CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Mathematics Education and Teaching TechniquesVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesTeacher Education and Leadership Studies

Analyzing the Impact of Video Representation Complexity on Preservice Teacher Noticing of Children’s Thinking

Open access
Superfine, Alison, Bragelman, John·2018·EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
DOI 10.29333/ejmste/99501
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Despite the growing research base on preservice teacher noticing of children’s mathematical thinking in video, few, if any studies consider the complex nature of the video representations themselves. Drawing from cognitive load theory, we developed a rubric to code the complexity of the salient teaching and learning events captured in video, and analyzed the relationship between video complexity and preservice teacher (n = 233) noticing. Results indicate that two categories significantly highlight children’s mathematical thinking and two categories significantly mask children’s mathematical thinking for preservice teachers. We discuss the implications of these results for the design of our instructional platform and other video-based learning environments used in preservice teacher education settings.

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 · 10.29333/ejmste/99501

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Videos in which teachers did not interact with groups were more effective in supporting PSTs' noticing skills than videos in which teachers interacted with students by guiding and scaffolding their mathematical activity.

    “Videos in which teachers did not interact with groups were also more effective in supporting PSTs ' noticing skills than videos in which teachers interacted with students by guiding and scaffolding their mathematical activity.”

    From Prospective K-8 teachers’ noticing of student justifications and generalizations in the context of analyzing written artifacts and video-records (2021) · cites this paper as Superfine and Bragelman (2018)

    The Teacher Participation results report higher-level noticing when the teacher did not ask children questions to elicit their mathematical thinking than when the teacher did. The Discussion and Conclusion also notes higher noticing when the teacher was absent. The claim broadens this specific comparison to teacher interaction with groups versus guiding and scaffolding students’ mathematical activity generally, which the paper does not establish. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Superfine and Bragelman (2018) reported that PSTs learned to notice students' thinking best when videos were selected with attention to their embedded cognitive loads and progressive complexity.

    “They reported that PSTs learned to notice students ' thinking best when videos were selected with attention to their embedded cognitive loads and progressive complexity.”

    From Prospective K-8 teachers’ noticing of student justifications and generalizations in the context of analyzing written artifacts and video-records (2021) · cites this paper as Superfine and Bragelman (2018)

    The Discussion and Conclusion (page unavailable) reports that video complexity affected PSTs’ noticing and recommends selecting and reordering videos by their cognitive-load features to scaffold noticing over time. It presents that sequence as a suggestion for future implementation, not as a tested finding that PSTs learned best from progressively complex videos. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • What teachers notice and how they make sense of student mathematical thinking might be mediated by the nature of representations used to capture student thinking.

    “Goldsmith and Seago (2011) and Superfine and Bragelman (2018) documented that what teachers notice and how they make sense of student mathematical thinking might be mediated by the nature of representations used to capture student thinking.”

    From Prospective K-8 teachers’ noticing of student justifications and generalizations in the context of analyzing written artifacts and video-records (2021) · cites this paper as Superfine and Bragelman (2018)

  • Videos of small groups in which students worked on tasks that evoked multiple solution strategies were more effective than videos that captured individual students' thinking for PSTs' learning to notice student mathematical thinking.

    “They reported that videos of small groups in which students worked on tasks that evoked multiple solution strategies were more effective than videos that captured individual students ' thinking.”

    From Prospective K-8 teachers’ noticing of student justifications and generalizations in the context of analyzing written artifacts and video-records (2021) · cites this paper as Superfine and Bragelman (2018)

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  2. Castro Superfine, A., Fisher, A., Bragelman, J., & Amador, J. (2017). Shifting perspectives on preservice teachers' noticing of children's thinking. In E. Schack, M. Fisher, & J. Wilhem (Eds.), Teacher Noticing: Bridging and Broadening Perspectives, Contexts and Frameworks (pp. 409-426). Springer International Publishing.
  3. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing (pp. 117-133). New York: Routledge.
  4. Star, J., Lynch, K., & Perova, N. (2011). Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers' abilities to attend to classroom features. In M. G. Sherin, V. Jacobs, & R. Stein, M. K., Engle, R., Smith, M., & Hughes, E. (2015). Orchestrating productive mathematics discussions: Helping teachers learn to better incorporate student thinking (pp. 375-388).
  5. Stein, M., Smith, M., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Superfine, A., & Bragelman, J.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Superfine, Alison
ORCID
Venue
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Publisher
Modestum Publishing Ltd
Published
2018-10-31
Volume
14
Issue
11
ISSN
  • 1305-8215 (ISSN-L)
  • 1305-8223
DOI
10.29333/ejmste/99501
OpenAlex
W2898940545
Cited by
22
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
8.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
Keywords
pre-service teachers, noticing, children's mathematical thinking, cognitive load theory, video-based professional development, mathematics teacher education, instructional design

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