FullText PDF

Title
Teacher learning in communities of practice: improving teaching

through analysis of classroom videos
Advisor(s)
Yung, BHW
Author(s)
Lo, Fei-yin.; .
Citation
Issued Date
URL
Rights
2012
http://hdl.handle.net/10722/173838
The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent rights)

and the right to use in future works.
Teacher Learning in Communities of Practice:

Improving Teaching through Analysis of Classroom Videos
Lo Fei Yin
Ph.D.
The University of Hong Kong

2012
Abstract of thesis entitled

Submitted by
Lo Fei Yin
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
at The University of Hong Kong
in June 2012
Due to the new demands placed upon schools in our current learning society, teachers are
expected to learn continuously. However, not much is known about how teachers learn. Three
major problems are identified in the emerging literature. First, little is known about what
constitutes meaningful learning from the teachers own perspectives. Second, there is a lack of a
common framework for analysing and comparing findings across different studies on the
process of teacher learning. This is a major obstacle in advancing the field. Third, factors
affecting teacher learning are often studied in an isolated manner without acknowledging the
interaction among these factors. As a result, this fails to provide a holistic picture of how teacher
learning can be enhanced or impeded.
In view of the above, this study adopted a teacher perspective to investigate teacher learning and
the factors affecting it in a holistic manner, using an interpretive framework that can be applied
across different studies. The study was situated in the context of a year-long school-based
teacher professional development (TPD) programme. Seven teachers of two different schools
participated in the study. Teachers in each school formed a community of practice that made use
of classroom videos to improve their practice.
A case study approach was used to document the content and process of teacher learning, as
well as to illuminate how various factors interact to affect teacher learning within the two
communities. Data was collected from individual teacher interviews, teacher reflection tasks,
discussion in the TPD meetings and non-participant observation. The Interconnected Model of
Teacher Professional Growth (IMTPG) and Community of Practice (CoP) were adopted as the
interpretative frameworks for data analysis.
Besides gaining knowledge and skills, the teachers also exhibited affective and social learning.
More than half of the teachers considered affective learning (e.g., confidence in their own
identity as a good teacher) and social learning (e.g., building a trusting relationship with
colleagues) as the most important learning to them. The idiosyncratic and recursive nature of
teacher learning is consistent with existing literature. Three types of factors that have a bearing
on teacher learning were identified. First, the individual factors, which include the teachers will
to learn, level of reflectivity and time available for professional development. Second, the
communal factors, which include: (i) the ways in which members in a CoP engage with each
other (i.e., engagement), (ii) the ways in which members construct an image of themselves (i.e.,
imagination), and (iii) the ways in which members coordinate perspectives, interpretations, and
actions so that the CoP can realise higher goals (i.e., alignment). Third, the features of the TPD
programme that were reported by teachers as helpful in facilitating their learning, including the
multiple strategies adopted, videos, and facilitation from a university educator.
Implications for video-based TPD and for research on teacher learning were identified, in
particular, a need for more research on teacher learning from the teachers own perspective in
order to better understand teachers authentic learning experiences and to build a more holistic
model of teacher learning.

by
Lo Fei Yin
B.Sc. CUHK
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
at The University of Hong Kong
June 2012
Declaration
I declare that this thesis represents my own work, except where due acknowledgement is made,
and that it has not been previously included in a thesis, dissertation or report submitted to this
University or to any other institution for a degree, diploma or other qualifications.
Signed: _____________________
(Lo Fei Yin)
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the following people. First, heartfelt thanks must
be given to the participating teachers and the schools for their time, energy and support. Given
the busy work schedule under the new education reform, the teachers spared their leisure time to
work on the tasks of the TPD and attend the TPD meetings. Without their sacrifices, this study
would not be possible.
My advisory committee, Dr. Tammy Kwan, Dr. Fung Ping Ng, and Dr. Benny Yung, offered me
their invaluable advice throughout this study. In particular, I owe an enormous debt of gratitude
to my supervisor, Dr. Benny Yung, for his patience, guidance and encouragement throughout the
whole process from data collection, data analysis, and thesis writing. His devotion in facilitating
the TPD meetings and teacher learning was immense to this study. It is a blessing for me to have
been his student. I could not have found a more supportive and caring supervisor.
I am grateful to my colleagues in HKU for their comments and suggestions. We learn and grow
together professionally and personally. Special appreciation must be extended to Jennifer. The
videos and related materials used in Video Workshops of the TPD were adopted from her study.
Her work has laid a solid foundation for this study. Definitely I wont forget her.
Finally I would also like to thank my family, in particular my mother and sister, and friends who
have been accompanying and supporting me through the ups and downs in the past years.
ii
Table of Contents
Declaration .................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ix
List of Appendices ....................................................................................................................... x
Abbreviations and Conventions ................................................................................................ xi
Chapter 1
1.1.
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1.
Teacher Learning as a Research Issue ................................................................... 1
1.1.2.
Gaps in the Research on Teacher Learning ........................................................... 1
1.1.3.
Context of the Study.............................................................................................. 2
1.2.
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 3
1.3.
The Interpretative Frameworks ..................................................................................... 3
1.3.1.
Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth (IMTPG) ........................ 3
1.3.2.
Community of Practice (CoP) ............................................................................... 5
1.4.
Significance ................................................................................................................... 7
1.5.
Outline of the Subsequent Chapters .............................................................................. 7
Chapter 2
2.1.
Literature Review ............................................................................................. 9
Research on Teacher Learning ...................................................................................... 9
2.1.1.
Research on the Content of Teacher Learning....................................................... 9
2.1.2.
2.1.1.1. Teacher learning as gaining knowledge and skills ................................ 9

2.1.1.2. Teacher learning in the affective domain ............................................ 11
2.1.1.3. Summary ............................................................................................. 12
Research on the Process of Teacher Learning ..................................................... 13
2.1.3.
Research on Factors Affecting Teacher Learning................................................ 17
2.2.
2.1.3.1. Prior knowledge and beliefs ................................................................ 17

2.1.3.2. Teachers will to learn ......................................................................... 18
2.1.3.3. Level of reflection ............................................................................... 20
2.1.3.4. The context of school .......................................................................... 21
2.1.3.5. Collaboration among teachers ............................................................. 21
2.1.3.6. Presence of a facilitator ....................................................................... 22
2.1.3.7. Video as a learning tool ....................................................................... 23
2.1.3.8. Summary ............................................................................................. 24
The Interpretive Frameworks ...................................................................................... 25
2.2.1.
The Need for Two Interpretive Frameworks ....................................................... 25
2.2.2.
IMTPG for Analysing the Path of Teacher Learning .......................................... 26
2.2.3.
2.2.2.1. The four domains ................................................................................ 26

2.2.2.2. The mediating processes ..................................................................... 28
2.2.2.3. The change environment ..................................................................... 29
CoP for Analysing Teacher Learning in Different Communities ........................ 30
2.3.
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 34
iii
Chapter 3
3.1.
The Video-based TPD Programme ............................................................... 35
Rationale for the TPD Design ..................................................................................... 35
3.1.1.
Professional Development through Examining Ones Own Practices ................ 35
3.1.2.
Professional Development through the Use of Exemplary Cases ....................... 35
3.1.3.
Professional Development through the Use of Videos ........................................ 36
3.1.4.
Summary ............................................................................................................. 37
3.2.
An Overview of the TPD Programme ......................................................................... 37
Chapter 4
- Research Methodology ................................................................................... 39
4.1.
Research Approach ...................................................................................................... 39
4.2.
Participants .................................................................................................................. 40
4.3.
Data Collection............................................................................................................ 40
4.3.1.
Overview of the Research Activities ................................................................... 41
4.3.2.
Sources of Data and Research Instruments ......................................................... 42
4.3.3.
4.3.2.1. Questionnaires ..................................................................................... 42

4.3.2.2. Reflection tasks ................................................................................... 43
4.3.2.3. Semi-structured interviews .................................................................. 44
4.3.2.4. Meetings in the TPD programme ........................................................ 45
Summary ............................................................................................................. 46
4.4.
Treatment and Analysis of Data .................................................................................. 48
4.5.
Reporting of Data and Findings .................................................................................. 49
4.6.
Validity, Reliability and Ethics .................................................................................... 50
4.6.1.
Validity ................................................................................................................ 50
4.6.2.
Reliability ............................................................................................................ 51
4.6.3.
Ethical Issues ....................................................................................................... 52
4.7.
Generalisability, Generativity and Exemplarity of Findings ....................................... 52
Chapter 5
5.1
Teacher Learning in Bright Future College ................................................. 54
Background Information of the School ....................................................................... 54
5.1.1
The School and the Students ............................................................................... 54
5.1.2
Department of Integrated Science ....................................................................... 54
5.2
Ben .............................................................................................................................. 55
5.2.1
Background Information ..................................................................................... 55
5.2.2
Most Important Learning .................................................................................... 55
5.2.3
A Recursive Journey on Lesson Planning and Assessing Students ..................... 55
5.2.4
5.2.3.1 Prior beliefs and practices .................................................................... 55

5.2.3.2 The recursive learning journey ............................................................. 56
5.2.3.3 Factors contributing to Bens learning ................................................. 65
Summary ............................................................................................................. 66
5.3
Felix............................................................................................................................. 67
5.3.1
Background ......................................................................................................... 67
5.3.2
5.3.3
A Learning Journey in Search of Self-Actualisation ........................................... 68
iv
5.3.4
5.4
5.3.3.1 Prior beliefs and practice ...................................................................... 68

5.3.3.2 The invigorating learning journey ........................................................ 68
5.3.3.3 Factors contributing to Felixs learning................................................ 72
Summary ............................................................................................................. 73
Chloe ........................................................................................................................... 73
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
A Reliant/Reactive Journey on Listening to Students Voices............................. 74
5.4.4
5.4.3.1 Prior beliefs and practice ...................................................................... 74

5.4.3.2 The reliant/reactive learning journey ................................................... 75
5.4.3.3 Factors Contributing to Chloes Learning ............................................ 80
Summary ............................................................................................................. 81
5.5
Summary of the Most Important Learning to Teachers in BFC .................................. 81
5.6
A CoP with a High Level of Learning Energy ............................................................ 82
5.6.1
A Joint Enterprise ................................................................................................ 82
5.6.2
Mutual Engagement ............................................................................................ 85
5.6.3
A Shared Repertoire ............................................................................................ 88
5.6.4
Summary of the Characteristics of the CoP in BFC ............................................ 91
Chapter 6
Teacher Learning in Sunset Valley High School .......................................... 93
6.1.
Background Information of the School ....................................................................... 93
6.1.1.
The School and the Students ............................................................................... 93
6.1.2.
Department of Integrated Science ....................................................................... 93
6.2.
Sam.............................................................................................................................. 94
6.2.1.
6.2.2.
6.2.3.
A Learning Journey of Restoring Confidence and Reconstructing Identity ........ 94
6.2.4.
6.2.3.1. Prior beliefs and practices ................................................................... 94

6.2.3.2. The undulating learning journey ......................................................... 95
6.2.3.3. Factors contributing to Sams learning .............................................. 100
Summary ........................................................................................................... 101
6.3.
Victor ......................................................................................................................... 102
6.3.1.
Background Information ................................................................................... 102
6.3.2.
Most Important Learning .................................................................................. 102
6.3.3.
A Refreshing and Empowering Learning Journey ............................................ 102
6.3.4.
6.3.3.1. Prior beliefs and practices ................................................................. 102

6.3.3.2. The refreshing learning journey ........................................................ 103
6.3.3.3. Factors contributing to Victors learning ........................................... 107
Summary ........................................................................................................... 108
6.4.
Hugo .......................................................................................................................... 109
6.4.1.
6.4.2.
6.4.3.
A Journey of Acquiring Skills for Critical Lesson Analysis .............................. 110

v
6.4.4.
6.5.
6.4.3.2. The practice-prominent learning path ............................................... 110

6.4.3.3. Factors contributing to Hugos learning ............................................ 113
Summary ........................................................................................................... 114
Stone.......................................................................................................................... 114
6.5.1.
6.5.2.
6.5.3.
Rediscovery of the Importance of Patience in Teaching ................................... 115
6.5.4.

6.5.3.2. A doubtful and questionable learning journey................................... 115
6.5.3.3. Factors hindering Stones learning .................................................... 119
Summary ........................................................................................................... 120
6.6.
Summary of the Most Important Learning of Teachers in SVHS ............................. 120
6.7.
An Unstable CoP ....................................................................................................... 121
6.7.1.
A Yet-to-develop Joint Enterprise ..................................................................... 121
6.7.2.
Unequal Mutual Engagement ............................................................................ 122
6.7.3.
An Unevenly Shared Repertoire........................................................................ 125
6.7.4.
Summary of the Characteristics of the CoP in SVHS ....................................... 126
Chapter 7
Looking across the Cases ............................................................................. 128
7.1.
What Teachers Learn ................................................................................................. 128
7.1.1.
Knowledge and Skills........................................................................................ 129
7.1.2.
Affects and Emotions ........................................................................................ 131
7.1.3.
Social Learning ................................................................................................. 133
7.1.4.
Summary ........................................................................................................... 135
7.2.
Process of Teacher Learning ..................................................................................... 136
7.2.1.
The Idiosyncratic Nature of Teacher Learning Process..................................... 139
7.2.2.
The Recursive Nature of Teacher Learning Process ......................................... 140
7.2.3.
Learning Process Being Influenced by the Design of the TPD ......................... 142
7.2.4.
Summary ........................................................................................................... 143
7.3.
Factors Affecting Teacher Learning .......................................................................... 144
7.3.1.
The Individual Factors ...................................................................................... 144
7.3.2.
7.3.1.1. Will to learn ....................................................................................... 144

7.3.1.2. Level of reflectivity ........................................................................... 145
7.3.1.3. Availability of time ............................................................................ 146
The Communal Factors ..................................................................................... 147
7.3.3.
A Holistic Picture of Factors Affecting Teacher Learning ................................ 149
7.4.
Chapter Summary...................................................................................................... 153
Chapter 8
8.1.
TPD Features Affecting Teacher Learning................................................. 154
A Metaphor of Growing Apples ................................................................................ 154
8.1.1.
Sowing a Seed of Learning Completing the Preparation Task Individually .. 155
8.1.2.
Cultivating the Seed of Learning Discussion in the Workshops .................... 155
8.1.3.
Harvesting the Fruit of Learning Completing the Follow-up Task ................ 157
8.1.4.
The Farmer of Learning the Facilitator .......................................................... 157

vi
8.1.5.
8.2.
Other Key Features of the Farming Metaphor .................................................. 157
The Affordances of Video ......................................................................................... 158
8.2.1.
Increasing Awareness of Alternative Strategies and Classroom Situations ....... 159
8.2.2.
Providing Exemplary Models of Teaching and Proof of Existence of Good
Practice ........................................................................................................................... 159
8.2.3.
Promoting and Facilitating Reflection and Comparison ................................... 161
8.2.4.
8.2.3.1. Critical reflection............................................................................... 161

8.2.3.2. Meaningful comparison..................................................................... 162
Fostering Community Building ......................................................................... 163
8.2.5.
Summary ........................................................................................................... 165
8.3.
Challenges of Using Videos in TPD.......................................................................... 165
8.4.
The Roles of the TPD Facilitator .............................................................................. 168
8.4.1.
Knowledge Enhancer ........................................................................................ 168
8.4.2.
Emotion Booster ................................................................................................ 171
8.4.3.
Community Fosterer .......................................................................................... 172
8.4.4.
Overview of the Contributory Roles of the TPD Facilitator ............................. 173
8.5.
Summary of the Chapter ........................................................................................... 175
Chapter 9
9.1.
Conclusions & Implications......................................................................... 177
Summary of the Results and Findings ....................................................................... 177
9.1.1.
What Teachers Learned in the TPD programme ............................................... 177
9.1.2.
Process of Teacher Learning ............................................................................. 178
9.1.3.
Factors Affecting Teacher Learning .................................................................. 179
9.2.
9.1.3.1. Individual factors............................................................................... 180

9.1.3.2. Communal factors ............................................................................. 180
9.1.3.3. Factors related to the TPD and its design features ............................ 182
9.1.3.4. Towards a holistic picture of the factors affecting teacher learning .. 183
Implications and Suggestions for TPD ...................................................................... 185
9.2.1.
Affective and Social Learning is as Important as Knowledge & Skills ............ 185
9.2.2.
Opportunities to Revisit Important Learning .................................................... 186
9.2.3.
The Essential Roles of Facilitation.................................................................... 186
9.3.
Implications for Research on Teacher Learning ........................................................ 187
9.3.1.
Theoretical Frameworks for Studying Teacher Learning .................................. 187
9.3.2.
Adopting a Teacher Perspective to Study Teacher Learning ............................. 188
9.4.
Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................ 189
9.5.
Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................................... 190
References ................................................................................................................................ 192
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth............................................... 4
Figure 2.1 The Implicit Model of Teacher Professional Development ....................................... 14
Figure 2.2 Guskeys Model of Teacher Change .......................................................................... 14
Figure 2.3 Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth............................................. 15
Figure 2.4 Summary of the Use of the Two Frameworks ........................................................... 34
Figure 4.1 An Overview of the Research Design ........................................................................ 47
Figure 5.1 Bens Learning Path on Lesson Planning and Assessing Students ............................ 57
Figure 5.2 Felixs Learning Path in Search of Self-Actualisation ............................................... 72
Figure 5.3 Chloes Learning Path on Listening to Students Voices ........................................... 80
Figure 6.1 Sams Learning Path on Regaining Confidence in Teaching and his Identity ......... 100
Figure 6.2 Victors Learning Path on Empowering to Keep Learning ...................................... 107
Figure 6.3 Hugos Learning Path on Critical Lesson Analysis Skills ....................................... 113
Figure 6.4 Stones Learning Path on Waiting for Students Answers Patiently ........................ 119
Figure 7.1 Learning Paths of the Seven Participating Teachers ................................................ 137
Figure 7.2 The Refined Model of Teacher Learning ................................................................. 150
Figure 7.3 An Illustration of the Learning of Ben and Chloe Using the Refined Model .......... 151
Figure 7.4 An Illustration of the Learning of Sam and Stone Using the Refined Model .......... 152
Figure 9.1 The Refined Model of Teacher Learning ................................................................. 184
viii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Summary of the Definitions of the Four Domains ...................................................... 27
Table 2.2 An Inventory of Teachers Levels of Reflectivity ........................................................ 29
Table 2.3 Wengers Matrix of Community Dimensions .............................................................. 32
Table 2.4 Modified Wengers Matrix of Community Dimensions used in this Study ................ 33
Table 3.1 Summary of the Activities of Each Workshop/Meeting .............................................. 38
Table 4.1 Summary of the Information of the Participating Schools .......................................... 40
Table 4.2 Summary of the Information of the Participating Teachers ......................................... 40
Table 4.3 Summary of the TPD and Research Activities, as well as Data Collection Instruments
..................................................................................................................................................... 42
Table 5.1 Comparison of the Critical Features of a Good Tour Guide and Prominent Features of
Mr Marks Teaching .................................................................................................................... 69
Table 5.2 Summary of the Most Important Learning to Teachers in BFC .................................. 82
Table 5.3 Summary of BFC Teachers Perceptions of their Roles in the CoP ............................ 87
Table 5.4 Summary of the Characteristics of the CoP in BFC .................................................... 92
Table 6.1 A Table Extracted from a Student Worksheet used in the Research Lesson ................ 96
Table 6.2 Summary of the Most Important Learning to Teachers in SVHS.............................. 120
Table 6.3 Attendance of Teachers in SVHS .............................................................................. 121
Table 6.4 Summary of Teachers Perceptions of their Roles in the CoP ................................... 124
Table 6.5 Summary of the Characteristics of the CoP in SVHS ............................................... 127
Table 7.1 Teachers Most Important Learning........................................................................... 128
Table 7.2 Characteristics of the Two Communities of Practice ................................................ 133
Table 7.3 Teachers Will to Learn.............................................................................................. 144
Table 7.4 Level of Reflectivity Exhibited by the Teachers ....................................................... 145
Table 8.1 Summary of the Affordances of Videos in Bringing about Teacher Learning ........... 165
Table 8.2 Summary of the Roles of a Facilitator in the TPD context........................................ 174
ix
List of Appendices
Appendix I Details of the Video-based TPD Programme ...................................................... 203
Appendix II Questions to Probe into School Context in Planning Meeting.......................... 217
Appendix III Preparation Task for a Video Workshop ........................................................... 218
Appendix IV Follow-up Task for a Video Workshop ............................................................. 223
Appendix V Video Workshop Questionnaire ......................................................................... 224
Appendix VI Video Workshop Interview Protocol ................................................................ 225
Appendix VII Follow-up Task for Lesson Planning Meeting ................................................ 228
Appendix VIII Preparation Task for Lesson Analysis 1 Meeting........................................... 229
Appendix IX Follow-up Task for Lesson Analysis 1 Meeting ............................................... 230
Appendix X Preparation Task for Lesson Analysis 2 Meeting .............................................. 231
Appendix XI Follow-up Task for Lesson Analysis 2 Meeting ............................................... 234
Appendix XII Lesson Study Questionnaire............................................................................ 235
Appendix XIII Lesson Study Interview Protocol ................................................................... 236
Abbreviations and Conventions

