Deconstructing Teacher Engagement Techniques for Pre-service Teachers through Explicitly Teaching and Applying “Noticing” in Video Observations

1.1 Theoretical Framework: Danielson’s Framework for Teaching

The Danielson Framework for Teaching is a teacher evaluation model that uses student engagement as its cornerstone. The Danielson Framework holistically examines teachers’ responsibilities through 22 practical teaching components. These 22 components fall into four domains (planning and preparation, the classroom environment; instruction; and professional obligations). Teacher actions that promote student engagement are cross-cutting within domains one through three of the framework. Domain one connects with the emotional construct of engagement, asking teachers to know their students and plan lessons coherently based on the knowledge and relationships built with students. Domain two, which connects to the behavioral construct of engagement, looks at establishing a safe environment with clear expectations and learning goals, whereas domain three, which focuses on instruction, explicitly has a component titled “engaging students in learning” and focuses directly on the cognitive engagement construct. Domain three specifically looks at four elements linked directly to student engagement: activities and assignments, the grouping of students, instructional material, and the structure and pacing of a lesson (Danielson Group, 2022).

Danielson explicitly defines student engagement as being “intellectually active.” It expressly acknowledges that engagement is not simply “being busy” or “on-task,” which is solely related to the behavioral construct of engagement (Danielson, 2007). Danielson (2022) makes the distinction between “being busy and on-task” and “intellectually active,” in that the former shows students simply behaving compliantly while in the latter, students are working on building understanding through discussions, debates, answering “what if” questions, discovering patterns, and through other like activities. In other words, if you look at the tasks asked of the “intellectually active,” they cover all engagement constructs (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive).

In engaging lessons, the observer can see higher cognitive skills asked of students. The students, in other words, are being asked to do the cognitive lift. Student engagement reflects what the teacher does. It involves the activities and assignments students are asked to do and how they perform them. Engaging activities and tasks ask students to explain their thinking and call on the students to stretch their thinking (Danielson, 2013).

Student engagement is also seen in how students are grouped within a classroom or for a particular task. The importance of flexible grouping based on the lesson’s purpose acknowledges that group formation needs to vary so that all students learn from each other and are exposed to multiple perspectives. Strategically grouping students is one of the decisions that teachers make every day (Danielson, 2022).

The material and resources teachers select also play a role in student engagement. The resources teachers choose to use in a lesson directly impact the students’ learning experience(s). The material (texts, resources, learning activities, supplementary materials, and perspectives) teachers select for use in the classroom needs to be culturally sustaining and representative and needs to be based on interests and ability levels.

Another component that contributes to student engagement is the pacing of a lesson. A teacher needs to control how much information they give to students at once, how quickly they move in a lesson, and how much time they give students to complete specific tasks within a lesson. This must be considered based on a student’s needs and the learning they have demonstrated or are struggling with.

According to the Danielson framework, evaluators can look for specific indicators from teachers and students while watching a lesson. From the teacher, evaluators can look for suitable pacing with time for closure, opportunities given to students to respond in the lesson, the teacher’s interactions with students during the lesson, and the specific praise and guidance the teacher gives to the students throughout the lesson. Observers can look to the students to see student enthusiasm, higher-level cognitive learning tasks where students are actively “working,” students’ motivation and persistence with a learning activity. Students’ enthusiasm can be seen in how their interests are peaked and how they explain their thought processes. This plays right into higher-level cognitive tasks where evaluators see how students actively explain their thinking and ask questions to gain more information and persist with a task. In highly engaging learning, the students are not passive; they are not merely watching the teacher perform and taking notes. Instead, in the Danielson framework, students must actively think to be intellectually engaged (Danielson, 2013).

1.2 Pre-service Teacher Training

Using a framework like the Danielson framework can help pre-service teachers start to tease out the multitude of skills associated with teaching. The research indicates that this may be important because pre-service teachers often have difficulty thinking like a teacher rather than a student (Beasley et al., 2014). They often rely on their own experience or how they were taught and, therefore, see the teacher as the giver of information and the students as the receivers. Having this perspective without a theoretical underpinning may be why the field still lacks an in-depth understanding of the instructional practices that make a difference in pre-service learning – especially when it comes to strategies like engaging students in learning (Beasley et al., 2014).

