living in the gap: A tale of two different types of researchers. In P. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities, cultures and learning spaces (Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 254–261). Adelaide, SA: MERGA.
  20. Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Dole, S. (2011). Trajectories into professional learning in numeracy teaching. In J. Clarke, B. Kissane, J. Mousely, T. Spencer & S. Thornton (Eds.), Traditions and (new) practices (Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Alice Springs, NT) (pp. 297–305). Alice Springs: MERGA.
  21. Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Dole, S. (2014). Students’ perspectives on their numeracy development across the learning areas. In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 473–492). New York: Springer. · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7560-2_22
  22. Goos, M., Dole, S., & Geiger, V. (2011). Improving numeracy education in rural schools: A professional development approach. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(2), 129–148. · doi:10.1007/s13394-011-0008-1
  23. Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Dole, S. (2014). Transforming professional practice in numeracy teaching. In Y. Li, E. Silver & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 81–102). New York: Springer. · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04993-9_6
  24. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M, Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Hopkins, D. (1993). A teacher’s guide to classroom research (2nd ed.). London: Open University Press.
  26. Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Beasley, H., Chan, A., Cunard, A., & Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 4(3), 226–243. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Lerman, S. (2006). Theories of mathematics education: Is plurality a problem? ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 38(1), 8–13. · doi:10.1007/bf02655902
  28. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
  29. Lovitt, C., & Clarke, D. (1988). Mathematics curriculum and teaching program (MCTP) Activity bank (Vol. 1). Canberra: Curriculum Development Centre.
  30. Millett, A., & Bibby, T. (2004). The context for change. In A. Millett, M. Brown, & M. Askew (Eds.), Primary mathematics and the developing professional (pp. 1–17). Netherlands: Kluwer. · DOI
  31. Muir, T. (2010). Using video-stimulated recall as a tool for reflecting on the teaching of mathematics. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane & C. Hurst (Eds.), MERGA33 2010 shaping the future of mathematics education (Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia). Fremantle, WA: MERGA.
  32. Nemirovsky, R., Dimattia, C., Ribeiro, B., & Lara-Meloy, T. (2005). Talking about teaching episodes. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 363–392. doi: 10.1007/s10857-005-3848-3 . · doi:10.1007/s10857-005-3848-3
  33. OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Olsen, J. C., & Kirtley, K. (2005). The transition of a secondary mathematics teacher: From a reform listener to a believer. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 25–32). Melbourne: PME.
  35. Powell, E. (2005). Conceptualising and facilitating active learning: Teachers’ video-stimulated reflective dialogues. Reflective Practice, 6(3), 407–418. · doi:10.1080/14623940500220202
  36. Prediger, S., Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Arzarello, F. (2008). Networking strategies and methods for connecting theoretical approaches—First steps towards a conceptual framework. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(2), 165–178. · doi:10.1007/s11858-008-0086-z
  37. Reason, P. (1998). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 261–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  38. Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing noticing. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347–360. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Roth McDuffie, A., Foote, M., Bolson, C., Turner, E., Aguirre, J., Bartell, T., et al. (2014). Using video analysis to support prospective K-8 teachers’ noticing of students’ multiple mathematical knowledge bases. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(3), 245–270. · DOI
  40. Santagata, R. (2009). Designing video-based professional development for mathematics teachers in low-performing schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 38–51. · DOI
  41. Schratz, M. (2006). Leading and learning: ‘Odd Couple’ or powerful match? Leading and Managing: Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders, 12(2), 40–43.
  42. Seidel, T., Stürmer, K., Blomberg, G., Kobarg, M., & Schwindt, K. (2011). Teacher learning from analysis of videotaped classroom situations: Does it make a difference whether teachers observe their own teaching or that of others? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 259–267. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Sherin, M. G. (2004). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  44. Sriraman, B. & English, L. D. (2005). Theories of mathematics education: A global survey of theoretical frameworks/trends in mathematics education research. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 37(6), 450–456. · doi:10.1007/bf02655853
  45. Star, J., & Strickland, S. (2008). Learning to observe: using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 107–125. · DOI · Paper page
  46. van Es, E. A. (2012). Examining the development of a teacher learning community: The case of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 182–192. · DOI
  47. van Es, E., & Sherin, M. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571–596.
  48. van Es, E., Tunney, J., Goldsmith, L., & Seago, N. (2014). A framework for the facilitation of teachers’ analysis of video. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 340–356. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Geiger, V., Muir, T., & Lamb, J.
Venue
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-04-14
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
457-475
ISSN
  • 1386-4416
  • 1573-1820
DOI
10.1007/s10857-015-9306-y
Cited by
31
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.