Abbreviations
CoP(s)
DC
DP
ED
FT(s)
IS
IMTPG
LA1/2
LS
LSIn(s)
PD
PT(s)
TPD
VW(s)
VWIn(s)
Community of Practice
Domain of Consequence, IMTPG
Domain of Practice, IMTPG
External Domain, IMTPG
Follow-up task(s) of the TPD programme
Integrated Science
Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth
Lesson analysis 1/2 meeting in the TPD programme
Video-based lesson study in the TPD programme
Lesson Study Interview(s)
Personal Domain, IMTPG
Preparation task(s) of the TPD programme
Teacher professional development
Video workshop(s) in the TPD programme
Video Workshop Interview(s)
Referencing Conventions for Excerpts from Interviews/Meetings

(Ben, VWIn, 58:33)
Time of the interviews/meetings at
which the excerpt is extracted
Teachers Name
Source of the excerpt (VWIn, LSIn, VW1-4, LP, or LA1-2)

As an example, (Ben, VWIn, 58:33) means that the excerpt is extracted from the Video
Workshop Interview at time 58 min 33 sec.
Referencing Conventions for Excerpts from Teacher Reflection Tasks

(Felix, LA2-FT)
Teachers Name
Source of the excerpt
As an example, (Felix, LA2-FT) means that the excerpt is extracted from the follow-up task of
Lesson Analysis 2 meeting.
Transcript Conventions used in the Interview/Meeting Excerpts

[ ]
Words enclosed in square parentheses aid understanding and readability of the dialogue.
Indicates a section of the dialogue from within the excerpt has been omitted.
xi
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 1 Introduction
This study investigates teacher learning in a community of practice that makes use of classroom
videos for improving teaching. This chapter explains the background, the aim and the
significance of the study and introduces the interpretive frameworks. It concludes with an
outline of the content in the subsequent chapters.
1.1. Background
1.1.1.
Teacher Learning as a Research Issue
There is a general agreement in the educational research community about the important role of
teachers professional development (TPD) in improving education. However, there is no
consensus about how such a process occurs and how it can be analysed and promoted. This may
be because it was only in the last decade that the nature and development of teacher knowledge
began to be understood by educational researchers (Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001). Currently,
much emphasis is being placed on characterising both the ways in which teachers learn and the
factors that promote or hinder their learning. Not much is known about how teachers learn.
However, knowing how teachers learn could lead to improvements in teacher professional
development practices. The present study is a response to the call for more research in this area,
in particular, with a focus on how experienced teachers learn (Beijaard, Korthagen, & Verloop,
2007). Such a research agenda is highly relevant and significant in our current learning society
in which teachers are expected to learn continuously.
1.1.2.
Gaps in the Research on Teacher Learning
To further establish the significance of the present study, I briefly report below the gaps in the
research literature on teacher learning and how the present study can contribute to bridging
those gaps. A more detailed discussion is found in Chapter 2.
Studies on teacher learning can be grouped into three categories: the content of teacher learning,
the process of teacher learning, and the factors that affect teacher learning. Below is a list of
research gaps identified in the corresponding bodies of literature:
Studies on the content of teacher learning often focus on pre-determined teacher learning
outcomes and content from the perspectives of teacher educators or TPD developers, rather
than from the teacher perspective (Webster-Wright, 2009). The current study is an attempt to
fill this gap by asking teachers to report on their most important learning, and to reflect on
the process and impact of their learning from their own perspective as teachers.
Little is known about how teachers, in particular experienced teachers, learn specific content
and how they change their cognition and/or behaviour (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002;
Hoekstra, Beijaard, Brekelmans, & Korthagen, 2007; Putnam & Borko, 2000). The current
study addresses this gap by delineating the process of teacher learning with the use of the
Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth (IMTPG) proposed by Clarke &
Hollingsworth (2002).
The teacher learning process is rather complex (Gravani, 2007) and idiosyncratic in nature
(Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002). There is also a lack of a common framework to analyse
and describe the process of teacher learning (Justi & van Driel, 2006). This hinders the
synthesis of findings across different studies. This study contributes to the search for a
common analytic tool by adopting and combining the interpretive frameworks of Clarke &
Hollingsworths (2002) IMTPG and the Community of Practice (CoP) of Wenger (1998,
2003).
With regard to factors affecting teacher learning, most studies focus either on the factors
pertaining to individual teachers or the communal factors of the community to which the
teachers belong. The studies often consider these factors in an isolated manner without
acknowledging the potential effects of any possible interaction between them (Richardson
& Placier, 2001; Webster-Wright, 2009). Also, they fail to account for the dynamic nature of
the relationship between teacher learning and other various factors. The present study tries
to bridge this gap by considering both individual and communal factors in a holistic manner,
as well as exploring the interactive and dynamic relationship between teacher learning and
the factors affecting it.
In sum, the present study attempts to fill current gaps in the research by studying the content and
process of teacher learning from the teacher perspective. It considers both the individual factors
and communal factors in a holistic manner, and treats these as dynamic factors that may change
and interact with each other during the course of teacher learning.
1.1.3.
Context of the Study
The context of this study is a school-based TPD project involving two secondary schools in
Hong Kong. The Integrated Science teachers in each school, with input from a science educator,
formed a CoP using classroom videos as a tool for their professional learning. The TPD
programme comprised: (i) analysis of exemplary videos in video workshops (VWs), and (ii)
analysis of teachers own videos in a video-based lesson study (LS). The use of video in the
design of the TPD is supported by the relevant literatures:
Imbedding teachers learning in their everyday work, or that of their colleagues, increases
the likelihood that this learning will be meaningful (A. Lieberman, 1996).
2
Research on lesson study revealed that in order to benefit from lesson study, teachers will
first need to learn how to apply critical lenses to their examination of lessons (Fernandez,
Cannon, & Chokshi, 2003, p. 182).
Use of exemplary cases increases teachers exposure to alternatives, provides existence

proof of new practice and demonstration of actions (Black & Atkin, 1996). Teachers may
gain moral support and deepen their understanding by viewing exemplary cases.
Analysis of classroom video provides opportunities for teachers to acquire a new analytic
mind set to look at classroom teaching (Sherin, 2004, p. 13).
More details about the TPD design and activities can be found in Chapter 3.
1.2. Research Questions

While I feel obliged to provide readers with detailed information about the context of the study,
against which they can make better sense of the reported teacher learning, I must stress at the
outset that the present study is not an evaluation study of the effectiveness of the TPD
programme in bringing about teacher learning (though this is a major concern for the
programme developer i.e., my supervisor). Rather, my prime focus is on how and what teachers
learn in the context of this TPD programme, including any unintended learning outcomes. In
other words, I will look at teacher learning from the teachers own perspectives, rather than
comparing their learning outcomes against predetermined criteria laid down by the researcher.
Using a case study approach, this study looks closely at the nature and process of teacher
learning through their participation in a CoP that aims to improve teaching through analysis of
classroom videos. The following set of interrelated research questions guide the study:
1. What do teachers learn in the communities of practice?
2. How do teachers learn and what are the processes involved?
3. What are the factors that promote or impede teacher learning?
1.3. The Interpretative Frameworks

The present study adopts IMTPG developed by Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) and Wengers
(1998, 2003) CoP as the interpretive frameworks for analysis of teacher learning. A brief
introduction of the two frameworks follows, along with the reasons for their adoption. A more
detailed discussion is found in Chapter 2.
1.3.1.
Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth (IMTPG)
Previous literature on models of TPD paid little attention, if any, to the context in which
teachers learn and the way in which a change in one aspect (e.g., teaching practice) was
transcended into another (e.g., teacher knowledge and beliefs). With reference to these
limitations, Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) proposes IMTPG. The model is represented in
Figure 1.1 and briefly described below.
Figure 1.1 Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth
External Domain
The Change
External Source of
Environment
Information or
Stimulus
Domain of Practice
Personal Domain
Knowledge,
Professional
Beliefs and
Experimentation
Attitudes
Salient
Enactment
Outcome
Reflection
Domain of
Consequence
According to IMTPG, the teachers world is encompassed by four distinct domains: the Personal
Domain (PD) (teacher knowledge, beliefs and attitudes), the Domain of Practice (DP)
(professional experimentation), the Domain of Consequence (DC) (salient outcomes), and the
External Domain (ED) (sources of information, stimulus or support). The four domains are
connected by the mediating processes of enactment and reflection. Change in one domain may
lead to change in another domain through either enactment or reflection. Enactment, according
to Clarke & Hollingsworth (2002), is not simply acting, but translation of a belief or a
pedagogical model into action; each action represents the enactment of something a teacher
knows, believes or has experienced. Reflection is active, persistent and careful consideration
(Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002, p. 954).
The multiplicity of possible pathways between the four domains reflects the complex,
idiosyncratic and dynamic nature of teacher learning. The model recognises not only that
teacher learning is non-linear but is also a continuous process involving teachers reflection and
enactment. Its application across different studies may help to fill the gap of the lack of a
4
common tool to analyse, discuss and hence compare the findings in different studies that are
conducted in different contexts (Justi & van Driel, 2006). In the present study, IMTPG is
adopted to delineate the path of teacher learning, and to identify the specific factors in the four
domains that promote or restrain teacher learning.
Despite its strong descriptive and explanatory power in accounting for the process of teacher
learning, IMTPG falls short of explaining the changing and evolving patterns of interaction
among teachers, and the mutual relation and trust formed among teachers as reflected in the data
of the current study. Clarke & Hollingsworth (2002) do briefly talk about how the social settings
in which teachers learn (i.e., the change environment in IMTPG) afford and constraint teacher
learning. However, they do not give enough attention to the characteristic features and dynamic
nature of the social settings and the mutual constitution of the individual and the social. Indeed,
as the data of the present study emerged, I discovered that the CoPs formed by the participating
teachers were evolving throughout the TPD programme as a result of teacher learning, and that,
in turn, had affected the learning of individual teachers. To fully explain my data, I turned to
look at literature on the situated perspective on learning and found Wengers (1998, 2003) CoP
framework most appealing.
1.3.2.
Community of Practice (CoP)
Wengers (1998, 2003) Community of Practice (CoP) framework is grounded in a situated view
of learning in which individual development and social and cultural-historical activities and
practices are mutually constitutive; development occurs in the course of the individuals
participation in social practice, which in turn contributes to the development of these social
practices and activities (Tsui, Edwards, Lopez-Real, & Kwan, 2009, p. 30). Based on his work
with Lave (Lave & Wenger, 1991), Wenger (1998) elaborates the theory more fully and
identifies three elements of CoP, namely mutual engagement, a joint enterprise and a shared
repertoire, which constitute the source of coherence of a community.
Mutual engagement exists because people are engaged in actions whose meanings they
negotiate with one another. A joint enterprise is the result of a collective process of negotiation
through mutual engagement in practice over time. A shared repertoire is a set of resources
shared within a community for the negotiation of meaning in the community. Wenger (2003)
further elaborates the above three elements into three dimensions of a CoP as follows (p.81):
Enterprise connotes the level of learning energy of the community, which must show
leadership in pushing its development along and maintain a spirit of inquiry.
Mutuality indicates the depth of social capital of the community, in which members must
know and trust each other well enough to know how to interact productively and feel
comfortable speaking truthfully and addressing real problems together.
Repertoire denotes the degree of self-awareness of the community. Being reflective on its
repertoire (including the concepts, language and tools used) enables a community to
understand its own state of development from multiple perspectives, reconsider assumptions
and uncover hidden possibilities, and use this self-awareness to move forward.
To differentiate the different forms of participation in a CoP, Wenger (2003) identifies three
modes of belonging that can shape the social learning systems of the communities concerned
(pp.7879):
Engagement is doing things together, talking and producing artefacts. The ways in which
members engage with each other, and with the world, profoundly shape their experience of
who they are. They learn what they can do and how the world responds to their actions.
Imagination is members constructing an image of themselves, of their communities, and of

the world in order to orient themselves, to reflect on their situation, and to explore
possibilities.
Alignment is about making sure that local activities are sufficiently aligned with other
processes so that they can be effective beyond their own engagement. This is not a one-way
process of submitting to external authority, but a mutual process of coordinating
perspectives, interpretations, and actions so that the CoP can realise higher goals.
Wenger (2003) combines the three dimensions of a CoP and the three modes of belonging to
construct a matrix (see Chapter 2 for details) to illustrate how the modes of belonging affect the
dimensions of a CoP. This matrix framework is adapted for the analysis of the changes
occurring in the CoPs during the course of this study. The three dimensions of CoP are used to
describe the characteristic features of the CoPs formed by the participating teachers, whereas the
modes of belonging are considered as the factors that promote or impede the development of the
CoPs. This can complement the inadequacy of IMTPG in explaining the evolution of the change
environment and the mutual constitution of individual teacher learning and community building.
To summarise, the two frameworks are adopted to describe and explain the data in this study.
The IMTPG framework is used to delineate the learning path of individual teachers, whilst the
CoP framework is used to describe the evolving forms of the CoPs formed by the teachers and
teacher learning in relation to the CoPs. I believe, as will be demonstrated in later chapters, that
IMTPG and CoP frameworks can complement each other to provide a useful tool to capture and
explain the content and process of teacher learning, as well as the individual and communal
factors affecting it.
6
1.4. Significance
This study is of both practical and theoretical value. Practically, understanding how teachers
learn, what the impeding and promoting factors are, and how these factors interact among
themselves and relate to the process of teacher learning will provide valuable information for
teacher professional developers in designing their TPD programmes. Theoretically, the study
contributes to the literature on teacher learning in relation to the search for a common analytic
tool by adopting and combining IMTPG and CoP frameworks. It sheds light on how the two
frameworks can be combined to explain and describe the learning of teachers in TPD contexts.
More importantly, it contributes to the literature on teacher learning by building a holistic model
of teacher learning through investigating the content, process, and the factors of teacher learning
from the teacher perspective.
1.5. Outline of the Subsequent Chapters

In this chapter, I have introduced the background, the gaps in research on teacher learning and
the interpretive frameworks adopted for this study. I have also explained the significance of this
study.
Chapter 2 provides a thorough and detailed review of the literature on teacher learning, and
explains in detail why IMTPG (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002) and CoP (Wenger, 1998, 2003)
have been chosen and the adaptations made for the analysis of teacher learning in this study.
In Chapter 3, I describe the context of this study the TPD programme in order to provide
readers with the background information necessary for a better understanding and appreciation
of the findings on teacher learning reported in this study.
In Chapter 4, I describe and explain the methodology used. I also explain how the research
design takes into consideration of the issues of trustworthiness and other ethical considerations.
In Chapters 5 and 6, I report the results and findings in the form of case study reports, one for
each of the participating schools. Each begins with reports on the learning of individual teachers
(using the IMTPG), followed by information on the characteristics features of the CoP
concerned and its evolving changes during the course of study. The communal factors involved
are also reported here.
Chapter 7 compares and discusses the learning of the seven participating teachers and the
characteristic features of the two CoPs. The aim is to identify the similarities and differences in
the content and learning paths of teachers and those of the two CoPs, as well as to detail the
influences of the individual and communal factors on teacher learning.
Chapter 8 analyses and discusses features of the TPD that had an impact on teacher learning and
details the ways in which the TPD factors affected the learning of teachers.
In Chapter 9, I conclude the thesis by summarising the findings reported in previous chapters,
discussing the implications and limitations, and providing suggestions for future research.
Chapter 2 Literature Review

Section 2.1 of this chapter reviews the literature on teacher learning in three areas: the content
of teacher learning, the process of teacher learning, and the factors that affect teacher learning.
Section 2.2 introduces the theoretical frameworks that will guide the analysis of data collected
in this study.
2.1. Research on Teacher Learning

In the present study, teacher learning is referred to the changes in teacher knowledge (i.e.,
cognitive), skills, affects and/or emotions (i.e., affective), and the relationships between
colleagues and/or ways they work with each other (i.e., social learning or community building).
Teacher learning has emerged as an important research topic in the last decade (Fishman &
Davis, 2006). It provides important information about teachers as they attempt to improve their
teaching (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Fischer, 2006). In my review of the literature, I
found that researchers mainly focused on three aspects: (i) the content/outcome of teacher
learning, (ii) the process of teacher learning, and (iii) the factors that affect teacher learning. As
the context of this study, the TPD programme, consisted of video workshops and video-based
lesson study, the following sections will briefly draw on the relevant literature on the use of
video for TPD and lesson study. To avoid replication to the later chapters, the discussion here
will be kept to a minimum. A more substantial amount of literature on the use of video and
lesson study can be found in Chapter 8.
2.1.1.
Research on the Content of Teacher Learning
For the purpose of this review, the content of teacher learning refers to what teachers learn from
their daily teaching practice or their participation in teacher professional development (TPD). It
includes knowledge, skills, affects and emotions. Social learning/community building will be
discussed in a later section in this chapter.
2.1.1.1. Teacher learning as gaining knowledge and skills

Since the 1970s, cognitivism has been the dominant paradigm in psychology and also in
educational psychology (Fishman & Davis, 2006). The cognitive view of learning believes that
individuals acquire skills, knowledge and understanding in one setting, and subsequently are
able to apply these skills, knowledge and understandings elsewhere. The unit of analysis or
focus for learning is in the mind of the individual. This originates from the work of Jean Piaget
(1950, cited in Hoban, 2002), who believes that learning is a process of continually reworking
an individuals knowledge based on personal experiences. This idea of learning is highlighted in
constructivism, which states that knowledge is not passively received but actively built up by
individuals. From the personal constructivist view of learning, teachers enter into TPD with
existing beliefs and knowledge. Through reflection, teachers relate new knowledge and concepts
to their prior knowledge and experience, thus adding meaning and understanding to the new
knowledge and concepts.
Studies of teacher development and/or teacher learning mostly focus on the knowledge teachers
need to have in order to teach effectively (Bransford et al., 2006). In particular, many
researchers consider the knowledge base of teachers an important area to look into (e.g.,
Berliner, 1986; Borko & Putnam, 1996; Freeman, 1989; Grossman, 1990, 1991; Grossman,
Wilson, & Shulman, 1989; Peterson, 1988; Shulman, 1986b, 1987). Shulmans (1986a, 1986b,
1987) framework of teacher knowledge has been widely adopted by researchers in this field as
the basis for their studies. Shulman (1986a, 1986b, 1987) categorised seven types of knowledge
that he believes teachers should possess in order to teach: (i) subject matter knowledge; (ii)
general pedagogical knowledge; (iii) curriculum knowledge; (iv) pedagogical content
knowledge; (v) knowledge of students learning; (vi) knowledge of the educational context, such
as the school and the classroom; and (vii) knowledge of educational ends, purposes and values.
In sum, studies along the line of inquiry point to the importance of helping teachers to expand
and elaborate their professional knowledge base. That is, they treat this as one important
component of teacher learning (Borko & Putnam, 1995). Some studies on video-based TPD
have also focused on this area to help teachers develop their professional knowledge (e.g.,
Givvin, Lemmens, & Santagata, 2007; Lampert & Ball, 1998; Olivero, John, & Sutherland,
2004; Roth et al., 2011; Strickland & Doty, 1997). For instance, the study of Ruth et al (2011)
investigated elementary teachers development of science content knowledge through analysis
of science teaching practice using video cases.
There is a body of research studying how novice and expert teachers differ in terms of their
knowledge and skills (Berliner, 1988; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Sabers, Cushing, & Berliner,
1991). For example, Berliner and his colleagues (Berliner, 1988; Sabers, et al., 1991) compared
the interpretation of classroom situations among expert teachers, advanced-beginning teachers
(student teacher and high-quality first-year teachers), and novice teachers (no professional
training) by using tasks simulating different aspects of teaching. In one of the tasks, teachers
were asked to watch a lesson displayed simultaneously on three video screens showing the
lesson from different camera angles. The novice teachers and advanced-beginning teachers
found the video confusing and interpreted the classroom situation inconsistently. The expert
teachers, however, were quickly able to capture the complexity of the classroom situation,
interpret and make hypotheses about student needs and the nature of the ongoing activity. The
10
researchers concluded that expert teachers had developed context-embedded and situated
knowledge of classroom activities and were more easily able to interpret what they saw.
In view of the difference between expert teachers and novice teachers ability to capture the
complexity of classroom situations and interpret student needs, one line of research on the use
of video for TPD purposes investigates a different type of knowledge and skills in teachers,
namely professional vision or the ability to notice pedagogically significant events (see for
example, Eilam & Poyas, 2006; Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008; Sherin
& Han, 2004; Sherin & van Es, 2005; van Es, 2004). In the studies of Sherin & van Es (2005)
and van Es (2004), groups of pre-service and in-service teachers developed their ability to
notice classroom interactions in the context of video clubs. The results suggested that teachers
changed their focus from pedagogy to student thinking, identified significant interactions,
discussed the classroom events from evaluation to interpretation, and increased the use of
evidence from the videos. In other words, the teachers ability to notice what is happening in
their classroom increased with the use of videos. In the study of Eilam & Poyas (2006), besides
the shift of perspectives, teachers also increased their ability to identify and interpret implicit
and explicit factors and interrelations in teaching-learning processes. The video-mediated
activities also enhanced the teachers capacity to link perceived teaching-learning processes to
theoretical knowledge.
2.1.1.2. Teacher learning in the affective domain