In pre-service teacher training, there needs to be dialogue, deliberation, discussion, and a clear definition of student engagement. When defining engagement, clear examples and non-examples of what this looks like in the classroom should be presented. In other words, teacher actions that lead to student engagement need to be observable and measurable so that all pre-service teachers conceptualize this term similarly. One way to arrive at a clear definition for student engagement is by having pre-service teachers watch lessons of more experienced teachers and reflect on the teacher’s moves that foster the classes’ engagement with the lesson. This video analysis of master teachers can be turned into a self-reflective activity as they watch and analyze their lessons (Beasley et al., 2014).

Pre-service teachers need explicit criteria to provide focal points for the next steps in gaining the skills to become effective teachers. In this regard, Danielson’s framework has clearly defined elements that help establish a commonly shared vocabulary for teacher-educators to use as they coach pre-service teachers regarding teacher moves that promote student engagement (Danielson, 2007).

1.3 Skills of Noticing

The Danielson framework needs to be deconstructed and, over time, reconstructed to help pre-service teachers understand teacher moves that promote student engagement. One way to do this is explicitly teaching pre-service teachers how to “notice” how master teachers encourage student engagement. “Noticing” identifies what a teacher does and what a pre-service teacher sees as they observe a lesson. This skill requires pre-service teachers to interpret their observations (Mason, 2008). Teacher noticing requires pre-service teachers to attend to and make sense of events happening in the classroom (Lam & Chan, 2020). The act of noticing is an essential skill for teachers (Mason, 2002). Teaching this skill, however, can be challenging (Jacobs, Lamb, & Philipp, 2010; van Es & Sherin, 2002).

“Noticing” is difficult to teach because classroom environments are complex and multi-dimensional. Teachers must contend with many data and variables during a lesson in the classroom. Teachers must recognize each student and their prior knowledge about a topic, their “feelings” or emotions coming into a class, their ability to attend a lesson, and their interest in the topic. Teachers also must understand the subject matter deeply, know how to provide entry points to the curriculum, and ask for more advanced skills in order for some students to make continual progress. Teachers see several observable actions and behaviors in a classroom environment, and then, they must make sense of what they are seeing (Sherin, Jacobs, & Philipp, 2011; van Es & Sherin, 2002). Teacher noticing, therefore, includes a set of skills “including attending to what is noteworthy in classroom data, analyzing and interpreting that data concerning defined goals, and deciding how to respond” (Barnhart & van Es, 2015, p. 85).

1.4 Explicit Instruction on Noticing

There has been growing interest in using classroom videos to support the development of skills associated with noticing (Van Es, Tekkumru-Kisa, & Seago, 2019). Video is advantageous for explicitly teaching noticing skills because a video can display the complex richness of classroom learning and allow for multiple viewings where a teacher educator can explicitly call out teacher moves and student engagement resulting from specific teacher moves (Brophy, 2004). Explicit instruction on noticing while watching a video allows the pre-service teacher to be guided as they shift attention from the teacher toward student learning and cognition (Santagata, Zannoni, & Stigler, 2007; Sherin & van Es, 2005; Star & Strickland, 2008).

Classroom videos allow pre-service teachers to observe classroom scenarios as if they were physically present in the classroom (Brophy, 2004; Santagata et al., 2021). The use of video captures the specificity of the classroom experience and allows pre-service teachers to see the classroom setting and lesson from multiple angles, as it can be watched repeatedly (Kang & van Es, 2019). Videos can, therefore, mimic real-time teaching and the moment-by-moment processes of teaching (Seago, 2004). Videos can be used to ask pre-service teachers to identify and make sense of crucial teaching moves, interactions, and student responses in a classroom. Videos can also be revisited multiple times for deeper and more fine-grained analysis, which can help pre-service teachers see, understand, and unpack how specific moves a teacher makes influence student learning and engagement (van Es, Cashen, Barnhart, & Auger, 2017). In other words, by guiding pre-service teachers on how to think and act like a teacher, the complexity of the classroom can be explicitly laid out (Llinares & Chapman, 2020).

Pre-service teachers need this guidance and explicit instruction as they “observe” classroom teachers and begin to identify specific teaching elements (Van Es & Sherin, 2021). Guidance and explicit instruction help pre-service teachers understand what occurs within a lesson and make sense of how simultaneously occurring classroom events affect teaching (Van Es & Sherin, 2021). Pre-service teachers also need explicit instruction regarding what they should look for within the lesson and how to dissect the teaching environment they observe (van Es, Tunney, Goldsmith, & Seago, 2014). When teacher educators provide this guidance in observation tasks described here, they begin to help pre-service teachers see teaching and learning systematically (Chung & van Es, 2014). One way to guide the development of this observational learning is by having pre-service teachers focus on specific skills during their pre-practicum observations (Richards & Farrell, 2011).

Observations with a pre-determined focus have been shown to serve better as effective learning experiences (Richards & Farrell, 2011; Tyminski et al., 2021). In fact, without this specified guidance, effective teachers and teaching practices will not be produced (Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten, 2011). This is because, without this guidance, pre-service teachers lack the observation skills and pedagogical content knowledge to effectively analyze teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Hiebert, Morris, Berk, & Jansen, 2007; Star & Strickland, 2008; Yang, König, & Kaiser, 2021). When no observational guidance is provided, it was found that pre-service teachers often focus on the behaviors of the teacher and that the pre-service teachers had very subjective interpretations of these behaviors (Levin, Hammer, & Coffey, 2009; Sandoval, Deneroff, & Franke, 2002; Yang et al., 2021). Calandra, Gurvitch, and Lund (2008) found that without guidance, pre-service teachers often wrote low-level, play-by-play descriptions of what was taking place in the classroom; they did not identify specific instructional techniques used by the teacher and, therefore, could not extend their thinking to match a teacher’s instructional moves with student responses and actions.

1.5 Current Study

Pre-service teachers can be supported as they observe videos of master teachers in their classrooms. The complexities of delivering a lesson and applying specific pedagogical approaches while classroom life is happening can be explicitly laid out (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002). This current study takes a learner-centered theoretical perspective as we examine how using videos with explicit instruction can impact what pre-service teachers notice about how a teacher’s decisions and actions promote student engagement. Throughout this pre-service fieldwork class, the instructors provided direct instruction through Danielson’s framework on various engagement strategies and then asked pre-service teachers to watch video-recorded lessons demonstrating these strategies. As these lessons were observed, explicit instruction was provided. Pre-service teachers were engaged in challenging, practice-based activities (video observations) with a theoretical underpinning focused on their teaching knowledge base. Kolb (1984) and Santagata et al. (2021) acknowledge that this transformation experience, using new knowledge to interpret video-taped classroom experiences, relies on reconstructing prior knowledge to understand the information practically.

Research Question:

1. How and in what ways does using videos with explicit instruction impact what pre-service teachers “notice” about classroom engagement?

2.1 Research Design

This research utilized qualitative document analysis as a group of 31 pre-service teachers conducted observational reflections on classroom instruction. We collected data through written notes and reflections of video-taped observations of master teachers before, during, and after explicit instruction on instructional moves to promote engagement were taught. We then coded data to understand what pre-service teachers focus on when asked “to look for engagement” within a lesson, and then, we constructed a descriptive write-up of the observed videotaped lesson. The pre-service teachers participated in this observation and reflection at the start of the fall semester, and this served as their pre-assessment. All pre-service teachers watched the same video, a first-grade teacher conducting a math lesson with about 20 students. After the pre-service teachers completed the pre-assessment, they began their fieldwork seminar class. In this class, the pre-service teachers received explicit instruction on what to look for and how to observe a lesson. Explicit instruction on “noticing” was given in different areas, which included teacher moves to promote classroom management, a well-structured lesson, and student engagement. Each seminar class had a specific focal area that was guided by the Danielson framework and was set up using a routine format which began by having the pre-service teacher give an update on their field placement, followed by direct, explicit instruction on one specific “noticing” skill, and concluded with direct application of the skills in role-playing and video-observation examples. After each seminar class, each pre-service teacher was asked to watch additional video clips of classroom instruction and reflect on what they saw happening.

For this specific research question, the seminar on engagement began by defining vocabulary associated with behavioral, emotional, and cognitive constructs of engagement and the objective data pre-service teachers can look for or “notice” about teacher moves that lead to student engagement. Pre-service teachers were taught to look for teacher moves that built one-on-one relationships with students, set up a safe and inclusive classroom environment, tailored the lessons to students’ needs, and encouraged student response opportunities through guidance and praise. Pre-service teachers were asked to notice how these teacher moves impacted student enthusiasm (seen through peaked interests and explaining one’s thought processes), higher-level cognitive learning tasks where students are actively “working” through explaining their thinking and asking questions to gain further understanding, students’ motivation and persistence with a task, and suitable pacing with time for closure and student self-reflection.

Direct instruction in this seminar class also focused on specific teaching techniques, such as activating background knowledge, allowing for frequent response opportunities, providing feedback, modeling, and utilizing peer-learning strategies to connect learning and students’ interests. A complete layout of the seminar’s focus, including associated vocabulary, explicit instruction topics that were called out, modeled, and practiced, and the writing prompt students were given post-seminar to reflect on, can be seen in Table 1.