Affective learning (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964) does not receive as much attention as
knowledge and skills learning in the teacher learning literature, even though teaching has been
recognised as an emotional practice (Hargreaves, 1998). Little is known about the process of
teacher affective learning and its role in teaching and teacher development. Sutton & Wheatley
(2003) point out that surprisingly little is known about the role of emotions in learning to teach,
the way in which the socio-cultural context of teaching interacts with teachers emotions, and to
what extent emotional experiences are an integral part of teacher learning. Hence, we need a
better understanding of how emotional responses mediate learning, and how they emerge from
learning (Bransford, et al., 2006, p. 29).
Indeed, the study of emotions in teaching and learning is on the rise (Nias, 1996; Sutton &
Wheatley, 2003; van Veen & Lasky, 2005). However, research on teachers affective learning in
the TPD context is rare. Gravens study (Graven, 2004) is a rare example. In analysing the data
on teacher learning from an in-service teacher training programme, Graven found, to her
surprise, that confidence emerged as a crucial recurring phenomenon in both teacher description
and explanation of their learning. Based on her data, Graven suggested that confidence relates to
11
learning as mastery in the practice of being a professional teacher. For teachers, mastery
involved:
Confidence in what they learned and the meaning they constructed in changing
developments in their profession.
Confidence in their ability to participate in the various practices and communities
Confidence in their ability to access resources to supplement their learning
Confidence in their identity as professional competent teachers
Confidence in accepting that there was still much more to learn, and the willingness and
confidence to become a life-long learner
According to Graven (2004), confidence is both a product and a process of learning. It is the
product of the result of learning as well as the process that stimulates or motivates teachers to
learn continuously. The five aspects of confidence in Gravens study echo with the idea of
personal development given by Bell & Gilbert (1996). Bell & Gilbert assert that personal
development involves teachers accepting an aspect of their teaching as problematic, dealing
with restraints and attending to the feelings and concerns of changing their practice and beliefs
about science education, and feeling empowered to be responsible for their own development.
They further argue that personal development is important in the process in that personal and
social development are intertwined, personal development precedes professional development,
and the pace of personal development influences the pace of professional development.
It is rare for research in video-based TPD to focus explicitly on developing teachers confidence
or other affective learning, although a few studies do report teacher learning in the affective
domain (e.g., Gunning & Mensah, 2011; Yoon et al., 2006). For example, in the study of
Gunning and Mensah (2011), reviewing videos helped to boost pre-service elementary teachers
self-efficacy and confidence to try new teaching practices as the videos provided the teachers
with vicarious experiences, in which they could witness peers modelling situational
competencies and visualise themselves in similar situations. Similar findings are also observed
in studies for practicing teachers who reviewed and reflected on their own teaching videos. The
teachers who used videos to reflect on their practice showed a significant greater increase in
their science teaching efficacy than those who did not use videos (McConnell et al., 2008).
2.1.1.3. Summary
Research on the content of teacher learning is usually conducted from the researchers
perspective. The learning content is often studied in relation to the intended learning outcomes
that are pre-determined by the teacher educators or developers of TPD, instead of by the
teachers themselves. It does not explain which content is more useful and meaningful for
12
teachers (i.e., from their own perspective) and how teachers learn to cope with the complexity of
their work by using this newly learned content. Indeed, research on the content of teacher
learning from teachers own perspective is relatively rare. Webster-Wright (2009) argues that
more research on teacher learning from the teacher perspective is needed in order to unveil the
authentic learning experience of teachers. The present study attempts to fill this gap. Hence, at
the end of each of the professional learning activities in this study, teachers will be asked to
reflect on questions such as: What are the most impressive things in this meeting and why?
Have you gained any new insights from this meeting? If yes, what are they? What is the
implication/impact of these insights on you and/or your teaching?
Certainly, by focusing on the content of what teachers learned, these kinds of studies allow
researchers and teacher educators to understand the ends of teacher learning. However, they do
not help us to understand the processes that teachers go through to reach those ends (FeimanNemser & Remillard, 1996). In order to help us to understand how teachers reach these ends
and learn to use the content of teacher learning in their work, the process and the nature of
teacher learning both need to be examined in detail, along with the factors that can influence
teacher learning (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996; Hoban,
2002). However, limited research has been conducted to explore this area of research (Beijaard,
et al., 2007; Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Putnam & Borko, 2000). The present study aims to
fill this research gap by addressing the following research questions: What do teachers learn as a
result of the participation in learning communities? What are the factors and processes involved?
2.1.2.
Research on the Process of Teacher Learning
As Gravani and John (2005) suggest, how teachers learn should be as important as what they
learn. Recently, researchers began to emphasise the importance of understanding the process of
how teachers learn in the hope of applying the research findings in facilitating and optimising
teacher learning both in initial teacher education and the further professional development of
teachers (Beijaard, et al., 2007; Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002). Since the research literature on
the process of teacher learning is relatively new, the current study also reviews literature on the
process of teacher change and TPD if it is related to the learning process through which teachers
move towards expertise.
Based on their review of the literature, Clark & Hollingsworth (2002) claim that early literatures
on the process of teacher learning tended to treat teacher learning as a linear process with
specific starting and ending points. For example, they note that many teacher education
programmes attempt to change teachers beliefs and attitudes, expecting that a change in beliefs
and attitudes will lead to changes in classroom practices and, ultimately, changes in student
13
learning outcomes as the goal of TPD. Often this goal is implicitly, rather than explicitly, spelt
out. Hence, they refer to this as the implicit model of teacher professional development (see
Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1 The Implicit Model of Teacher Professional Development
Professional
Development
Change in
Teachers
Knowledge
and Beliefs
Change in
Teachers
Classroom
Practice
Change in
Student
Learning
Outcome
Guskey (1986) argues that the assumption that a change of teachers beliefs and attitudes can
lead to a change in their classroom practices might be inaccurate since, from the research on
teacher change, TPD programs seldom result in significant change in teachers attitudes or
beliefs and/or classroom practices. He puts forward an alternative model (see Figure 2.2), which
suggests that significant changes in beliefs and attitudes are likely to take place only after
changes in student learning outcomes are evident. Changes in teachers beliefs and attitudes are
primarily a result, rather than a cause, of change in the learning outcomes of students (Guskey,
1986). In other words, evidence of improvement in student learning outcome becomes the key
element for the change of teachers beliefs and attitudes.
Figure 2.2 Guskeys Model of Teacher Change
Professional
Development
Change in
Teachers
Classroom
Practice
Change in
Student
Learning
Outcomes
Change in
Teachers
Beliefs &
Attitudes
Although the two models discussed above differ in the sequence of the change process and the
reasons for the change taking place, the common feature is that they both assume that the
process of teacher change/teacher learning is linear and has specific starting and ending points.
Arguably, teachers are individuals with different past experiences, different existing knowledge
and beliefs, and different teachers may learn best in different ways.
More recent studies suggest that the process of teacher learning, rather than being viewed as a
14
linear, step-by-step event, should be seen as a complex process (Gravani, 2007) that may be
cyclic with multiple entry points (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Zwart, Wubbels, Bergen, &
Bolhuis, 2007). In other words, these two models may not be able to adequately represent the
idiosyncratic and dynamic nature of the process of teacher learning. Moreover, they do not take
into consideration the context where teachers learn and how a change in one aspect (e.g.,
practice) is transcended into another one (e.g., knowledge/beliefs). With reference to the
limitations of these two models, Clarke & Hollingsworth (2002) propose the Interconnected
Model of Teacher Professional Growth (IMTPG). Their model is represented in Figure 2.3 and
briefly described below.
Figure 2.3 Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth

External Domain
The Change
External Source of
Environment
Information or
Stimulus
Domain of Practice
Personal Domain
Knowledge,
Professional
Beliefs and
Experimentation
Attitudes
Salient
Enactment
Outcome
Reflection
Domain of
Consequence
According to this model, the teachers world is constituted by four distinct domains that change
through mediating processes of reflection and enactment (represented as arrows linking the
domains. The multiplicity of possible pathways between the four domains reflects the
complexity of teachers learning processes. That is, this model recognises not only that teacher
learning is non-linear but also a continuous process involving teachers reflection and enactment.
Justi & van Driel (Justi & van Driel, 2005, 2006) demonstrated the fruitfulness of using IMTPG
as an analytical tool in studying the process through which five beginning science teachers
developed their knowledge on the use of models and modelling in science teaching. After
15
attending a special course on the use of models and modelling in teaching science, the teachers
chose one of the aspects discussed as the basis of research projects that they conducted in their
own classes. As part of their research projects, the teachers collected classroom data (for
instance, written materials produced by their students, video recordings of classroom
discussions) that they analysed for reflective reports. They then presented their reports during a
final group meeting about their research. Data regarding teachers learning were collected
during the study through questionnaires and individual teacher interviews, as well as through
written materials produced by teachers during the professional learning meetings and the
discussions that took place during these meetings.
Using IMTPG as the analytic tool, Justi and van Driel (2006) were able to abstract from the data
nine pictorial representations of the teachers learning process regarding the use of models and
modelling in science teaching for each of the five teachers. A total of 45 pictorial representations
of teachers learning process were drawn. Results showed that only two teachers (two
representations) expressed the same change sequence for the development of pedagogical
content knowledge on the purpose of the use of teaching models. Thirty-two representations
involved three or more relationships between the four domains; of these relationships sometimes
reflective relationships predominated, sometimes enactment relationships predominated, and
sometimes no one particular relationship predominated.
Overall, the study indicated that the learning process of teachers is rather complex and
idiosyncratic. More importantly, Justi and van Driel (2006) have successfully demonstrated the
crucial role of using IMTPG in their analysis of the teachers knowledge growth. The four
domains of IMTPG and the subsequent establishment of relationships between the four domains
allowed the researchers to analyse the data in a way that promoted their understanding of the
processes of each teachers knowledge development. By identifying relationships between the
four domains, IMTPG made it possible for the researchers to understand each teachers
development in a detailed way.
Zwart et al (2007), also adopted IMTPG to analyse the learning process of teachers in their
study. The learning trajectories of eight experienced teachers in four coaching dyads were traced
and analysed over a one-year reciprocal peer coaching arrangement. Data sources included
audiotapes of coaching conferences, semi-structured learning interviews conducted by phone,
and digital diaries with teacher reports of their learning experiences. Thirty-four pictorial
representations of the teacher learning processes were identified. The researchers studied the
entry points, the ending points and the pattern of the pictorial representations. They found that
all four domains had been the entry point for the learning of the eight teachers, not necessarily
16
the External Domain (such as attending formal professional development courses) or the
Domain of Consequence (such as student learning outcomes); similarly, all the four domains
had been the ending point of teacher learning. In sum, IMTPG was found to be useful in tracing
and comparing teacher learning pathways that could have different entry points and different
ending points.
In reviewing the two studies above, which both adopted IMTPG as their analytic tool, we can
see the benefit of having a common framework for analysis of teacher learning. That it can
facilitate a comparison of the findings of studies that are carried out in different contexts (Justi
& van Driel, 2006). This, in turn, can facilitate an advance of knowledge in this field. However,
the problem remains to decide what constitutes the most appropriate common framework or
analytic tool to use to study the process of teacher learning, if indeed it exists. I shall elaborate
more on how I came to choose the analytic frameworks for the present study in Section 2.2.
2.1.3.
Research on Factors Affecting Teacher Learning
Research suggests that teacher learning is shaped through a combination of reciprocity between
the context of the particular school setting, and an individual teachers interest and disposition to
learn about practice (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2004; Hodkinson et al., 2004). That is, teacher
learning is influenced by both individual factors and contextual factors.
Individual factors refer to the factors pertaining to characteristics of individual teachers, for
example, their prior knowledge and beliefs, their will to learn (Van Eekelen, Vermunt, &
Boshuizen, 2006), and their level of reflection on their professional practices (Abou Baker ElDib, 2007; Korthagen, 2005; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005). Contextual factors refer to the factors
related to the context where the TPD activity is taking place. For example, in the context of the
present study, it is a school-based TPD. The contextual factors that may affect teacher learning
would include the culture and the norm of the school, as well as the collegiality of teachers, etc.
In the following sections, instead of a comprehensive review, I choose to limit my review to
some factors that are relevant to the current study.
2.1.3.1. Prior knowledge and beliefs

Teachers participate in TPD activities with prior knowledge and beliefs that serve as the starting
point for teacher learning. They may affect how teachers perceive and act on various messages
about changing their teaching, and thus serve as powerful filters throughout the learning process
(Borko & Putnam, 1995). Being a teacher also requires a high level of self-belief and
confidence. Teachers need to believe that they are good at what they do and also need to be
perceived by colleagues as capable of achieving goals. This is particularly true for beginning
17
teachers who need a strong sense of self-belief if they are to survive (Day, Stobart, Sammons, &
Kington, 2006). It is found that the self efficacy of beginning teachers is more likely to be
reinforced in a supportive environment of openness and trust. Such a collegial approach,
however, requires shared understanding, values and goals developed through sustained contact
among individuals who participate in joint productive or co-joint activities (Lasky, 2005).
Nonetheless, there is no guarantee that teacher learning will definitely take place, even in a
supportive and conducive environment such as the one described above. For example,
Kwakman (2003) studied the degree of teacher participation in several professional learning
activities at the teachers work place and found that powerful opportunities for teachers to learn
went unused. In other words, professional learning is not self-evident and there are clearly
occasions when teachers simply do not learn. This brings us to the next individual/personal
factor affecting teacher learning.
2.1.3.2. Teachers will to learn
The phenomenon of not learning can possibly be explained by various personal and
contextual factors. In Van Eekelen, Vermunt and Boshuizens (2006) study, they chose to focus
on a personal factor that has received very little attention from researchers, namely, teachers
will to learn. They considered a will to learn a necessary prerequisite for teacher learning,
not just a conducive learning environment. Teachers must take an active role in order to learn,
and a will to learn typically precedes such active involvement.
In Van Eekelen et al.s (2006) study, they asked the question: Which behaviours of experienced
teachers within the workplace indicate the presence or absence of a will to learn? They carried
out the research with 15 teachers in a school. First, they conducted a semi-structured interview
with each of the teachers, followed by an observation study, and a retrospective interview based
on the observations. The observation study and the interviews were conducted to collect
samples of situations in which teachers may learn, and to have teachers reflect upon those
situations and determine whether they learned something. Teachers were asked for their
thoughts on why they had or had not learned in each case.
The following behaviours were found to be indicative of a will to learn among the teachers:
having the ambition to explore new practices; being open to experiences and other people; being
pro-active; being able to attribute successes and mistakes to internal causes; asking critical
questions about on their performance; undertaking action to learn; and being able to recognise
learning processes and results. Using the data from the observation study and interviews, the
researchers differentiated the participating teachers into three groups based on the different
18
manifestations of their will to learn: (i) teachers who do not see the need to learn; (ii) teachers
who wonder how to learn; and (iii) teachers who are eager to learn. The researchers believed
that the manifestations can help teacher educators and TPD developers to identify the presence
or absence of a will to learn in teachers and thus to understand and facilitate teachers learning
in a more individual and unique manner. Hence, this method of differentiating teachers will to
learn is adopted for the present study as one of the factors affecting teacher learning and will be
detailed in Section 2.2.2.2.
Van Eekelen et al. (2006) stressed that a will to learn should not be confused with the notion of
intention to learn articulated by Eraut (2000) in his typology of informal learning. At one end
of the learning spectrum, according to this typology, is the widely recognised phenomenon of
implicit learning, with no intention to learn and no awareness of learning when it takes place.
Next, comes the category of reactive learning, which is almost spontaneous and largely
unplanned; the learner is aware of learning but the level of intentionality may vary and is often
unclear. This type of learning occurs most often in the workplace in the form of spontaneous
reflection, incidental notation of facts, or the recognition of learning opportunities occurring.
Lastly, there is deliberative learning, which involves explicitly setting time aside for learning
activities. Examples of this intentional form of learning are systematic reflection, review of past
actions, and engagement in planned (in)formal learning. In Van Eekelen et als view, however,
there must be a basic underlying will to learn before a learner engages in any of the three
aforementioned types of informal learning.
Van Eekelen et al. (2006) further clarified that although interest and motivation are important
concepts, they are not synonymous with the will to learn. The energising aspect of the two
concepts lies in the fact that a learner tends to be more alert, more responsive, and to exert
greater effort when he or she is interested and motivated. Moreover motivation and interest have
a directional aspect, namely, that when a learner is motivated or interested, a specific kind of
motivation is usually involved or a specific object is of interest. This specificity can lead to
selective action, striving, and attention, such as being eager to learn about only one specific
subject (Ferguson & Wee, 2000). Van Eekelen et al. (2006) consider the person who is willing to
learn as someone with an open mind and a desire to see something new. This differs from their
interpretation that interest and motivation appear to have a narrowing function, which is thus at
variance with our perspective on the will to learn (Van Eekelen, et al., 2006, p. 411).
In sum, teachers willingness to learn does not involve intentional, goal-directed, or selfregulated learning, it precedes such learning. A will to learn is thus, according to van Eekelen et
als (2006) opinion, a psychological state that involves a desire to learn, experiment, and see or
19
do something that has not been seen or done before. As such, the current study will also take
into consideration teachers will to learn as an individual factor affecting teacher learning in the
TPD activities.
2.1.3.3. Level of reflection

Reflection has been called the cornerstone of professional development (Baird, 1992) and has
been a central element of many teacher education and TPD programmes. Dewey (1933) defined
reflection as a mental problem-solving process that requires active and deliberate consideration
of action in light of any and all relevant knowledge and beliefs (p.34). Building upon Deweys
concept of reflection, Schon (1983) suggests that teacher reflection can take place while
teaching (reflection-in-action) and/or before or after teaching (reflection-on-action).
Korthagen (2005) also stated that the essence of reflection is bringing the unconscious aspects
of teaching into conscious awareness, so that people become more sensitive to important aspects
of educational situation (p.92). This is in line with Brookfield (1995) who argues that critical
reflection is a process of hunting assumption in which teachers investigate and question the
hegemonic assumptions (that seem to make teaching lives easier but actually work against
teachers own best long-term interests). During this process, teachers search for multiple
perspectives through the use of four complementary lenses, namely, the lens of their own
autobiographies as learners, the lens of students eyes, the lens of colleagues perceptions, and
the lens of educational literature. It is commonly believed that reflection enables teachers to
refine their teaching practice or to be aware of the possible problems that can occur in their
lessons.
A body of literature focuses on the nature or level of reflection undergone by teachers (e.g.,
Abou Baker El-Dib, 2007; van Manen, 1977; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). For example, Abou
Baker El-Dib (2007) investigated pre-service teachers level of reflection in different stages of
their action research during the teaching practicum. The researcher developed an inventory to
analyse student teachers reflective thinking. Results showed that more than 50% of the student
teachers fell at either the low or low-medium level of reflection in all the stages of action
research. These teachers described the problem and the action only in their action research but
failed to consider the cause of the problem, give rationale for their actions or show awareness of
their beliefs and the limitations of their action and beliefs. However, the study fell short of
accounting for the learning of the student teachers in the action research and the relationship
between their learning and their level of reflection.
Korthagen (2005) proposed the onion model, in which six different levels of teacher reflection
are depicted as six concentric layers of an onion. The six levels are arranged in a hierarchal
20
order from the outermost level to the innermost level environment, behaviour, competencies,
beliefs, identity and mission. Reflection that extends to the level of identity and mission is
regarded as core reflection. Korthagen and Vasalos (Korthagen, 2005; Korthagen & Vasalos,
2005) proposed that core reflection helps teachers to support the development of growth
competence (i.e., the ability to direct their own learning, to structure their own experiences, and
to construct their own theories of practice). In other words, the level of reflection is believed to
have an effect on teacher learning. This line of inquiry will be pursued in the current study. The
inventory developed by Abou Baker El-Dib (2007), Korthagen (2005) and Korthagen & Vasalos
(2005) provide a guide for the present study to categorise the different levels of reflection a
teacher might undertake. The corresponding interpretive framework will be introduced in
Section 2.2.2.2.
2.1.3.4. The context of school

Teachers work contexts are often the contexts for teacher learning and can have a positive or
negative influence on learning (Day, 1999; Scribner, 1999). School support of teacher learning
is very important. However, as the focus of schools is on the learning or performance of the
students, teacher learning is not the primary concern, and few schools can afford to allow
teachers to participate in professional development activities that involve time away from the
classroom. This was the situation faced by the teachers in the current study.
Schools are also busy places, where opportunities to stop, reflect and talk to colleagues are often
limited (E. Wilson & Demetriou, 2007). Teachers are not given the time or the opportunity and
support to access knowledge in educational research literature, making teachers difficult to
challenge and may still persist the division of knowledge by practical-based knowledge and
theoretical educational research knowledge. According to Scribner (1999), lack of discretionary
time for teacher learning privileged credit-yielding learning opportunities (e.g., attending
courses). Also, a general lack of time means that possible learning activities, such as
collaboration between teachers, rarely move beyond surface-level discussions or skimming of
material. The above situations ring true for teachers in the current study too. We are going to
find out how the year-long school-based professional development programme of the present
study will unfold in the two schools and affect teacher learning.
2.1.3.5. Collaboration among teachers

There is currently a considerable amount of research focusing on teacher collaboration. Teacher
collaboration is presumed to be a powerful learning environment for teachers professional
development. Teachers perceive discussions with colleagues in collaborative settings as relevant
and valuable for their learning and for the improvement of teaching practices (e.g., Borko, 2004).
21
In collaborative settings, teacher learning is enhanced by exchanging ideas, knowledge,

experiences, and beliefs, by developing and discussing new materials and by receiving feedback
from colleagues (Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-Selinger, & Beckingham, 2004; Putnam & Borko,
2000). Teachers with different ideas, conceptions, and opinions can become aware of or
question their own beliefs and understanding when they interact with each other (Putnam &
Borko, 2000). Yet, discussions that support critical examination of teaching are relatively rare
(Putnam & Borko, 1997; S. M. Wilson & Berne, 1999), and the development of teacher
communities is difficult and time-consuming (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001).
The notion of teacher collaboration and how it would affect teacher learning in the work place is
highly relevant to the current study. This is because, prior to the TPD programme, the working
relationships among teachers in each of the case study schools in the current study can, at best,
be described as contrived collegiality (Hargreaves, 1992) (see Sections 5.1.2 and 6.1.2).
2.1.3.6. Presence of a facilitator

By itself, however, collaboration among teachers may not lead to a great leap in teacher learning
especially in reformed-oriented teaching where teachers may lack the relevant knowledge. As
pointed out in Section 2.1.3.4, teachers are not given the opportunity and support to access
knowledge in educational research literature, making them difficult to challenge innovations
imposed on them. This may perpetuate the division of knowledge by practical-based knowledge
and theoretical educational research knowledge. But this can be supplemented by carrying out
school-based TPD activities where outside experts are brought into schools as facilitators during
discussions. This can also bridge the gap between practical-based knowledge and theoretical
educational research knowledge. This is exactly what the school-based TPD programme in the
present study will do.
Indeed, facilitators are commonly present in school-based TPD activities involving detailed
analyses of classroom practices (e.g., action research, video clubs and lesson study).
Surprisingly, there are only a few studies that investigate the role of the facilitator in promoting
teacher learning (e.g., Jenlink & Kinnucan-Welsch, 2001; Le Fevre & Richardson, 2002;
Watanabe & Wang-Iverson, 2005; Zhang, Lundeberg, & Eberhardt, 2011). Based on their work
with teachers in lesson study, Watanabe & Wang-Iverson (2005) identify the ways in which a
knowledgeable other contributes to a lesson study, and hence, to teacher learning. Four of the
ways they identified are relevant to the present study: the knowledgeable others (i) provide
information about subject matter content, teaching strategies or reforms; (ii) provide broader
perspectives to teachers; (iii) share the work of different lesson study groups; and (iv) act as
cheerleaders to encourage teachers to persist in the process. The first three roles of the facilitator
22
tend to facilitate knowledge development in teachers, whereas the fourth helps to promote
affective learning, in particular a will to persist in learning.
Zhang and colleagues (2011) investigated the strategies that experienced facilitators used in
facilitating a discussion among science teachers about two teaching problems shown in
corresponding video clips in a TPD programme. They studied and analysed the videotapes of
the discussion sessions with methods guided by interaction analysis and grounded theory. In
addition to facilitating knowledge development by promoting discourse and maintaining the
group process, the results suggest that facilitators also modelled study group practice and played
a role in establishing a learning community. The facilitators helped to develop a supportive
learning community by providing positive feedback to individual teachers and the group,
offering support to struggling teachers, and establishing ground rules for discussion.
The findings of the above two studies are consistent to research on the role of facilitator in
action research. In particular, a facilitator assumes multiple roles (as facilitator, supporter,
challenger, and teacher) and shifts among these roles to meet changing needs and circumstances
during the process of facilitation (Goodnough, 2003). The flexibility and adaptability of a
facilitator in assuming multiple roles in different circumstances enables teachers to know the
expectation on them, engage in critical reflection on their actions and the underlying
assumptions, and keep up with their action plan and learning (Ponte, 2002). Understanding how
facilitation promotes or hinders teacher learning is also highly relevant to this study as a TPD
facilitator was present in the TPD programme in which the participating teachers did not have
previous experience of analysing and discussing their teaching with each other.
2.1.3.7. Video as a learning tool

As the present study is situated in a school-based TPD programme using classroom videos as
the mediating artefact, a review of the role of classroom videos in teacher learning is not only
relevant but also paves the way for an analysis of the ways in which videos facilitated or
impeded teacher learning during the programme.
When compared with live classroom observation, the use of video has certain limitations: there
is no interaction with the participants; the information captured by a video may not fully
represent the level of participation that took place in the actual classroom; and the fact that a
video only represents the perspective of the person taping the video. However, Sherin (2004)
identified three affordances of videos for TPD. Firstly, videos provide a lasting record of
classroom interaction that can be played again and again, and be paused and rewound without
losing any details of the classroom interaction. Secondly, videos can be collected, edited and
23
recombined to allow excerpts of a particular video to be accessed at any point, not necessarily
only according to the chronological progression of classroom interaction. Thirdly, these two
features allow teachers to experience different types of practice that foster the development of
an analytic mind-set (Sherin, 2004, p. 13). For example, teachers can review the same video
for multiple times with multiple perspectives. In other words, videos enable teachers to analyse
in depth not only their own teaching but also that of other teachers (Roth & Chen, 2007; Sherin
& Han, 2004), thus providing them with a different kind of learning experience than traditional
teaching practice.
Research on the use of video in TPD identifies the different ways in which videos can facilitate
teacher learning. For example, in the study of Yung and colleagues (Wong, Yung, Cheng, Lam,
& Hodson, 2006; Yung, Wong, Cheng, Hui, & Hodson, 2007), a video-based reflection task was
used to elicit, develop and track the conceptions of good science teaching (CoGST) of student
teachers enrolled in a science major methods course in a one-year teacher education programme.
The student teachers were asked to review the videos and complete the reflection tasks at three
different stages of the teacher education programme. They were interviewed at the beginning
and at the end of the course to ascertain the major factors that had influenced their CoGST at
different stages of the course. The researchers identified the following interrelated and
interactive roles of the video in the development of student-teachers CoGST: (i) increasing their
awareness of alternative teaching methods and approaches not experienced in their own learning;
(ii) increasing their awareness of different classroom situations; (iii) providing exemplary
models of teaching that teachers may try out; (iv) providing proof of existence of good practices
that may encourage teachers to try them out in their own teaching; and (v) facilitating and
prompting reflection (on their CoGST).
Additionally, video also plays a role in teacher discussion of teaching and learning. In the study
of Borko and colleagues (Borko, Jacobs, Eiteljorg, & Pittman, 2008), they found that video acts
as a tool to foster productive discussion in teacher groups when teachers review and discuss
their own teaching videos with colleagues. The participating teachers talked in a more focused,
in-depth, and analytical manner about specific issues related to selected teaching and learning
problems in their subject area. These findings are consistent with those of other researchers,
namely that videos can be used as models, exemplars, or illustrators of a point, and/or for
analysis of teaching practices (Seago, 2000; Sherin, 2004).
2.1.3.8. Summary
Though the above factors (i.e., teachers prior knowledge and beliefs, will to learn, level of
reflection, the school context, teacher collaboration, the presence of a facilitator, and the use of
24
video) are reviewed and discussed separately, they are interrelated and do not exert their effect
on teacher learning independent of each other. The presence of one factor may facilitate or
hinder the development of another factor. For example, the presence of a supportive, open and
trusting environment (contextual factor) will enhance teachers self-belief and will to learn
(individual factor). However, recent research on these main factors are often conducted
separately and independent of each other (Richardson & Placier, 2001). There have been calls
for an integrated or system approach to consider both individual factors and the contextual
factors as a whole in one study (Hoban, 2002; Knight, 2002; Webster-Wright, 2009). The
present study will adopt this line of inquiry.
Furthermore, existing studies on factors affecting teacher learning tend to regard the factors as
static entities that remain unchanged throughout the course of teacher learning, and affect the
teachers learning in a unidirectional manner only. The present study contends that this
assumption is too simplistic. For example, as teachers learn and grow in expertise, their
knowledge and their level of reflection may change; contextual factors such as collegiality and
trust among teachers may also change as a result. In other words, changes in the various factors
may be a result of teacher learning. However, existing studies fail to account for this dynamic
and interactive relationship between teacher learning and the factors affecting it, be they
contextual or individual factors. The present study is a response to the call to study the ways in
which teacher learning is affected by various factors in a holistic manner, as well as to explore
the interactive and dynamic relationship between teacher learning and the factors affecting it.
2.2. The Interpretive Frameworks

As mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, the Interconnected Model of Teacher
Professional Growth (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002) and the Community of Practice (Wenger,
1998, 2003) are adopted as the frameworks guiding the data analysis in this study. Below, I
explain the reasons for adopting CoP and IMTPG as the interpretative frameworks of this study
and introduce the combined framework and the refinements that were made.
2.2.1.
The Need for Two Interpretive Frameworks
There are three main foci of this study, namely, the content, the process, and the factors that
affect teacher learning. In search of a framework to explain my data, I found it is difficult to
have a single framework to fully account for the three foci of the study. As discussed in Section
2.1.2, IMTPG delineates the learning path that individual teachers experience and identifies the
interaction between the four domains, thus allowing the factors (in each of the four domains)
that may promote or constrain teacher learning to be identified. However, IMTPG does not
25
explain the evolving patterns of interaction or the mutual relation and trust formed among the
teachers. That is, teachers learning in relation to the formation of community belonging to the
change environment in the IMTPG model. Although Clarke & Hollingsworth (2002) discuss
the ways in which the social settings in the change environment afford and constrain teacher
learning, they paid little attention to the dynamic nature of the social setting and the mutual
constitution of the individual and the social. In other words, the communities of practice formed
by the participating teachers were evolving throughout the TPD programme as a result of
teacher learning; which in turn also affected the learning of individual teachers.
To more fully explain my data, I turned to the literature on the situated perspective of learning
and found Wengers (1998, 2003) CoP framework most appealing. It describes and explains
teacher learning with respect to: (i) teacher participation, (ii) meaning making, (iii) identity
formation, and (iv) community building in learning communities. It acknowledges the mutual
constitution of individual teacher learning and community building, and can explain the
evolving forms of the CoPs formed by the participating teachers and the ways in which these
evolving forms of the CoPs affect teacher learning. However, the interconnectedness and
overlapping of the four learning components increase the difficulties in analysing teacher
learning in each component separately (Graven, 2002), and make it difficult to delineate the
learning path of individual teachers.
In short, I believe that, used in conjunction, IMTPG and CoP can complement each other in
describing the learning path of individual teachers and accounting for the ways in which the
individual factors and the social settings affect the teachers learning in the TPD. I shall now
describe and explain in detail the two interpretive frameworks.
2.2.2.
IMTPG for Analysing the Path of Teacher Learning
In IMTPG, as depicted in Figure 2.3 in Section 2.1.2, the teachers world comprises four distinct
domains: the Personal Domain (teacher knowledge, beliefs and attitudes), the Domain of
Practice (professional experimentation), the Domain of Consequence (salient outcomes), and the
External Domain (sources of information, stimuli or support). In the following sections, I will
briefly describe how each domain, the mediating processes and the change environment of
IMTPG were adopted for the analysis of teacher learning in this study.
2.2.2.1. The four domains

With reference to the original definitions of Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) and previous
studies adopting IMTPG (Justi & van Driel, 2006; Zwart, et al., 2007), as well as the literature
on teacher learning and CoP, I define the four domains of teacher professional growth for the
26
current study as summarised in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Summary of the Definitions of the Four Domains

Domain
Personal
Domain
(PD)
External
Domain
(ED)
Domain of
Consequence
(DC)
Domain of
Practice
(DP)
Clarke & Hollingsworth (2002)

Teacher knowledge, beliefs and
attitudes
The current study

Teacher knowledge/meaning
Affective learning, e.g., confidence building
External sources of information,

stimulus or support
Resources and stimuli from the TPD programme,

such as the facilitator, videos, reflection tasks, and
discussions with colleagues
Same as original definition
Salient outcomes, e.g., teacher

control, student learning outcomes,
student motivation
Professional experimentation
Professional experimentation in lesson study, e.g.,

co-lesson planning, conducting the research lesson
Application in daily lessons
Skills for critical lesson analysis
Personal Domain (PD)

Personal Domain focuses on what teachers learn as a result of their participation in the TPD.
The learning of teachers in PD includes knowledge construction/meaning making and affective
learning (e.g., confidence) as discussed in Section 2.1.
External Domain (ED)

External Domain in this study includes the resources and stimuli from the TPD programme.
Resources from the TPD include, for example, videos, transcripts of videos, and preparation and
follow-up tasks. Stimuli may be received from the discussion with colleagues and the facilitator.
In the analysis of the data, the specific resources and stimuli that help to bring about teacher
learning will be identified and indicated in the learning path.
Domain of Consequence (DC)

Domain of Consequence mainly refers to salient outcomes, such as student learning outcomes
and teacher control. Evidence of student learning outcomes can be revealed in the teachers own
videos and in student worksheets/assignments completed in the research lessons.
Domain of Practice (DP)

According to Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002), Domain of Practice refers to all kinds of
professional experimentation. In the current study, it refers to teachers practices in the research
lessons (or in the daily practices as reported by themselves during the interviews) and their
professional practices in the TPD programme. As the current study does not trace the teachers
changing practices in their classroom, I focus mainly on the evolution of teachers practices in
27
the TPD and its relationship with features of the TPD programme. Examples include teachers
changing practices in analysis and critique of lesson videos, such as adapting a student
perspective in analysing lesson videos, giving supporting evidence when providing comments,
and making frequent use of transcripts of lessons to study classroom interactions.
2.2.2.2. The mediating processes

Two mediating processes, enactment and reflection, are used to connect the four domains of
IMTPG (see Figure 2.3) and to explain how change in one domain is enabled by another domain.
Enactment is not simply acting, but translation of a belief or a pedagogical model into action;
each action represents the enactment of something a teacher knows, believes or has experienced.
Reflection is active, persistent and careful consideration (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002, p.
954). However, in the original IMTPG, it does not take into account how the different levels of
enactment and/or reflection of a teacher can affect the extent of changes in another domain. In
view of this, the following two modifications are suggested to better represent the effects of the
two mediating processes in the IMTPG.
First, a will to learn on the part of the teacher would affect both his/her general level of
engagement and his/her level of enactment in the TPD activities. For this reason, the different
levels of a teachers will to learn will be represented as different levels of enactment in the
IMTPG model. In the current study, I will classify a teachers will to learn based on the
characteristics described in the study of Van Eekelen and colleagues (Van Eekelen, et al., 2006)
as given below.
For teachers who do not see the need to learn, four characteristics were found: (i) teachers
hold on to established teaching habits; (ii) they do not appear to be open to the ideas of
others; (iii) they tend to blame students or the educational system for things that go wrong
and are seldom critical of their own performance or role; and (iv) they find it hard to
describe the results of their own learning.
Teachers who wonder how to learn are somewhat more open to others compared to those
who do not see the need to learn, and somewhat more critical of their own performance
and role. They are also able to clearly state what they have learned. The major
characteristic that distinguishes this group of teachers from other groups is that they want
to improve their performance but do not always know how to do so. They do not make
learning resolutions, are not alert to student concerns, and do not tend to be flexible in their
guidance of student learning process.
Teachers who are eager to learn want to improve their performance, know how to do so,
and undertake action to learn. They are critical of their own performance and role, are able
28
to describe their learning experiences, and are open to the ideas of others. More
importantly, they put effort into creating more learning opportunities for themselves.
The different extent of teachers will to learn (and thus their level of engagement/enactment in
the TPD activities) is represented in IMTPG by arrows with different pattern fills in between
two iterations (see Figure 7.1).
Second, the level of reflectivity of the teachers concerned will be classified into three levels
low, moderate, and high as summarised in Table 2.2. Teachers with different levels of
reflectivity will be indicated in IMTPG by arrows of different thickness, the higher the level of
reflectivity the thicker the arrow. The inventory of teachers levels of reflectivity shown in Table
2.3 is synthesised from the relevant literature, including studies on levels of reflection (e.g.,
Abou Baker El-Dib, 2007; Brookfield, 1995; Davis, 2006; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005) and
related studies in video-based research (e.g., Eilam & Poyas, 2006; Sherin & van Es, 2005).
Table 2.2 An Inventory of Teachers Levels of Reflectivity
Level
Low
Moderate
High
Description
1. Describe videos and their experience in the TPD without analysis
a. Simply describe the videos, their experience in the TPD (e.g., what was discussed or
what the facilitator said) without giving reasons or evidence
2. List ideas separately without connecting them logically
3. Adapt a judgemental stance in reviewing the video and focus on themselves as teachers
1. Describe videos and their experience in the TPD with analysis
a. Provide reasons for their ideas/decisions; link to their own teaching circumstances
b. Give evidence for their opinions or claims
c. Generate alternatives or propose future action
d. Evaluate teaching related to the environment, behavioural, and competence
2. List ideas separately, sometimes with logical integration of ideas
a. Add/link a new idea to existing one or distinguish the differences between two ideas
3. Adapt an evaluative and interpretative stance in reviewing videos; mainly focus on
themselves as teachers but sometimes pay attention to students learning
1. Describe what they see, do, or an idea with analysis
a. The four characteristics listed in Point 1 in moderate level of reflectivity
b. Question assumptions of their own beliefs
c. Show awareness of their identity, mission, or other societal, cultural or ethical issues
2. Integrate ideas logically
a. The characteristics listed in Point 2 in moderate level of reflectivity
b. Link ideas with the broader context (curriculum goals, vision of science teaching)
3. Adapt an interpretative stance in reviewing videos; mainly focus on students learning
2.2.2.3. The change environment