2.2 Participants and Setting

Two classes, junior year fall seminar classes, one for elementary pre-service teachers and the other for early childhood education pre-service teachers at a small public university in New England, were used to collect data for this study. A total of 31 pre-service teachers enrolled in a BA/MA teacher preparation program participated in the study. The seminar classes for these students were held every other week for two-and-a-half hours, for a total of seven sessions. In support of this class, all these pre-service teachers spend 3hours a week in a public-school classroom. The elementary students are placed in classrooms for students in grades one through six. The early childhood education pre-service teachers are placed in a preschool through grade two classroom.

2.3 Data Collection

At the start of the fall semester, these 31 pre-service teachers were shown a video of a first-grade teacher conducting a math lesson with a group of about 20 students. After viewing this video, they were asked to write a short reflection describing the lesson and instances of how the teacher’s moves and decisions led to student engagement seen within the lesson. This pre-assessment was conducted before explicit instruction on “noticing” in observations occurred. After seven seminar classes were laid out as described above, students were asked to re-watch the same lesson and again write a short reflection describing the lesson and instances of “effective teaching” and “engagement” in the lesson.

2.4 Data Analysis

The pre-assessment and post-assessments were both looked at and coded using the multi-constructs of engagement (behavioral, academic, and emotional) as a framework. Within this construct, initial coding occurred, where we inductively generated as many codes as possible from both assessments. In doing this, essential words or groups of words were identified and labeled (Charmaz, 2006). Core categories emerged, and concepts were clearly defined (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Emergent codes that surfaced around engagements were then codified and defined. These codes and definitions can be found in Table 2. Both researchers checked and defined these codes and 20% of all documents to ensure inter-rater reliability.

2.5 Validity and Trustworthiness

Qualitative research should address trustworthiness and validity. Trustworthiness includes credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In data analysis, intact, thick descriptions that participants used during the study were preserved so their voices could be heard, and authenticity remained (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

2.6 Validity

Maxwell (1992) classifies descriptive validity as how valid that which is reported is accurate and factual. This study addressed descriptive validity by objectively reporting what participants wrote in their assessments. Interpretive validity refers to the “goodness of fit” as findings are developed (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). This was done by allowing the themes to emerge and coding all student assessments (Maxwell, 1992). Direct quotes from participants were preserved as another means to address interpretive validity.

3.1 Pre-Assessment Findings

In the pre-assessment observations, the only engagement code that emerged was compliance, where students were doing what was asked of them by the teacher. The teacher maintains control of the classroom through student compliance. The pre-service teachers noticed that the teacher engaged students by reminding them how they should be seated and to comply with the teacher’s requests (like how to answer by “raising their hands” and to “look up here”). Pre-service teachers also shared that this teacher engages the students for complying with her requests through “encouragement and praise.” Pre-service teachers wrote, “This teacher gave lots of praise in different moments when students were listening to her.” “She gave high-fives when a child got an answer right,” and she had also said, “Someone is doing an excellent job (at sitting),” and “You are brilliant for knowing the answer.” Several pre-service teachers echoed the thoughts captured by one here, “I thought this was an effective way of teaching because receiving a compliment after doing a problem makes the students feel good about themselves and want to keep doing what they did.”

Pre-service teachers noted that this teacher “was in control the entire time and had a calm classroom where students could easily pay attention and could learn.” Many pre-service teachers shared that this was seen “when the students began to get noisy on the rug, the teacher stood at the front of the rug and waited silently until each student realized they needed to be quiet.”

Another pre-service teacher commented, “The teacher uses praise to encourage students to listen.” Similar thoughts were shared about this teacher’s effectiveness with engagement when another pre-service teacher pointed out, “The teacher pointed out the students who are following directions, and this may teach other students to want to act like those who were following directions.” The effectiveness of student engagement relied on students being compliant and doing as the teacher asked. These observation write-ups focused on the students’ actions rather than the teacher’s instructional moves and decisions.

3.2 Post-Assessment Findings

In the post-assessment observations, several codes around engagement emerged. These codes included provisioning, pacing, teacher–student interactions, building on prior knowledge, setting a purpose for learning, and using varied planned activities. These observational write-ups focused on what the teachers did, and the impact teacher moves and decisions had on keeping students engaged in the lesson. Pre-service teachers’ post-assessment write-ups focus on engagement focused on “active learning” rather than compliance or “busy” activities. Therefore, these observational write-ups aligned more closely with how the Danielson framework defines engagement and how a teacher’s specific moves contribute to behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement constructs.