In IMTPG, the change environment refers to the context in which teachers work. In particular,
the school context is thought to continually affect teachers learning at every stage of their
professional development process. Examples in the change environment that may afford or
29
constrain teacher learning include the opportunities to participate in professional development

programs administrative encouragement of teachers to experiment with innovative teaching
strategies, the encouragement of collegial discussion and the structural provision of
opportunities to share and reflect on each others practice (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002, p.
955).
In the current study, as data emerged, it was noticed that some of the above factors did not
remain static. Rather, they changed and interacted dynamically with the teachers learning in the
course of their professional growth. A notable example was the trusting environment developed
among the teachers, which was both a product and a process that affected the teachers
participation in the TPD activities and hence their professional learning. This necessitated an
interpretive framework that can take into account these dynamic aspects of the data, in particular,
the notion of differential participation in the learning community. This brings us to the work of
Wenger (2003).
I refer to these changing characteristics of the CoP as social learning based on the social
development described by Bell & Gilbert (1996). Teachers undergo social development when
they see isolation is problematic, and thus begin to value and initiate collaboration with
colleagues. Social development involves the development of ways of working with others that
will enable the kinds of social interaction necessary for renegotiating and reconstructing what it
means to be a teacher of science.
2.2.3.
CoP for Analysing Teacher Learning in Different Communities
Wengers (1998, 2003) Community of Practice framework is grounded in a situated view of

learning in which individual development and social and cultural-historical activities and
practices are mutually constitutive; individual development occurs in the course of his/her
participation in social practice, which in turn contributes to the development of these social
practices and activities (Tsui, et al., 2009). It draws our attention to the social nature of learning
and the importance of the learning context in determining what and how people learn (Greeno,
1997). Based on his work with Lave (Lave & Wenger, 1991), Wenger (1998) elaborates the
theory more fully and identifies three elements of CoP, namely mutual engagement, a joint
enterprise and a shared repertoire, which constitute the source of coherence of a community.
Mutual engagement exists because people are engaged in actions whose meanings they
negotiate with one another. A joint enterprise is the result of a collective process of negotiation
through mutual engagement in practice over time. A shared repertoire is a set of resources
shared within a community for the negotiation of meaning in the community. In a later article,
30
Wenger (2003) further elaborates the above three elements into three dimensions of a CoP as
follows (p.81):
Enterprise connotes the level of learning energy. A community must show leadership in
pushing its development along and maintain a spirit of inquiry. It must recognise and
address gaps in its knowledge, as well as remain open to emergent directions and
opportunities.
Mutuality indicates the depth of social capital of the community in which members know
and trust each other well enough to interact productively, and feel comfortable addressing
real problems together and speaking truthfully.
Repertoire denotes the degree of self-awareness of the community. Being reflective on its
repertoire (including the concepts, language and tools used) enables a community to
understand its own state of development from multiple perspectives, reconsider assumptions,
uncover hidden possibilities, and use this self-awareness to move forward.
On the notion of participation, Wenger (1998) identifies three modes of belonging so as to

differentiate and capture different forms of participation. These different modes of belonging
shape the social learning systems in which the members are. The three modes of belonging are
elaborated later in a book chapter by Wenger (2003, pp. 78-79) as follows:
Engagement is doing things together, talking and producing artefacts. The ways in which
members engage with each other and with the world profoundly shape their experience of
who they are. They learn what they can do and how the world responds to their actions.
Imagination is members constructing an image of themselves, of their communities, and of

the world in order to orient themselves, to reflect on their situation, and to explore
possibilities.
Alignment is about making sure that local activities are sufficiently aligned with other
processes to be effective beyond their own engagement. It is not a one-way process of
submitting to external authority, but a mutual process of coordinating perspectives,
interpretations, and actions, so that the CoP can realise higher goals.
Wenger (2003, p. 82) then combines the three dimensions of a CoP and the three modes of
belonging to construct a matrix (see Table 2.3) to illustrate how the modes of belonging affect
the dimensions of a CoP.
31
Table 2.3 Wengers Matrix of Community Dimensions
Engagement
Imagination
Alignment
Enterprise:
Learning energy
What are the opportunities
to negotiate a joint inquiry
and address important
questions? Do members
identify gaps in their
knowledge and work
together to address them?
Mutuality:
Social capital
What
events
and
interactions
weave the
community and develop
trust? Does this result in an
ability to raise troubling
issues during discussions?
What visions of the

potential of the community
are guiding the thought of
leaders,
inspiring
participation, and defining a
learning agenda? And what
picture of the world serves
as a context for such vision?
Have members articulated a
shared purpose? How
widely do they subscribe to
it? How accountable do
they feel to it? And how
distributed is leadership?
What do people know about

each other and about the
meanings that participation
in the community takes in
their lives more broadly?
What definitions of roles,

norms, codes of behaviour,
shared principles, and
negotiated commitments
and expectations hold the
community together?
Repertoire:
Self-awareness
To what extent have shared
experience, language,
artefacts, histories, and
methods accumulated over
time, and with what
potential for further
interactions and new
meanings?
Are there selfrepresentations that would
allow the community to see
itself in new ways? Is there
a language to talk about the
community in a reflective
mode?
What traditions, methods,
standards, routines, and
frameworks define the
practice? Who holds them?
To what extent are they
codified? How they are
transmitted to new
generations?
This study adapts Wengers (2003) matrix framework for the analysis of the changes taking
place in the CoPs during the course of the TPD programme (i.e., the change environment in
IMTPG). The three dimensions of CoP are used to explain the characteristic features of the
CoPs formed by the participating teachers. The modes of belonging are used to account for the
factors that promote or impede the development of the CoPs. This can supplement the
inadequacy of IMTPG in explaining the evolution of the change environment and the mutual
constitution of learning of individual teachers and community building.
Based on Wengers matrix framework shown in Table 2.3, I constructed some questions related
to the present study in each cell of the table and modified it into an interpretive framework as
shown in Table 2.4. This is inspired by the work of Kwan and Lopez-Real (2010) who
constructed a Wengerian matrix framework to describe and explain the identity formation of
teacher-mentors. The framework in Table 2.4 will be used to guide the analysis of the
characteristic features of the CoPs formed by the teachers. This will help to answer RQ1 related
to teacher learning in social domain and RQ3 in relation to the communal factors that affect
teacher learning.
32
Table 2.4 Modified Wengers Matrix of Community Dimensions used in this Study
Engagement
Imagination
Alignment
A Joint Enterprise
What are the opportunities
afforded by the TPD
programme for teachers to
negotiate a joint enterprise
and address important
questions? Do the teachers
identify gaps in their
knowledge and work?
Do teachers have a common
vision of good science
teaching? What is it? How
does this common vision
affect the thought, the
participation and the
learning agenda of the
community?
Have teachers articulated a
shared purpose for their
CoP in the discussion? How
widely do they subscribe to
it? How accountable do
they feel to it?
Mutual Engagement
What events and
interactions in the TPD
create bonds within the
community and develop
trust? Do the teachers learn
how to engage (e.g., raise
troubling issues during
discussion) and speak
truthfully?
Do teachers think their
colleagues will offer help
and advice? Do they know
and trust each other well
enough to support each
other reciprocally?
A Shared Repertoire
What shared repertoire has
been accumulated during
engagement in the TPD
activities? What is the
potential for further
interaction and new
meanings?
What definitions of roles,

norms, codes of behaviour,
shared principles, and
negotiated commitments
and expectations hold the
community together?
What traditions, methods,

standards, routines, and
frameworks define the
practice? Who holds them?
How widely do the teachers
adopt this repertoire?
Do the teachers think video

lesson analysis is a useful
way to move forward? Do
teachers reflect on the
applicability of the shared
repertoire in achieving their
common vision?
To sum up, in this section, I have described and compared the concepts of CoP and IMTPG and
the ways in which they are used for the analysis of data in this study. The IMTPG framework is
used to delineate the learning path of individual teachers, while the CoP framework is used to
account for the evolving features in the CoP (i.e., the change environment of IMTPG). I believe
that the IMTPG and CoP frameworks can supplement each other and act as useful tools for
capturing and explaining the content and process of teacher learning, as well as the individual
and communal factors affecting it. Figure 2.4, summarises how the two frameworks are used to
help answer the three research questions of this study.
33
Figure 2.4 Summary of the Use of the Two Frameworks

Content of Teacher Learning
IMTPG
Knowledge/meaning
Practices/skills
Affective learning/confidence
Social learning/community
Path of Teacher Learning
RQ1
RQ2
CoP
Factors Affecting Teacher Learning
-
Individual factors
Contextual factors
Keys:
RQ3
The focus of teacher learning explained by

the framework
Research question addressed
2.3. Conclusion
In sum, this chapter notes that teacher learning is a relatively new research topic and,
particularly, little is known about the learning processes of teachers. Existing studies often lack
insight into the ways in which teacher learning process is affected by various factors and
conditions, and how it can be supported or hindered. It also explains why it is important to look
at teacher learning from the teachers own perspectives. This chapter also explains the necessity
of looking at teacher learning and factors affecting it in a holistic manner and how this can be
achieved by adopting two interpretive frameworks the CoP and the IMTPG to study and
analyse teacher learning.
34
Chapter 3 The Video-based TPD
Chapter 3 The Video-based TPD Programme

This chapter introduces the context of the study the video-based teacher professional
development (TPD) programme. Section 3.1 explains the rationale underlying the design of the
TPD programme. Section 3.2 provides an overview of the TPD activities to give readers a better
insight into the findings reported in the later chapters.
3.1. Rationale for the TPD Design

Three lines of study on TPD inform the design of this video-based TPD programme. They are: (i)
professional development through examining ones own practices; (ii) professional development
through the use of exemplary cases; and (iii) professional development through the use of
videos.
3.1.1.
Professional Development through Examining Ones Own Practices
An increasing number of TPD initiatives are centred on teachers carefully examining their
practice, either directly or through videos (e.g., Lampert & Ball, 1998; M. L. Lo, Chik, & Pang,
2006; Marble, 2007; Rosaen & Schram, 1997; Seago, 2004). This trend reflects the general
consensus that imbedding teachers learning in their everyday work, or that of their colleagues,
increases the likelihood that this learning will be meaningful (A. Lieberman, 1996). However,
little is known about its effectiveness in the local context. More importantly, we lack clarity
about how teachers learn in school-based TPD activities. For instance, Fernandez et al. (2003, p.
182), in exploring the potential of lesson study with a group of teachers in the US, suggests that
in order to benefit from lesson study, teachers first need to learn how to apply critical lenses to
their examination of lessons. In the present study, we contend that these critical lenses can be
acquired through guided analysis of classroom videos, especially those illustrating exemplary
practices of teachers from other schools.
3.1.2.
Professional Development through the Use of Exemplary Cases
The use of exemplary cases in the proposed TPD model is based on Black & Atkins (1996)
recommendations:
Exposure to other ideas broadens teachers awareness of possibilities for change and fosters
a sense that alternatives are available.
Existence proof of new methods under normal classroom conditions gives moral support to
teachers and challenges them.
Demonstration of actions, reflecting the new ideas, in a real context deepens teachers
understanding. Also, such modelling strengthens the proof of existence.
35
Through a number of video workshops before lesson study, teachers in this study were shown
exemplary videocases where they can see concrete and practical examples of how to realise the
goals of the recent education reforms. The intention is that the teachers can make use of the
exemplary videocases in the following ways:
As a source of models of practice that they can apply and test in their own classrooms
(Wong, et al., 2006; Yoon, et al., 2006);
As examples of practice that can be compared to their own existing practices and/or
previous experiences (Yung, Yip, Lai, & Lo, 2010; Zhang, Lundeberg, Koehler, & Eberhardt,
2011); and
As a set of ideas that can be debated and used as a springboard to reflection on existing
conceptions of good science teaching(Yung, et al., 2007).
This concurs with Cochran-Smiths (2002) view of professional development as a process of

helping teachers to develop an attitude of inquiry toward their own learning.
3.1.3.
Professional Development through the Use of Videos
Recent advances in video technology have led to increasing use of videos in teacher education
(see for example, Copeland & Decker, 1996; Eilam & Poyas, 2006; Koc, 2011; Rosaen, et al.,
2008; Wong, et al., 2006) and continuous teacher professional development (see for example,
Borko, et al., 2008; Olivero, et al., 2004; Roth, et al., 2011; Santagata, 2009; Sherin & van Es,
2005). Sherin (2004) identifies several affordances that videos provide for TPD, two of which
are relevant to my study. First, videos provide a lasting record of classroom interaction that can
be played again and again without loss of any details concerning the complexity and subtlety of
classroom teaching. Second, videos provide opportunities for teachers to acquire a new
analytic mind set to look at classroom teaching (Sherin, 2004, p. 13). Using videos, teachers
can spend an extended amount of time analysing a small portion of classroom practice. This is
very different from the kind of analysis that teachers can conduct during a real lesson or in a
lesson study without employing video as a data collection tool. For instance, video enables
teachers to focus their analysis and reflection on more specific incidents in the classroom
(versus those relying on general impressions), more on their instruction than on classroom
management, and less on themselves and more on their students (Rosaen, et al., 2008).
In short, through watching and analysing classroom videos, teachers have the opportunity to
develop a different kind of knowledge for teaching knowledge not of what to do next, but
knowledge of how to interpret and reflect on classroom practices (Sherin, 2004). It is this kind
of knowledge, skills and dispositions that the TPD programme of the present study aimed to
develop in teachers during the video workshops in the first phase of the programme. It was also
36
hoped that this would prepare teachers the critical lenses and the dispositions for the subsequent
video-based lesson study in the second phase of the programme.
3.1.4.
Summary
In brief, the TPD programme is designed to equip teachers with the critical lenses necessary
for critical examination of their own teaching. This is achieved through guided analysis of
exemplary teaching videos from other schools and video-based lesson study that allows teachers
to investigate their teaching practice by analysing and discussing their own lesson videos. A
more detailed discussion on how the use of video and lesson study facilitate or impede teacher
learning can be found in Chapter 8.
3.2. An Overview of the TPD Programme

The TPD programme comprises a series of video workshops (VWs)1 and a video-based lesson
study (LS). Four VWs, each with a specific focus, were conducted to provide teachers with
input of new theoretical ideas and teaching suggestions, as well as opportunities to explore the
lesson analysis skills necessary for effective LS. The foci of the four VWs were as follows:
Video Workshop 1 (VW1) Lesson Planning
Video Workshop 2 (VW2) Assessment for learning
Video Workshop 3 (VW3) Lab management and teaching of nature of science (NOS)
Video Workshop 4 (VW4) Learning to learn and dealing with students misconceptions
In these workshops, videos of exemplary science teaching were given to teachers for review and
analysis. A facilitator2 guided and facilitated the discussion in the VWs. Both case study schools
chose to conduct all four VWs despite being given the freedom to choose the VWs according to
their own needs.
The LS allowed teachers to experiment with the ideas and suggestions gained in the VWs, as
well as to inquire into their own practice. The following activities took place during the LS:
Teachers collaboratively chose a topic and drafted a lesson plan for the research lesson
Lesson planning meeting (LP) were held in which teachers discussed and refined their
drafted lesson plan with input from the facilitator where appropriate
Teachers conducted the research lesson and video recordings were made by the author
The Video Workshops were adopted from an earlier study investigating student teachers conceptions of
good science teaching. For details about the rationales underlying the design of the workshops, please
refer to Hui, C. S. (2007). Developing Student Teachers' Conceptions of Good Science Teaching: The
Role of Video Workshops. Research Studies in Education, 5, 222-235.
2
The facilitator is a science teacher educator from the University of Hong Kong and the supervisor of the
author. He has more than 15 years of experience in science teacher education. In addition, he has rich
experience in secondary science teaching and a good understanding of the work of frontline teachers.
37
Lesson analysis 1 meeting (LA1) addressed teachers concerns about and problems with the
whole lesson after individual review of the whole lesson video
Lesson analysis 2 meeting (LA2) focused on analysis of students learning in selected

episodes.
In the LS, teachers were expected to take a more active role in determining the foci of their own
learning, including the selection of videos for their own analysis. It was hoped that teachers
would be able to apply the critical lesson analysis skills they gained in VWs and use them to
analyse their own lesson videos or those of their colleagues.
Table 3.1 summarises the main activities used in each of the workshops or meetings. In general,
teachers completed a preparatory task (PT) and a follow-up task (FT) before and after each
meeting. The PT probed the teachers prior knowledge and beliefs on a certain topic and allowed
the facilitator to focus the discussion according to the teachers needs. The PT also helped to
facilitate discussion, as all teachers had reviewed the videos before they came to the
workshop/meeting. The FT provided teachers with an opportunity to take stock of what they had
learned in the workshop. Both the PT and the FT created a certain amount of documental
evidence that teachers could use to monitor their own learning process. The facilitator was
present in all meetings to facilitate the group discussion.
Table 3.1 Summary of the Activities of Each Workshop/Meeting

Before a meeting
Individual preparatory task
Review of videos (exemplary

/own)
During a meeting
Review of videos (exemplary

/own)
Reflection in action
Group discussion
Facilitation from the facilitator

After a meeting
Follow-up reflection task
VW1
VW2
VW3
VW4
LP
LA1
LA2
Details of the arrangement of each VW and LS meeting, and the activities and materials used,
can be found in Appendix I. Readers can refer to Appendix I whenever they need more
background information for interpreting the findings reported in later chapters.
38
Chapter 4 Research Methodology
Chapter 4 - Research Methodology

This chapter describes the research approach and the methodology of the study. The research
approach and research design are described in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. The data
collection procedure is described in Section 4.3. Treatment and analysis of data are described in
Section 4.4, followed by reporting of results and findings in Section 4.5. In Section 4.6, the
issues related to validity, reliability, and ethical considerations are discussed, followed by issues
related to generalisability, generativity, and exemplarity of findings in Section 4.7.
4.1. Research Approach

This is a qualitative research studying the content and process of teacher learning as well as the
factors affecting it in the context of the TPD programme described in Chapter 3. Hitchcock &
Hughes (1995) support the choice of a qualitative approach in the context of educational
research. They assert that focusing only upon cause and effect, products, outcomes or
correlations is of limited value in educational settings that are often complicated and
multifaceted. The most productive approach in researching educational problems, they state, is a
qualitative one utilising a number of different research techniques.
Erickson (2003) also asserts that qualitative research in education is appropriate when one wants
to find out the nuances of subjective understanding that motivate various participants in a
setting, and to identify and understand changes over time (p. 1155). This study examines in
detail the variations in the teachers learning gains, and tries to establish the cause of these
variations in relation to the processes of teacher learning and the factors involved.
Quantification of such a process is neither easy nor useful, and quantification at the expense of a
rich understanding of these factors would be ethically problematic.
This study adopts a case study approach, with multiple cases from two research sites. Each
teacher forms an individual case. Each school constitutes a single site. Hitchcock and Hughes
(1995) put forward that case study is particularly valuable when the researcher has little control
over events. In this study, what and how teachers learn cannot be controlled by the researcher.
Moreover, case studies provide unique examples of real people in real context (L. Cohen,
Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 253) that enable readers to understand ideas more clearly. In the
current study, the case studies of teachers in the two schools with different contexts can provide
a means of identifying issues and patterns that cut across the teachers and/or schools, and help
to illuminate how the particular school settings affect the learning of the teachers. This will
greatly deepen our understanding of what supports and constrains teacher learning in the
respective CoPs.
39
4.2. Participants
Schools were openly invited to participate in the present study during the dissemination seminar
of an earlier study on teachers and students conceptions of good science teaching. Interested
schools were invited to a briefing session where the purpose and the initial plan of the present
study were introduced. The schools were given time to consider whether they were able to
commit to a year-long school-based TPD programme and the related research activities.
Eventually, two schools, with a total of seven teachers, agreed to participate in this study.
Details of the participating schools and teachers are summarised in Table 4.1 and 4.2
respectively. It could be argued that these participants were a self selected group of teachers
who were committed to improving their science teaching through a year-long school-based TPD
programme.
Table 4.1 Summary of the Information of the Participating Schools

School
Bright Future College
(BFC)
Sunset Valley High
School (SVHS)
Band3
Type of School
Medium of Instruction
No. of Participants
Co-educational
Chinese
3 (1 female, 2 males)
Co-educational
Chinese
4 (4 males)
Table 4.2 Summary of the Information of the Participating Teachers

School Teacher Gender Years of Years at the Subjects taught
Remarks
teaching current school
BFC
BFC
Ben
Felix
Male
Male
19
14
New to school
14
Chemistry, IS
Physics, IS
BFC
SVHS
Chloe
Sam
Female
Male
3
5
3
New to school
SVHS
Victor
Male
16
13
Biology, IS
Physics, IS,
Mathematics
Biology
SVHS
SVHS
Hugo
Stone
Male
Male
13
18
13
New to school
Head of IS Department,
studying MEd during the TPD
Head of the Discipline

Committee
IS, Mathematics
Head of IS Department
Physics, IS
Head of Physics Department
4.3. Data Collection

This section begins with an overview of the research activities, followed by a description of the
data collection procedures, the instruments used, and the rationale underlying their design.
Secondary schools and students in Hong Kong are divided into three bands according to the academic
performance of students. All students are tracked based on performance in primary schools and placed in
secondary schools with children of similar levels of performance. In Band One schools, a large proportion
of the students are high achievers with strong learning ability. In Band Three schools, most of the students
are low achievers with weak learning ability and less motivation to learn.
40
4.3.1.
Overview of the Research Activities
The study took place in the school year of 2006-2007. Prior to the TPD activities, a planning
meeting was held in each school to finalise the TPD plan, and to probe into the school culture
and other contextual factors that might affect the implementation of the TPD activities.
Appendix II shows the list of questions discussed in the planning meeting.
Four Video Workshops (VWs) were conducted during the first term of the school year. Teacher
learning in these VWs was tracked and recorded in a number of ways: (i) preparation tasks (PTs)
completed by the teachers before the workshops; (ii) audio and video records of the discussion
in the workshops; and (iii) follow-up tasks (FTs) completed by the teachers after the workshops.
Samples of a PT and a FT are attached in Appendices III and IV respectively. Field notes from
non-participant observation conducted during the video workshops were used as a
supplementary source of data.
Upon completion of the VWs, Video Workshop Interviews (VWIns) were conducted with each
teacher individually to find out what they had learned, how they had learned, and the factors that
had affected their learning in the VWs. To facilitate the interview, a video workshop
questionnaire (VWQ) (see Appendix V) was given to each teacher before the interview to
collect teachers opinions on the four VWs and how various features of the VWs had affected
their learning (e.g., video, facilitator). Appendix VI shows a sample of questions asked in
VWIns.
The Video-based Lesson Study (LS) was held during the second term. Teacher learning in the
LS was tracked and recorded by: (i) PTs completed by teachers before the meetings; (ii) audio
and video records of the meetings; and (iii) FTs completed by teachers after the meetings. The
corresponding PTs and FTs in each LS meeting are attached as Appendices VII to XI
accordingly. Supplementary sources of data included the video recording of the research lessons,
and field notes from non-participant observations conducted during the meetings and in the
research lessons.
Upon completion of the LS, Lesson Study Interviews (LSIns) were conducted with each teacher
individually to find out what and how they learned in the LS, and establish the factors affecting
teacher learning in the LS. To facilitate the LSIns, teachers were asked to complete a Lesson
Study Questionnaire (LSQ) prior to the interview. This was used as a probe for interviewing the
teachers about their learning in LS. Samples of LSQ and the interview protocol for LSIns can be
found in Appendices XII and XIII respectively. Table 4.3 summarises the TPD and research
activities as well as the data collection instruments in this study.
41
Table 4.3 Summary of the TPD and Research Activities, as well as Data Collection
Instruments
TPD and research* activities
Planning Meeting (PM)
Four Video Workshops

(VWs)
Video Workshop Interview

(VWIn)*
Lesson Study Meetings

- Lesson planning meeting
(LP)
- Lesson analysis 1
meeting
(LA1)
- Lesson analysis 2
meeting (LA2)
Lesson Study Interview
(LSIn)*
Data source and instruments

- Video and audio recording of discussions in the meeting
- A list of questions to probe school culture, norms and other
contextual factors of the school (Appendix II)
- Preparation tasks from teachers before each VW to trace and
record what teachers learned before the VW (Appendix III)
- Video and audio recording of discussions in the VWs
- Follow-up tasks after each VW to trace and record what teachers
had learned in each VW (Appendix IV)
- Field notes and non-participant observation from the researcher
- Audio recording of the interviews
- VW questionnaires as a probe to collect data on teacher learning
in the video workshops (Appendix V)
- VW interview protocol to collect data on teacher learning and
related factors (Appendix VI)
- Preparation tasks from each teacher before each meeting to trace
and record teacher learning before the meetings (Appendices VIII,
X)
- Video and audio recording of discussions in the three meetings
- Follow-up tasks from teachers after the meetings to trace and
record teacher learning in and after the meetings (Appendices VII,
IX, XI)
- Audio recording of interview* conducted after research lesson
- Field notes and non-participant observation from the researcher
- Audio recording of the interviews
- LS questionnaires as a probe to collect data on teacher learning in
lesson study (Appendix XII)
- LS interview protocol to collect data on teacher learning and
related factors (Appendix XIII)
Remarks: * represents research activities. Others are TPD activities
As evident from Table 4.3, multiple data sources and multiple collection methods were used,
such as the self-reflective writing from teachers (i.e., PTs and FTs), individual teacher
interviews, video and audio recording of the meetings, and field notes from non-participant
observation of the researcher. This ensured that the data collected obtained an adequate level of
validity and reliability.
4.3.2.
Sources of Data and Research Instruments
This section describes the research instruments used and explains how they contributed data in
answering the three research questions.
4.3.2.1. Questionnaires
Two sets of questionnaires were used in the data collection: (1) Video Workshop Questionnaire
(VWQ) and (2) Lesson Study Questionnaire (LSQ).
42
Video Workshop Questionnaire (VWQ)

The VWQ (see Appendix V) was given to teachers on/before the VWIns. It invited teachers to
comment on (i) the effectiveness of each VW in bringing about their learning; and (ii) the
effectiveness of the different features of the VWs in bringing about their learning (e.g., the
videos, PTs, the discussions in the VWs, the FTs, and the facilitator). As the VWIns were held
some time after the VWs, the VWQ was also designed to help teachers recall the details of each
of the VWs. In sum, the questionnaire mainly served as a probe for the VWIns.
Lesson Study Questionnaire (LSQ)

Similar to the VWQ, the LSQ (see Appendix XII) was used to help teachers recall the activities
of the lesson study and to prepare them for the LSIns. The questions and the format of LSQ
were similar to those in VWQ, but with a focus on the effectiveness of the various activities and
features of the LS in bringing about their learning (e.g., watching their own lesson videos as
well as those of their colleagues).
4.3.2.2. Reflection tasks

Reflection tasks refer to the preparation tasks (PTs) and follow-up tasks (FTs) completed by
teachers before and after each workshop/meeting. These tasks were a useful way of recording
and tracking teacher learning before and after each meeting, as well as throughout the TPD
programme. Using the submitted PTs and FTs, a profile of teacher learning for each of the
teachers on the TPD programme could be constructed. This provided data in response to RQs 1
and 2.
Preparation Tasks (PTs)

There were five preparation tasks in total: three for the VWs and two for the LS. In addition to
preparing teachers for the VWs and LS meetings, the PTs could also be used to track their
learning throughout the period of the study. For example, one question in the PTs asked teachers,
What have you learned from watching and reflecting on this video? This question enabled the
researcher to track teacher learning from reviewing videos in different VWs. A sample PT used
for a VW can be found in Appendix III.
The two PTs for the LS were used for Lesson Analysis (LA) 1 and 2 meetings 4. For example,
the PT for LA1 (see Appendix VIII) asked teachers who taught the research lessons to review
and reflect on the full videos of their lessons and student assignment(s). It thus provided data for
RQ1 about what individual teachers had learned from reviewing and reflecting on their own
4
No reflection task was required for the Lesson Planning Meeting; however, teachers were asked to
collaboratively draft a lesson plan for the research lesson before the meeting.
43
lesson videos and their students assignments. The PT for LA2 (see Appendix X) asked teachers
to review and compare selected videos of both their own lessons and those of their colleagues.
The videos used in LA1 and 2 were from the same lesson, but differed in the duration and
review foci. In LA2, teachers were asked to focus on the student learning revealed in the videos,
and to compare students learning in the videos of different teachers. This provided data on the
teacher learning that occurred through reviewing and comparing videos of their own lessons and
those of their colleagues.
The PTs were generally given to teachers one month or more before a workshop/meeting.
Teachers completed the PT individually and were asked not to discuss the tasks with their
colleagues in the process. To facilitate the discussions in the VWs/LS meetings, teachers were
asked to send their completed tasks to the researcher beforehand. The researcher and the
facilitator then identified and summarised the main points of the PTs of all teachers in the same
school, and these became the discussion foci for the VW/LS meeting.
Follow-up Tasks (FTs)

There were seven follow-up tasks in total, four for the VWs (see Appendix IV) and three for the
LS (see Appendix VII, IX, XI). The FTs consisted of several guiding questions (e.g., What
were the most impressive things from the video workshops?) to assist teachers to reflect on
what they had learned from the VWs/LS meetings. Comparing the teachers comments on the
FTs with those on the PTs provided information about the learning content and process of
individual teachers. The FTs were also used in the interviews to help teachers recall the VWs/LS
meetings.
The FTs were given to teachers at the end of each meeting. Although teachers were advised to
complete the FT within one week, while their memory of the meeting was still fresh, this proved
to be impractical for many teachers because of school duties. Often, the researcher had to follow
up closely but tactfully with the teachers in order to collect the completed FTs. Occasionally,
some teachers failed to submit their FTs. This, in itself, revealed some of the factors that might
affect teacher learning, such as the availability of time for teacher reflection, and the heavy
teacher workload.
4.3.2.3. Semi-structured interviews

Two semi-structured interviews were conducted with each teacher individually. The first was
held after the completion of all VWs and the second after the completion of the LS. The data
obtained from these two interviews provided an important source of data for answering RQ 1, 2
and 3.
44
Video Workshop Interview (VWIn)

This interview collected data on the content and process of teacher learning in VWs, and the
ways in which features of the VWs had contributed to teacher learning. The interview was based
on the teachers responses to their FTs and the VWQ, which teachers were asked to explain and
elaborate on. Teachers responses provided information on how their participation and
experience in VWs had brought about their learning. Special attention was paid to the changes
in the teachers views as expressed in the FTs and the PTs, and during the VW discussions, etc.
Besides examining teachers experience in the VWs, the interview also looked into contextual
information about the schools and the teachers work that might have affected the teachers
learning. The VWIn protocol can be found in Appendix VI.
Lesson Study Interview (LSIn)

This interview collected data on teachers experience in the LS and the features of LS that
affected teachers learning. Since this was the last interview for the whole project, it was also
used to collect data on factors affecting teachers learning in the TPD programme as a whole.
The interview was based on teachers responses in the LSQ and the FTs for the LS meetings.
Teachers were asked about the effect of the school context on their learning. They were also
asked to compare their learning experiences in the VWs and the LS. The interview protocol for
the LSIn is attached as Appendix XII.
At the beginning of both the VWIn and the LSIn, teachers were informed that the focus of the
interviews was not to evaluate the TPD programme, but to find out from teachers own
perspectives on the kind of learning they considered important and what factors they felt had
contributed to or hindered their learning during the TPD programme. This freed teachers
pressure of answering what they felt the researcher expected of them, which raised the validity
of data collected. At the end of each of the VWIn and LSIn, teachers were asked to choose
without any restriction the three most important learning for them among all the learning they
gained from the VWs and LS and to explain the reasons why the learning is so important to
them. This enabled the researcher to identify, from teachers point of view, the learning that is
most valuable and meaningful to them.
4.3.2.4. Meetings in the TPD programme

All TPD meetings, including the planning meeting, the VWs, the lesson planning, and the lesson
analysis meetings were audio and video recorded. These recordings were part of the data
collection process of the study. The recording of the planning meeting held at the beginning of
the TPD, for example, provided data on the context of the school (e.g., the norms, the culture,
45
the staff development policy, etc). This information helped to answer RQ3. The recordings of
the VWs and the LS meetings provided data on the ways in which the teachers and the
facilitator interacted with each other during the meetings, as well as data on the characteristics
of the CoPs in the two schools (e.g., the level of teachers participation and engagement, and the
pattern of interaction among members).
During these discussions, the researcher acted as a non-participant observer. The researcher did
not join the discussion in the meeting, but, sitting at the back of the meeting room, observed and
jotted field notes of teachers participation, interaction in the discussion, and the moment that
learning might occur. Rather than a discourse analysis of the interaction in the discussion, only
those parts of the discussions in which teachers mentioned an important learning were examined
in detail. This served as triangulation of data derived from individual teacher interviews and
from discussions (in terms of audio and video recordings and researcher field notes).
4.3.3.
Summary
The data on teacher learning was tracked and monitored through reflection tasks completed
before and after the meetings, and through two individual teacher interviews held after the VWs
and the LS. Data on factors affecting teacher learning was collected mainly from the discussion
in the planning meeting and the two individual teacher interviews, and supplemented by nonparticipant observations gathered in the various TPD meetings. Figure 4.1 summarises the ways
in which data from the various TPD and research activities contributed towards answering the
research questions.
46
Figure 4.1 An Overview of the Research Design

Data Collection Instruments
(and TPD activities)
Data Collection Instruments

(for research only)
Research Foci
Planning Meetings
Video Workshop 14
Preparation tasks
Discussions in the VWs
Follow-up tasks
Non-participant observation
Post Video Workshop Interview

(Individual teacher interview held
upon completion of all VWs)
VW Questionnaire
VW Interview protocol
Factors
Teacher Learning
(RQ1 & 2)
(RQ3)
Post Lesson Study Interview
(Individual teacher interview held
upon completion of LS)
LS Questionnaire
LS Interview protocol
Video-based Lesson Study

Preparation tasks
Discussions in LS
Follow-up tasks
Non-participant observation
Key:
represents the data collection activities

represents the research focus
means main sources of data contributing to a certain research focus
activities
means possible influences on teacher learning
4.4. Treatment and Analysis of Data

Data for this study was collected from interviews, teacher reflection tasks, questionnaires, and
non-participant observation of discussions in the TPD. All teacher interviews and relevant
discussions in the VWs and LS meetings were transcribed and translated. All transcribed data,
reflection tasks, questionnaire responses, and field notes were examined for identification of
common themes.
There were three levels of data analysis: (i) individual teacher level; (ii) individual school/
community of practice (CoP) level; (iii) level of cross-case comparison of the CoPs in different
schools. At the first level, the analysis was focused on individual teacher. To address RQ1 the
content of teacher learning, an examination of the reflection tasks and interview transcripts was
conducted. Data from the reflection tasks and interview transcripts was first analysed separately
and then integrated. Integration enabled the researcher to triangulate the data from different
sources. Further reading of the data collected from teacher explanations about their learning
(e.g., how a learning occurred, and why they considered this learning important/impressive)
provided answers to RQ2 about the process of teacher learning. A specific learning and its
trigger points (e.g., the videos, the discussions, the facilitator, the research lesson, etc), along
with the associated reflections, were identified and mapped into the corresponding domains of
the Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth (IMTPG). For example, videos as a
trigger point of learning were placed in the External Domain (ED) and conducting the research
lesson was put in the Domain of Practice (DP). If discussions in a meeting were considered to
be a trigger point of learning, the relevant discussion transcript was studied to locate the related
conversation and to triangulate the data. If a teacher referred to similar ideas at different points
of the TPD programme, this was indicated by several iterations in the IMTPG model (see Figure
7.1 in Section 7.2). This analytic process was continued until the learning pathway of all
important learning aspects for each teacher was successfully re-constructed.
At the second level, the unit of analysis was the community of practice (CoP) formed in each of
the schools. Data analysis focused on the changing characteristics of the community throughout
the TPD programme, and the factors affecting teacher learning. For the changing characteristics
of the community, the data from all teachers within a CoP was pooled together and analysed
according the CoP framework, and Wengerian matrices on the community dimensions were then
constructed (see Section 5.6 and Section 6.7). For the factors affecting teacher learning, data
from different sources was analysed as a whole to establish the impact on teacher learning. For
example, reflection revealed in the reflection tasks and interviews indicated teachers level of
reflection; field notes containing teachers participation rate and time of submission of reflection
48
tasks provided information about their will to learn and their workload; the VWQ and LSQ
indicated the usefulness of the TPD features. Cross-case analyses of teachers were carried out
by comparing the content of teacher learning (see Table 7.1 in Section 7.1) and their learning
pathways (see Figure 7.1 in Section 7.2).
The third level of analysis was the cross-case comparison of the CoPs in the two schools. This
analysis focused on the norms, the structures, the history and the discourses in the CoPs of each
school, and was conducted by comparing the Wengerian Matrices on the community dimensions
for the two CoPs. A table was constructed for contrasting and comparing the characteristics of
the two CoPs (see Section 7.1.3).
In sum, the use of various data sources and different types of data enabled the researcher to
verify findings through triangulation of data across the multiple sources. This together with
multiple case comparisons (across teachers within a CoP, and across the two CoPs) helped to
offset the researchers subjectivity in data analysis and enhance the validity of the researchers
interpretation.
4.5. Reporting of Data and Findings

Case reports for each of the seven teachers and the two CoPs are provided in Chapters 5 and 6.
They report the important learning as reported by each teacher and the changes that occurred in
both CoPs as the TPD programme unfolded. To facilitate reading and cross-case comparison
between the schools, each chapter is organised according to the structure below:
1. Background information of the school and the CoP: This section introduces basic
information about the school (e.g., staff development policy, the nature of students, etc) and
the CoP (e.g., the members, the collaboration culture, etc).
2. Individual case reports for teachers: To facilitate reading and cross-case comparison, all
individual case reports consist of the following four parts:
a. Background information the teachers educational and professional background,
workload, and reasons for participation in the TPD, if appropriate.
b. Most important learning the learning selected by the teacher as most important upon
completion of the TPD programme. This addresses RQ1, namely, what do teachers learn
in CoP?
c. Process of teacher learning the learning journey a teacher came up with the learning
mentioned in part b. This addresses RQ2. Individual factors affecting the teachers
learning will be also summarised in this part to address RQ3.
d. Summary whole case report summary to recap the key findings.
49
3. Case report for the CoP: This section portrays the evolving characteristics of the CoP. It is
organised around the three community dimensions of the CoP framework: a joint enterprise,
mutual engagement, and a shared repertoire. This helps to address RQ3, in particular, the
communal factors affecting teacher learning.
4. Summary: The whole school summary highlights the major findings in each CoP.
4.6. Validity, Reliability and Ethics

The choice of qualitative methods in the current study is based on the assumption that reality is
constructed by individuals interacting in their social worlds and meaning is embedded in
individuals experiences and mediated by the researchers perceptions (Merriam, 1998), and that
knowledge is both personal and social (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). However, this
does not imply that researchers are free to interpret at their own will. While the social world is
mediated by researchers experience, these experiences are still subjected to issues of rigour,
trustworthiness and validity.
All research is concerned with producing trustworthy results with certain level of validity and
reliability in an ethical manner. Validity and reliability are central in discussions of rigour in
scientific research (Silverman, 1993), and validity is the key issue in debates over the legitimacy
of qualitative research (Maxwell, 1992). As pointed out by Guba and Lincoln (1981, p. 378), in
an experimental study one can talk about the validity and reliability of the instrumentation, the
appropriateness of the data analysis techniques, the degree of relationship between the
conclusions drawn and the data upon which they presumably rest, and so on. The concerns are
similar in a qualitative case study, namely, whether the interviews were reliably and validly
constructed, whether the content of documents was properly analysed, whether the conclusions
of the case study were rested upon data, and so on. However, due to the different nature of the
research and the assumptions of the researchers, issues related to reliability and validity differ.
4.6.1.
Validity
Validity is concerned with the extent to which the research findings are congruent with reality
(Merriam, 1998). According to Maxwell (1992), descriptive validity, interpretative validity and
theoretical validity are the ones most directly involved in assessing a qualitative research. First,
descriptive validity refers to how accurate the data reflect what actually happened. Second,
interpretive validity concerns with how well the researchers interpretation and conclusion
reports the meaning of events, objects, and/or behaviours the participants have. Third,
theoretical validity refers to the extent to which the research explains the phenomenon.
According to Maxwell, theory is regarded as explanation. These three kinds of validity are
50
addressed in this study in various ways. The first is achieved through careful transcriptions and
recognisable categories that remain close to the data. The second is attained by peer review and
examination of data. The third is achieved by systematically linking theoretical concepts to the
theoretical framework of the study.
To ensure the validity of the current study and to obtain reliable and authentic results, multiple
data collection methods were used, such as non-participant observation during VWs and LS
meetings, audio and video recording of all meetings, teacher reflection in the PTs and FTs, and
questionnaire surveys. Data was collected from various data sources including written materials
(e.g., the PTs and FTs) produced by each teacher, meetings of VWs and LS, and interviews with
teachers. Triangulation was employed to enhance the validity of the study via these multiple
data collection methods from multiple sources. This facilitated the cross-checking of tentative
findings from various sources and methods.
4.6.2.
Reliability
Reliability generally refers to the extent to which research findings can be replicated. However,
as Merriam (1998) notes, reliability is problematic in the social sciences simply because human
behaviour is never static (p.205). This notion of reliability is rooted in quantitative and
positivist research traditions and does not seem to be applicable to qualitative research. Thus,
Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 288) suggest thinking about the dependability or consistency of
the results obtained from the data, instead of getting the same findings again. Since categories
are a discovery, it is unreasonable to expect others to discover the same categories as the
researcher. In this respect, the researcher can use inter-rater reliability (Silverman, 1993) by
getting others to look at the same data and to see if whether the categories are recognisable in
the data.
In this study, all sources of data, and the findings from the data analysis in each phase, were
considered as a whole to determine the congruence of each case in answering the research
questions (i.e., to find out the nature of teacher learning in this TPD model and the factors that
have a bearing on teacher learning). For example, one statement about a particular learning in
the PTs of the VWs was compared with what was said in the VWs, the interviews, and the FTs.
As far as possible, the data was made available to my peer colleagues and my supervisor so as
to provide a means of checking the categories and themes that I was drawing from the data. The
co-interpretation of data from peer colleagues and my supervisor helped to enhance the
reliability of the findings.
Riessman (1993) argues that in order to make it possible for others to assess the trustworthiness
51
of a study, the author must describe how interpretations were made, specify the procedure how
successive transformations of data were made, and make primary data available to other
researchers. Relating to the rigour of a study, Erickson (1986) maintains that a report must be
intelligible in the relations drawn, display a range of evidence that warrants the assertions the
author makes, and make explicit the authors own interpretive stance. He argues that presenting
all this enables the reader to become a co-analyst. As far as possible, I have provided vignettes
of data in the teachers own words so as to enable readers to make their own judgements as to
the recognisability of the categories and themes that I have drawn from the data.
4.6.3.
Ethical Issues
Ensuring validity and reliability in qualitative research involves conducting the investigation in
an ethical manner. Recently, increasing attention has been paid to the ethical conduct of research.
For this reason, I will also mention briefly how the ethical issues were addressed in this study.
Informed consent was obtained from all principals, participating teachers and students recorded
in the research lessons. The data collected in the study was kept confidential and only used for
research purposes. Teachers and students were reassured that they could choose not to
participate in the study, and that they could also withdraw from the study at any time. Teachers
also participated in the study voluntarily and no payment was made. This increased the
reliability and validity of the data and reduced the risk of ethical problems arising from teacher
participation that was influenced by financial incentive. The focus on the process of learning
rather than changes within teachers themselves also avoids the possibility of teachers being
blamed in any way for a lack of change or the failure of the TPD programme. This freed
teachers from any obligation to change or to say what they felt the researcher expected of them.
In summary, I have addressed the issues of validity, reliability and ethics by using triangulation
of data and member checks, keeping description and analysis close to the data, and engaging
with ethical issues upfront.
4.7. Generalisability, Generativity and Exemplarity of Findings

The notion of generalisability is controversial in the field of qualitative research. Some argue
that generalisability is not a key concern in qualitative research as it is inappropriate (Erickson,
1986). Given the enormous diversity of educational contexts, it would be very difficult to claim
any sample of teachers to be representative of the whole population of teachers. Even in the
hard sciences, generalisations are always temporary and decay in time (Tabachnick, 1989):
Whatever our interpretations and explanations, we know that these will illuminate the social
behaviour we are studying within contexts similar to the ones we examine, but for a short time
52
only. We must continually replenish our observational data and form new interpretations because
generalisations decay (p. 162).
For this reason, the present author agrees with Tabachnick (1989) that generalisation should be
left to the reader rather than built into the analysis of the results of the study. Thus, it is the
reader who makes the connections across space and time from his/her own situation to the one
in the research and decides what can be applied to his/her situation and what cannot. This
concurs with Cronbachs (1975) view that while generalization is important, it should not be the
main priority, as he puts, When we give proper weight to local conditions, any generalisation is
a working hypothesis, not a conclusion (p.125).
Hence, instead of looking for generalisability in research, one should focus on its generativity
(Adler, 1996; Nyabanyaba, 2002). That is, to what extent does the language of description and
the themes that emerge from the study generate further research questions and provide
explanatory models for a research topic. In this respect, the generativity of this study needs to be
considered in relation to the extent to which the ideas, themes, issues raised and language of
description is used to inform and stimulate debates for exploring alternative models of teacher
learning in the context of TPD, as well as for research relating to the use of IMTPG and CoP in
describing and explaining teacher learning. I believe this study is generative in all of the above
respects.
In dealing with the difficulty of generalisability in qualitative research, Vithal (2001) put
forward the notion of exemplarity. She sees the exemplarity function of crucial descriptions as
a bridge between generativity and generalisability. She argues that exemplarity can move one
into the theoretical totality that inspired the research; and that through crucial case descriptions,
it can allow readers to come to understand and reflect on that context, and to know and critique
the theory that is generated. I would argue that the thick descriptions in the case reports of the
present study have an exemplarity function that enables the reader to understand teacher
learning that were taking place in the context of the video-based TPD, and to interrogate the
theory that is generated from this study. In this sense, the researcher has fulfilled her obligation
to provide enough detailed description of the context of the study for readers to be able to
compare the fit with their situations (Merriam, 1998). In doing this, the reader is able to
consider the extent to which the findings are applicable or generalisable to other contexts. In
other words, the research findings are embedded in specific contexts of this study and are
therefore not directly applicable in other contexts. However, the research findings can exemplify
issues that can be explored in a range of contexts and can contribute towards the generation of a
cohesive theory on teacher learning.
53
Chapter 5 Teacher Learning in BFC
Chapter 5 Teacher Learning in Bright Future College

5.1 Background Information of the School
5.1.1
The School and the Students
Bright Future College (BFC) is a Band 15 school. Students are of high ability and have few
discipline problems. Staff development activities are mainly in the form of one-off workshops
run by guest speakers. Peer lesson observation has recently been introduced for both staff
appraisal and staff development purposes. However, video recordings of the observed lessons
rarely constitute a main focus for the post-observation discussion among the teachers concerned.
Comments are often based on the observers general impressions of the lesson and tend to be
superficial. In short, using video recordings for detailed lesson observation is a new professional
development experience for the Integrated Science teachers joining the present project.
5.1.2
Department of Integrated Science
There are three full-time teachers and one half-time teacher in this department, which is
responsible for teaching Integrated Science (IS) at the junior secondary level (i.e., Grades 7 and
8). The Head of the Department initiated to join the present project with the support of the other
two full-time teachers. The half-time teacher declined to join due to prior commitments. In other
words, the teachers are not coerced, but to join the project on their own accord.
The three teachers to join the project were Ben, a newcomer to the school, Felix, the
Department Head, and Chloe, who has worked with Felix for several years. Prior to the project,
the working relationship in the department could be characterised at best as contrived
collegiality (Hargreaves, 1992). Three departmental meetings were held per year, all of which
focused on administrative matters such as setting the year plan, mid-year review of teaching
progress, and whole-year review, etc. Before starting a new topic, teachers teaching the same
Grade would hold an informal meeting with the laboratory technician to discuss practical
arrangements and particular teaching issues. The focus of these meetings was mostly managerial
and administrative concerns. Teachers seldom discussed or shared personal views on teaching
and learning. As Chloe noted, despite having worked together for several years, they knew little
about each others inner self, for example their beliefs about or goals of science teaching.
In Hong Kong, when students are promoted to secondary schools they are allocated to three bands of
schools according to their academic abilities. Band 1 schools admit students with highest abilities and
Band 3 the lowest.
54
5.2 Ben
5.2.1
Background Information
Prior to joining BFC, Ben, the newcomer to the IS Department, had 19 years of teaching
experience mainly in senior secondary Chemistry. He taught IS seven years ago in his previous
school (a Band 3 school where Ben taught for more than ten years). He explained that, in his
previous school, it had been hard for him to try out new ways of teaching due to the amount of
time he had had to spend dealing with students discipline problems. Ben characterised himself
as a didactic teacher. Having moved to BFC, a school with students of high ability, he wanted to
change to his ideal mode of teaching, namely, to listen to students more and to help students
learn by themselves. He hoped that joining the project would help him learn how to change.
This reflects a strong will to learn on Bens part.
5.2.2
Most Important Learning
What is the most important learning for you? Ben is asked this question twice, first in the VW
interview and then in the LS interview. His responses are as follows:
Everything that Ive learned is impressive and useful. If I have to choose one thing, it has to be
identifying key questions for a lesson. This has helped me organise lessons, and made lesson
planning a much easier task. Writing lesson plans used to be a headache for me. (VWIn, 58:08)
The second thing, which has been bothering me for a long time, is how to find out how much
students have learned during the course of my teaching. This programme has showed me how this
kind of assessment can be done, and allowed me to try it out. This is quite a significant learning
for me. (LSIn, 1:34:59)
In sum, lesson planning and assessment for learning are the two major areas of concern for Ben.
Through a recursive process of enactment in and reflection on the TPD activities, he arrives at
new and personally significant insights into the issues. The next two sections report Bens
learning journey and the factors that contributed to his learning.
5.2.3
A Recursive Journey on Lesson Planning and Assessing Students
5.2.3.1 Prior beliefs and practices

As revealed above, in the past, Ben felt that lesson planning was a headache. He perceived it
as tedious as it had to be written in a very detailed manner. For this reason, he had not
planned his lessons in the past. Although he had wanted to improve his teaching for a long time,
he had failed to do so in his previous school. He attributed this failure to the students, whose
discipline problems took up a lot of his time and made him reverting to a lecturing mode of
instruction.
55
Changing to a new school rekindled Bens desire to try out the ideal teaching methods he had
heard about from others, and which he hoped would work with the better behaved high ability
students in BFC. Without the burden of dealing with discipline problems, Ben thought that he
would have more class time for a greater variety of teaching-learning activities. That, in turn,
led him to rethink the importance of lesson planning, The idea of lesson planning, like when to
have an activity and how to present the main ideas, is more important for me than I thought in
the past. (VWIn, 35:58).
Prior to the TPD programme, Ben was frustrated by the poor performance of the students in his
previous school, and often had no idea of how well the students were learning until he marked
their homework assignments or test and exam scripts. This issue had concerned him for some
time. Bens long-standing frustration can be attributed to his limited prior understanding of
assessment, namely, that assessment is limited to assessment of learning through summative
means. This was reflected in his practice of assessing students mainly on their homework
assignments, tests or exams.
Ben participated in the TPD programme in the hopes of learning how to improve his lesson
planning and ability to assess students learning, and thus achieve his ideal teaching goals (i.e.,
to listen to students more and to help students learn by themselves). The next section details the
learning path that Ben experienced.
5.2.3.2 The recursive learning journey

This section uses IMTPG to report Bens learning path with regard to lesson planning and
assessing students learning. Figure 5.1 provides a summary of this learning path, which entails
multiple revisiting of the same issues with input from External Domain (ED), Domain of
Practice (DP) and/or Domain of Consequence (DC). In the figure, Bens learning is described in
the Personal Domain (PD) (i.e., in the left column). The related events are described in DC and
ED in the central column, as well as in DP in the right column. ED refers mainly to TPD
resources (e.g., the videos and the facilitator) and events taking place during the TPD activities
in which Ben participates (i.e., the video workshops (VWs) and video-based lesson study (LS)).
DP refers to Bens professional experimentation in his own teaching practices (including lesson
preparation and implementation). DC refers to the salient learning outcomes of Bens students
that have a significant influence on Bens professional learning. The arrow with dotted line
represents the reflection that was stimulated and brought about by input from ED, DP or DC,
and which resulted in a new learning in PD. As the figure shows, there are six major events
(which I refer to as encounters) that have brought about new learning in Bens PD. Each of these
is detailed in the following sections.
56
Figure 5.1 Bens Learning Path on Lesson Planning and Assessing Students
First encounter
Personal Domain
Identify key questions and use
these to plan a lesson.
External Domain
(VW1) Watched and discussed Mr
Marks video in which he linked a
lesson by several key questions.
Second encounter
Personal Domain
Consider how to assess Ss
during lesson planning
External Domain
Marks video in which he assessed
Ss with various strategies. The
facilitator highlights the need to
assess Ss in the lesson.
Third encounter
Personal Domain
Consider Ss misconceptions
during lesson planning.
External Domain
Marks video in which he tackled Ss
misconceptions through careful
lesson planning.
Fourth encounter
Personal Domain
Lesson planning involves more
than simply planning activities.
Fifth encounter
Personal Domain
Lesson planning involves
(i) considering the links
between activities from Ss
perspective and (ii) creating
opportunities to assess Ss.
Sixth encounter
Personal Domain
Lesson planning involved (i)
identifying the curriculum
goals and (ii) considering Ss
prior knowledge and ways to
assess it.
External Domain
(LP) Discussed the lesson plan
with the facilitator
External Domain
(LA1) A colleague commented
that the transition between two
activities was not smooth.
Domain of Consequence
SS did not grasp the concept of
a fair test.
External Domain
(LA1) Reviewed and discussed the
videos with colleagues and
facilitator. Facilitator provided
input to resolve Bens questions.
Ss shouted out density affecting
buoyancy in the SET. Ss did not
grasp the concept of a fair test and
used fruit to design experiment.
57
Domain of Practice
Planned research lesson
with colleagues and
identified key questions.
Domain of Practice
Conducted research
lesson and was video
recorded. Applied
strategies learned in VWs
to give Ss more chances
to express own ideas.
First Encounter From External Domain to Personal Domain

Bens first three encounters take place in the VWs. They start with Bens participation in the
TPD activities (i.e., enactment in ED), followed by his reflection on the experience, and
resulting in a change in his understanding of lesson planning and assessment for learning.
The first encounter takes place in VW1, where a video of a teacher, Mr Mark, is shown and
discussed to illustrate the concept of using key questions to plan a lesson (see Appendix I for
details of the video). Though Ben had learned about questioning in his initial teacher education,
he had not learned about the concept of key questions. The discussions about the video in VW1
(in ED) stimulate Ben to compare and contrast his old and new conceptions of the role of
questioning in science teaching (i.e., reflection).
In the past, I knew that questioning was very important. I asked a lot of questions in my lessons,
but the questions were not linked by key questions. Now, I am very clear that I have to pay
attention to the most important questions for a topic. The video illustrates how key questions can
be used to link the concepts in a lesson and to help achieve the lesson objectives effectively.
(VWIn, 40:22)
Through reflection, Ben has come to a new understanding of the role of questioning in science
teaching, in particular, the role of key questions in organising a lesson, which in turn has led to a
learning in his PD. He now maintains that identification of the key questions and consideration
of the link between them can help plan a lesson more quickly and easily (see Section 5.2.2). He
has come to appreciate the use of key questions as a useful heuristic device to alleviate the
headache of lesson planning. Thus he regards this as the most impressive learning that has
resulted from participating in this project (see Section 5.2.2).
Second Encounter From External Domain to Personal Domain
Before VW2, the teachers review two videos of exemplary practices in assessment for learning
and complete a preparation task (PT) (see Appendix I for details). During the workshop, the
facilitator uses examples in the videos to highlight the importance of creating opportunities for
students to express their ideas in order to allow the teachers to assess students learning while
the lesson is in progress. The facilitator further emphasises that creation of these opportunities
for formative assessments should be a major part of the lesson planning process. Ben seems to
subscribe to these ideas and asks the facilitator for further suggestions on how to extend the
formative assessment opportunities to as many students as possible.
Bens enactment in ED, as described above, stimulates him to reflect on his past teaching
practice, and he realises that creating opportunities for formative assessment during lessons can
58
help resolve his queries about how much students have learned. He realizes that by speaking
less he gains time to assessing students formatively:
I spoke a lot in the past thinking that would help students understand what I was teaching them.
However, it might not I had no evidence that it did and could not be sure to what extent they
really understood If I have comprehensive assessment that gives me instant information about
the learning of the whole class during the lesson, then I will have a clearer picture of the student
learning. This is much better than knowing their progress only from their assignments, tests, and
exams. (VWIn, 34:20)
Ben has developed a new understanding of assessment (i.e., PD), namely, that assessment
should not only include summative means such as assignments, tests and exams, but also
formative means that collect instant information about student learning during the lesson. He
realizes that he needs to create opportunities for students to express their ideas during the lesson
so that he can assess how much they all understand based on concrete evidence. Creating such
opportunities requires careful planning before the lesson, as Ben notes in his follow-up task (FT)
after VW2, In designing a lesson, we should include assessment for learning in the plan, so
that we can assess students learning during the lesson. (T132, VW2-FT)
Ben has successful linked up his learning in VW1 (i.e., using key questions to plan a lesson)
with that in VW2 (i.e., creating opportunities for formative assessment should be a major
consideration in lesson planning). This is a sign of a high level of reflection. However, Bens
learning about lesson planning does not stop here, it develops further in VW4 as described
below.
Third Encounter From External Domain to Personal Domain
Through enactment in ED, in particular, the video watching and discussions in VW4, Ben is
stimulated to reflect on his previous practice of dealing with students misconceptions.
In the past, I knew students held misconceptions, and I would simply correct them and tell them
why they were wrong. I wouldnt spend a lot of time tackling their misconceptions. But now
after watching how the teacher in the video [Mr Mark] successfully handled only one
misconception in that lesson. And in the workshop, we also discussed how to let students reflect
on and reorganise their ideas. Now, I understand how misconceptions can be tackled not simply
by teacher telling. This means putting a lot of effort into lesson planning. (VWIn, 56:27)
As evident from the above excerpt, Ben has learned a new way of dealing with students
misconceptions (i.e., PD). At the same time, he understands that this requires a substantial
amount of lesson time and that it is important to take this into consideration when planning the
lesson.
59
Bens appreciation of the need to let students reflect on and re-organise their own ideas in the
lesson also impacts his perception of his role as a teacher (i.e., PD). Before the TPD, he said that
lecturing was his major mode of teaching. After VW4, he writes in the FT for VW4, Have the
courage to relinquish your control; you are a facilitator only and you only need to keep on
asking questions.(VW4 FT) He further elaborates on his changing identity in a follow-up
interview:
In the past, I lectured most of the time. I concentrated on how to deliver the lesson clearly so that
students could understand more easily. My role as a teacher was to lecture; and the role of the
students was to digest and acquire the knowledge. However, when I watched the videos, I found
that the teacher did not focus on how to deliver the concept, but on the arrangement of the lesson.
He arranged the lesson in a way that students could discover and learn the concept by themselves.
This is a big contrast to my own teaching It inspired me reconsider the role of a teacher, and
what I can do in my lessons. (VWIn, 57:33)
In sum, participation in the VWs (i.e., ED) has not only given Ben a better understanding of
how a lesson can be planned effectively and what he needs to take into consideration, it has also
allowed him to reflect on his own identity as a teacher namely, that he should be a facilitator
and be brave enough to relinquish control over students learning. Both of these are important
learning for Ben in his PD that were achieved through continual reflection on the issues
stimulated by iterative input from ED (i.e., participation in the video-mediated TPD activities).
The first three encounters in Figure 5.1 summarise Bens learning path in the VWs. As no
classroom observation was undertaken in this phase of study, little is known about the changes,
if any, in DP and DC, or their interaction with PD and ED. This is unlike the situation in the rest
of the encounters reported below, where significant changes occur in DP and DC.
Fourth Encounter From Domain of Practice and External Domain
to Personal Domain
The fourth, fifth and sixth encounters are situated in the second phase of the TPD programme.
The teachers carry out a video-based lesson study (LS) (see Appendix I for details) where they
apply what they have learned in the VWs. Ben and his colleagues collaboratively design a
Grade 7 lesson on density and pass the draft lesson plan to the TPD facilitator for comments.
This constitutes an enactment in DP. Ben briefly recaps the process as follows:
In planning the lesson, we did not strictly follow what was prescribed in the textbook. We first
agreed on the concepts and knowledge that we wanted students to acquire. Then we set key
questions to guide the flow of the lesson. Next, we looked at how we could assess students
understanding and included some appropriate activities, such as asking students to design an
experiment themselves, so as to find out how much they have grasped. (LSIn, 21:12)
60
As evident from the above, changes in PD of what Ben has learned about lesson planning in the
VWs (i.e., using key questions to plan a lesson and considering how to assess students learning)
has resulted in changes in Bens practice in lesson planning (i.e., DP).
In a subsequent meeting, the facilitator and the teachers discussed the lesson plan in detail,
including the key questions they set, the anticipated answers from students, the flow of activities
through the whole lesson, and ways of assessing students learning. This constitutes another
enactment in ED. During a follow-up interview, Ben recalls his learning during this meeting as
follows:
We seldom planned a lesson in such a detailed way. In the process, we touched on many things
and considered many different aspects. Designing a lesson is not simply a matter of putting the
activities together. This experience tells me that we have to consider many things on every
aspect. (LSIn, 1:21:23)
In isolation, the above excerpt may not be illustrative of Bens professional learning. However,
if compared against Bens earlier complaint that lesson planning was a headache for him (see
Section 5.2.2), his statement that, designing a lesson is not simply a matter of putting the
activities together and we have to consider many things, on every aspect is clear evidence of
important learning. It is a learning achieved through iterative cycles of revisiting the same issues,
and looking at and reflecting on his own experiences as well as those of others.
Fifth Encounter From Domain of Practice and Domain of Consequence
to Personal Domain
After the meeting, the lesson plan is further refined by Felix, then trialled by Ben and Chloe in
their own classes, which are also video recorded. Conducting the research lesson constitutes an
enactment in DP. In his actual teaching, Ben is unable to complete the lesson as planned.
Students encounter difficulties in designing an experiment to find out factor(s) affecting
buoyancy as they do not have a good grasp of the concept of a fair test (a concept that they
should have learned eight months previously at the beginning of the school term).
Later, in preparation for the Lesson Analysis 1 Meeting (LA1), Ben reviews and reflects on his
own lesson video. He notes the following point in the task sheet,
Students may not grasp a concept even though they have heard about it or learned it. Giving
students more time to think, write and express their ideas enables us to find out what they know
and what they dont, as well as their thinking process. (LA1-PT)
61
Clearly, even though the lesson itself could not be implemented as planned, Ben does not feel
disappointed. On the contrary, he regards it as a positive learning experience for himself, If I
had not provided these opportunities for students to express their ideas, I might not even know
that they had learned nothing [about the concept of a fair test]. This learning experience
reinforces Bens recent learning that he needs to allot more time for these kinds of activities in
his lesson plans. This is the insight he gains from reviewing and reflecting on his teaching (i.e.,
DP) and the student learning (i.e., DC) as revealed in the video.
Fifth Encounter From External Domain to Personal Domain
In LA1, Ben gains additional insights from discussing the lesson video together with his
colleagues. These include insights into issues that he has overlooked when reflecting on the
video by himself. For example, at one point Chloe comments on a transition problem between
the first two activities of the lesson that results in confusion among the students as to what
experimental materials they should use in designing their investigations. The three teachers and
the facilitator then collaboratively reflect on the performance of the students during the research
lesson (i.e., DC) and their own lesson planning process. In a follow-up interview, Ben elaborates
on what he has learned from the discussion:
It reminded me that the transition between activities must be very clear. This is especially the case
when two activities refer to different contexts but embody the same concepts. Otherwise, students
may confuse the two activities. We need to consider the link between activities from the students
perspective. (LSIn, 10:09)
It is clear that Bens understanding of what lesson planning is about and what it entails has
developed in conjunction with his lesson planning practice. He began by seeing lesson planning
as a headache; in VW1 he developed an understanding of using key questions to link up the
concepts in a lesson; he then turned this into practice in the collaborative planning of the
density lesson, we set up key questions to make up the flow of the lesson; and finally, in LA1,
he acquired the new understanding that, we have to consider the link between activities from
the students perspective.
To recap Bens learning path in the fifth encounter, he first conducts the research lesson and
tests the idea of creating opportunities for students to express themselves (i.e., DP). Individual
reflection on his students performance in the lesson video (i.e., DC) reinforces his belief (i.e.,
PD) that more time needs to be allocated to activities that call for students to express their ideas.
Through subsequent discussion and reflection on the same issue collectively with colleagues in
LA1 (i.e., ED), Ben derives the new insight (i.e., PD), namely, that the link between activities
needs to be considered from the students perspective.
62
Sixth Encounter From Domain of Consequence and External Domain

to Personal Domain
In preparation for the Second Lesson Analysis Meeting (LA2), Ben reviews the lesson video
again, paying attention to students responses and performance in the first two activities. This
time, he notices that when he drops different kinds of fruit into water and asks students why
some float and some sink, some students shout out the answer (i.e., that density affects
bouyancy). This stimulates Ben to question whether Felix, Chloe and himself have made the
wrong assumption about students prior understanding in the course of their lesson planning.
When I looked at the lesson video again, I noticed that our assumption (i.e., that students know
nothing about density) is not a valid one. Students did know something about density. But we
designed activities that required them to learn from scratch. We ignored their prior knowledge and
this made the teaching messy and problematic. (LSIn, 12:18)
Through noticing and reflecting on students responses in the lesson (i.e., DC), Ben realises that
the teachers have wrongly assessed students prior knowledge (i.e., PD). As he is unsure how to
improve the situation, he raises the following question in his PT for LA2, Students seemed to
know something about density, but the teachers did not know how much they understood. How
can teachers find out how much students understand a particular concept prior to the lesson?
When this question is discussed in LA2 (i.e., ED), the facilitator introduces the use of concept
cartoons to assess students prior knowledge. Ben recalls what he has learned from this meeting:
When we designed the density lesson, we were rather nave. We ignored students prior
knowledge and asked them to carry out activities that didnt correspond with their prior
understanding. Actually, we could have avoided this by probing their prior understanding using
some concept cartoons as suggested by the facilitator. If we had assessed their prior knowledge
beforehand, they could have learned much more effectively. (LSIn, 13:17)
Clearly, Ben now realises the importance of assessing students prior knowledge before the
lesson (i.e., PD). This is a new insight regarding assessment that he has acquired in addition to
his previous understanding of assessment during and after the lesson.
Similarly, the next learning begins when Ben pays attention to his students responses in the
lesson (i.e., DC). This time, the trigger is the unexpected poor performance of students in the
activity related to designing experiments. Ben links this to the curriculum goals of science
education. He queries what the priorities of science teaching should be and raises this question
in his PT for LA2, Key points versus minor points? In a follow-up interview, he elaborates on
this:
63
This year, I have been trying to catch up with the teaching schedule, trying my best to cover all the
content. It was a shock to discover that the students did not have a good grasp of the basic
concepts of designing a fair test I asked myself: What are students learning? Whats the most
important thing for my students in learning science? I felt strongly about students performance in
the lesson in theory, we wanted them to apply what they had learned and carry out a scientific
investigation by themselves. However, the result was that, after a year, students still could not do
this. This made me think about an important question: In future lesson planning, what is the most
important learning objective? I have to reconsider this seriously. (LSIn, 5:03)
As a result of reflecting on students performance (i.e., DC), Ben arrives at a further insight
regarding lesson planning (i.e., PD), namely, the need to reference important curricular goals.
van Es and Sherin (2002) argue that TPD programmes should include support for teacher
learning about how to notice pedagogically important events. They advocate that video viewing
activities, such as those undertaken in this study, can provide opportunities for teachers to learn
noticing skills. They also propose a learning to notice framework consisting of three dimensions:
(i) identifying pedagogically important events, (ii) reasoning about the situation using prior
knowledge, and (iii) connecting the events with the broader context. Clearly, in the episode
described above, Ben is able to connect the event to the broader context, which, in this case, is
the important curriculum goals for science education. It happens that these curriculum goals
align with his own, as revealed in the following excerpt:
First, using key questions to link up different parts of the lesson can make the lesson smoother and
more consistent. Second, assessment enables me to know students prior knowledge before the
lesson, and what they have learned in and after the lesson. Students are thus provided with more
opportunities to participate and can develop their spirit of investigation. When I apply these
principles to my lessons, I find that they are quite concrete. This is different to the past, when I
wanted to achieve my goals of science teaching but I did not know how to. (LSIn, 1:02:56)
Clearly, Ben is able to link his learning on lesson planning and assessment with his goal of
developing in students the spirit of investigation. He believes that lesson planning and
assessment for learning are concrete ways to help him achieve the science teaching goals that he
once felt were unrealistic and like castle in the air. This perhaps explains why, after 19
years of teaching, he regards these seemingly fundamental ideas as the most important learning
for him!
To sum up Bens learning path in LS, participation in (i) the collaborative planning and teaching
of the research lesson (i.e., DP), and (ii) the video-mediated Lesson Analysis Meetings (i.e., ED)
has further enriched Bens understanding of assessment and lesson planning (i.e., PD). In
particular, his learning is greatly enhanced by his reflection on the unsatisfactory learning
64
outcomes of his students (i.e., DC). In other words, DP and DC constitute a significant part of
Bens learning in the second phase of the TPD programme. The importance of DP is reflected in
his words: concrete versus unrealistic and castle in the air. Figure 5.1 clearly depicts this
major difference between the learning occurring in the VWs and the LS. Both DP and DC are
involved in the latter but not the former TPD activities.
Most importantly, the design and unique features of the TPD programme have helped Ben to
revisit the fundamentals of lesson planning and assessment gradually and recursively. This
recursive learning is instrumental in helping Ben to develop new insights on his calcified
experience of these issues. In the VWs, Ben revisits the concepts of lesson planning and
assessment that he did not learn well in his initial teacher education. He then applies what he
learns in the research lesson (i.e., DP), reflects on students learning outcomes (i.e., DC), and
revisits these learning again in lesson analysis. Finally, he is able to discover some old things
that [he had] learned before [but had not realised were important] suddenly becoming core
values.
5.2.3.3 Factors contributing to Bens learning
In this section, the focus is on the individual factors that have contributed to Bens learning.
Factors that are related to the community to which Ben belongs will be discussed in a later
section. Factors that are related to the features and design of the TPD programme will be
discussed in Chapter 8. Nevertheless, it has to be pointed out that all these factors interact with
each other to exert their effect on the course of Bens learning.
First and foremost, Ben is eager to learn. This is manifested in his behaviour, which indicates
the presence of a will to learn (Van Eekelen, et al., 2006). For example, he is alert to what is
happening in the classroom, notices that students are not learning well and raises a question on
how the situation can be improved (see Encounter 6). This also suggests that he is open and
ready to seek opinions from others. When reflecting on the research lesson, he is proactive in
attributing the successes and mistakes to internal causes (e.g., his instruction and inadequate
formative assessment) (see Encounter 5 and 6). He has the zeal to look for and try out new
practices, as reflected in the changes in his DP.
Second, Ben shows a high level of reflectivity. He is able to describe and analyse what he has
seen and done. For instance, he is able to provide reasons why key questions can facilitate his
lesson planning (see Encounter 1); he questions the teachers assumptions (e.g., students know
nothing about density) that formed the basis of the research lesson planning (see Encounter 6);
he also shows his awareness of his identity as a teacher (as a facilitator rather than a lecturer)
65
(see Encounter 3). He also connects the ideas/learning that he gains from different workshops.
For example, he connects the formative assessment covered in VW2 (see Encounter 2) and the
ways of tackling students misconceptions covered in VW4 (see Encounter 3) to the lesson
planning in VW1. He is also able to link the idea/event to a broader context (e.g., linking lesson
planning and formative assessment to the curriculum goal and his science education goals) (see
Encounter 6).
Third, Bens move to a new school has made him want to change his teaching practices, which
also intensifies his will to learn. Prior joining the TPD project, Ben already had a vision of the
ideal form of science teaching (which he described as the distant prospect) but he did not
have a concrete image of what it might possibly look like. The exemplary videos shown in the
VWs provide Ben with concrete suggestions and proof of existence of good practices,
encouraging Ben to attempt these in his own lessons. This tallies with Cohens notion (2010),
that a vision of what is possible and desirable in teaching, along with powerful images of good
practice can help teachers reflect on their work, guide their practice and direct their future
learning.
5.2.4
Summary
Participation in the video-mediated TPD activities enables Ben to revisit the fundamental ideas
of lesson planning and assessment that he did not initially regard as important. He comes to
recognise that lesson planning and assessment are important ways of achieving his goals, and
regards using key questions to plan a lesson and assessing student learning formatively as his
two most important learning. His learning path involves the iterative process of enactment in the
TPD activities (pertinent to ED and DP) and reflection on his experience and students learning
outcome in DC, which results in new understanding in PD. He turns these old and not
important things that he learned 19 years ago into core values that guide his practices
towards achieving his goals of science teaching.
Several factors influence Bens learning. He is eager to learn and reflective. He has a clear
direction for his professional development. Changing to a school with more able students makes
him want to change his teaching mode. His enactment in ED and DP through participation in the
video-mediated TPD activities, and his reflection on students learning in DC are both crucial.
Other factors include those related to the community of practice to which Ben belongs, and the
unique features and design of the TPD programme. These will be discussed in Section 5.6 and
Chapter 8.
66
5.3 Felix
5.3.1
Background
Felix has 15 years of teaching experience. He has taught in the current school for 14 years and
has been the Head of the IS Department for four years. He teaches six classes of Grade 9 and 10
Physics and two classes of Grade 8 IS. He has a great passion for teaching and is always seeking
ways to improve himself. For example, he had just begun a Master in Education at the time of
this project. Felix was also instrumental in his schools participation in the present project,
believing that he and his colleagues would benefit greatly from input from experts in the field.
All this suggests that Felix is eager to advance himself in his teaching career and has a strong
will to learn.
5.3.2
On completion of all VWs, Felix responds to the question of what is the most important learning
for him in the VW interview in the middle of the project, in a sincere and fervent manner, as
follows:
The most important thing is not how many teaching theories I have learned, but discovering that
there exists a fellow teacher, Mr Mark [the teacher in the video], who can play the music score of
teaching so beautifully. His teaching impressed me a lot Its an aesthetic feeling. You cant
evaluate it with marks, but you are aspired by it and it touches your heart. Its like when you fall in
love with classical music after listening to a fantastic performance. In the same way, when you
come across a teacher who teaches so well, youre inspired and invigorated, your confidence in
teaching is boosted. (VWIn 1B, 41:48)
In other words, the most important learning for Felix is affective rather than cognitive that is,
a feeling of being empowered, and a sense of reassurance in his own vision of what good
teaching is about. He feels aspired, and his confidence in pursuing this kind of teaching is reinvigorated. In a similar vein, Felix highly values the trust built among members of the IS
Department. Towards the end of the project he regards this as the greatest learning for him, as he
elaborates thankfully and sincerely in the following:
The greatest learning for me is the importance of building trust with like-minded colleagues.
During this year, I trusted the facilitator. I trusted Ben. I trusted Chloe. With this mutual trust, we
have created a great feat and accomplished a lot; we have successfully overcome and completed
one after another, difficult, lengthy and daunting preparation tasks and follow-up tasks. I am
sincerely grateful for the resources and input from HKU, the wonderful advice from the facilitator,
and most importantly, the continual and unfailing support of Ben and Chloe. (Felix, LA2-FT)
Actually, Felixs learning of the importance of building trust with members of a community of
practice has not come easy. This will be discussed in Section 5.6. Let us first examine how Felix
67
comes to appreciate Mr Marks teaching, which, in turn, boosted his confidence in pursuing
similar teaching goals.
5.3.3
A Learning Journey in Search of Self-Actualisation6
5.3.3.1 Prior beliefs and practice

Felix is a teacher with a mission. His goals are to inculcate in students a profound interest in
learning science, help them grasp the skills and methods for scientific inquiry and to make
students appreciate the high ethical standards expected of scientists in conducting scientific
inquiry (VWIn 1B, 34:19). Felix held this vision long before the start of the TPD programme
but having never come across a real figure demonstrating how this vision can be achieved, he
was unclear how he could accomplish his goals and unsure whether the goals were achievable.
5.3.3.2 The invigorating learning journey

With input from the three TPD events detailed below, Felixs doubts on the plausibility of
achieving his ideal goals were gradually removed.
The Three Encounters From External Domain to Personal Domain
The three events all take place in the VWs7. From the IMTPG perspective, only ED and PD are
involved in all events. The discussions among the teachers and the TPD facilitator on the videos
of an exemplary teacher, Mr Mark, constitute the ED. Through reflection on the experiences
gained in ED, Felix becomes reassured that his ideal goals of science teaching are achievable.
This affective learning, a boost in confidence, constitutes a change in his PD. That is, his doubts
have been cleared and he is now confident of achieving his goals.
Felixs affective learning begins in VW 1, where he reviews and discusses the videos of an
exemplary teacher, Mr Mark, with his colleagues and the TPD facilitator. Felix then reflects on
what has been discussed in the workshop. In response to the FT question, Concerning lesson
planning, are there any new insights you have gained from this video workshop? Felix writes:
Mr Mark [the teacher-in-video] is like a tour guide and his students are like the tourists in a group
tour. Like a good tour guide who prepares well in advance, understands the background and
experiences of his clients, as well as their expectations, he has to provide his clients with useful
tips to help them avoid getting into trouble. He communicates often with his clients, finds out
Self-actualisation is a term in psychology. Abraham Maslow, in his book Motivation and Personality
(1987, p.22), defines self-actualisation as "the desire for self-fulfilment, namely, the tendency for [people]
to become actualised in what they are potentially. the desire to become more and more what one is, to
become everything that one is capable of becoming." It is the desire to realise ones capability.
7
It is noteworthy that Felix has participated in both video workshops and lesson study. This section
reports the most important learning of Felix in video workshops only. His learning in lesson study will be
discussed in Section 5.6. The difference in the learning paths of teachers will be discussed in Chapter 7.
68
their misunderstandings about tourist spots through questions, and pays special attention to those
who are always late and those who are not cooperative. Mr Mark attends to all the above issues. In
addition, like a good tour guide, he increases the tourists participation by organising competitive
games and giving them prizes and small presents. Like a good tour guide he also tells the tourists
about the history of the tourist spots, so that they become more and more interested in the trip.
(Felix, VW1-FT)
In the above excerpt, Felix does not simply parrot what is said in the workshop. He synthesises
what he has learned about lesson planning in the process of reviewing and discussing the
classroom video by drawing an analogy between a good tour guide and a teacher who is good in
lesson planning. Table 5.1 compares the critical features of a good tour guide given by Felix
with what is shown in the video of Mr Mark. This indicates that Felix is a reflective person who
can analyse what he sees rather than simply describe it. According to Schon (1979), metaphor
can enable us to internalise our understanding of a new situation by relating new information
directly to prior experience. It thus offers a vehicle for learning about ones own thinking. In this
way, metaphor is both a product a way of looking at things and a process by which new
perspectives are constructed.
Table 5.1 Comparison of the Critical Features of a Good Tour Guide and
Prominent Features of Mr Marks Teaching
Critical features of a good tour guide
Prepare well in advance, understand the
background and experience of clients as well as
their expectations
Provide clients with useful tips to help them
avoid getting into trouble
Communicate often with clients, use questions to
check their mis/understanding(s) about tourist
spots
Pay attention to those who are always late and
those who are not cooperative
Increase tourist participation by organising
competitive games and giving prizes and small
presents
Tell tourists about the history of tourist spots
What Mr Mark does in the video

Mr Mark plans the lesson well by considering the
prior knowledge and ability of his students
He has a thorough pre-lab discussion with students
about precautions of the experiment, and ways to
minimise experimental errors
He assesses students understanding uses questioning
to check their misconceptions throughout the lesson
He asks students who could not complete the
practical work about problems they have encountered
during the practical work
He organises the experiment as a competition to
motivate students participation, and praises students
for their good performance
He tells students about the history of science (the
story of how 1 gram was defined)
Felix greatly appreciates Mr Marks passion for teaching, his respect for scientists and his
affection for science as evident in the video. In Felixs own words, Mr Mark is like a model
or even an icon (VWIn 1A, 34:43) for good science teaching. Watching him stimulates Felix
to reflect on his own teaching.
69

It may seem like I am bragging about myself but I am quite similar to Mr Mark in some ways,
for example, how we want our students to enjoy their studies His teaching touches my heart
Although I am not as skilful as him, I should learn from his spirit, the mind set and the values he
aspires to, but not blindly imitate his teaching style, skills and techniques. Instead of imitating him,
I should develop and establish my own style of teaching. (VWIn 1A, 44:28-45:58)
Watching and reflecting on the video creates a desire in Felix to undergo self-actualisation, to
search in your inner self, finding out who you are, what you need, your direction in life and your
talents, so as to re-position yourself and to bring your talents into full play.(VWIn 1A,
41:08). Even though Felix does not want to simply imitate Mr Marks teaching, watching the
video has motivated him to achieve his budding ambitions in science teaching.
Before, I had a blurry image of what good science teaching is like. Through watching the video,
my vision becomes clearer. Mr Mark can achieve what I have in mind. Knowing that this is
actually achievable and not just something in my imagination; not an idealistic vision, but
something that is being achieved by someone. This makes me more motivated and confident to
pursue my science teaching ideals. I feel like I am accompanied by someone and pursuing a
common goal. (VWIn 1B, 1:00:37)
Clearly, Felixs confidence in pursuing his goal of good science teaching is boosted after
watching Mr Marks video. This supports Yung et als (2007) argument that provision of proof
of existence via authentic classroom videos can boost teachers confidence in trying out novel
practices in their own teaching. However, one question remains: Why is similar learning not
found in other teachers who have engaged in similar discussions and done the same follow-up
task? Felixs learning can perhaps be attributed to his high level of reflectivity, which has
enabled him to come up with additional ideas besides those shown in the video and discussed in
the workshop. The metaphor of a good tour guide that he came up with is a case in point.
As a result of his enactment in ED, Felix continues to engage himself in active reflection on
various aspects of teaching and his identity as a science teacher. For instance, after VW2,
assessment for learning, Felix reflects on the role of assessment in science teaching. This time,
he articulates his ideas by making reference to the metaphor of driving on a highway.
If you are driving on a highway, can you allow yourself to observe the road conditions only every
ten minutes or every hour? Of course, not! Teaching is like driving on a highway, you have to
constantly assess the traffic and road conditions. Similarly, it is impossible to teach a lesson
without obtaining feedback from students and observing their performance. (VWIn 1A, 50:36)
Clearly, Felix has assimilated the essence of assessment assessment is the constant exchange
of information between the teacher and the students; the teacher needs to assess the students
70
continuously, like a driver assessing road conditions. This is consistent with his metaphor of a
good tour guide who communicates often with his clients.
At times, Felixs reflection can be very searching. For example, in his FT for VW3, he actually
makes reference to the transcript of the lesson video in articulating his ideas, as shown below:
The relationship between scientific research and the conduct of scientists, as well as the related
ethical issues, is one aspect of the nature of science. In the video, Mr Mark tells the students that
they have not been following his instructions to break the record of returning to the classroom
from the laboratory within the shortest period of time. However, in line 24 of the transcript, one
student says, As scientists, we are intelligent and smart. We have wit. Does the student mean
that scientists can do anything in order to achieve their objectives? What moral conduct should
scientists have? ... Do scientists make more contributions than problems? Some say science by
itself is neutral. In that case, then, it is of utmost importance for scientists themselves to set and
maintain a high ethical standard in the conduct of their activities. (VW3-FT)
Felixs reflection on the moral conduct of scientists does not stop there. He links it with his
vision of science education. He makes an analogy of a student studying science and a person
learning to drive a Porsche, and considers the role of a science teacher, as follows:
As a science teacher, besides explaining the performance of the Porsche, teaching the driving
skills, should we remind students that the most important thing is not to reach the ultimate speed
but the purpose of driving this Porsche (i.e., the destination of the drive)? On the road, do we
always compete with other drivers, but not to make way for each other? In striving for the means,
do we forget the ends? If we want to devote ourselves to cultivating successful scientists, who
does this success belong to, a certain person, a certain group of people or all the people in the
world? (VW3-FT)
Clearly, Felix is very concerned about his mission as a science teacher he wants to draw his
students attention to the moral conduct of scientific research. This is in line with his goals of
science teaching. He arrives at this insight by reflecting on relevant experiences instead of
parroting what others have said during his enactment in ED. Felix exhibits a high level of
reflectivity. For example, he can focus on and zoom in on a students passing response and try to
interpret the students thinking behind. He links the students response to ethical issues
concerning scientific inquiry and is aware of his identity and mission as a science teacher. In his
own words, he is in search of self-actualisation, trying to understand himself and realise his
own potential while participating in the TPD activities.
To sum up, Felixs learning process is self-motivated and reflective. His engagement in the TPD
activities is self-initiated. Enactment in ED (in particular, watching Mr Marks video) has
71
stimulated him to undergo deep reflection on his identity and mission as a science teacher and
self-actualisation. This finally leads to changes in his PD: he feels empowered and reassured
about his goals of science teaching, and becomes more confident to pursue these goals. His
learning path is illustrated in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2 Felixs Learning Path in Search of Self-Actualisation
First encounter
External Domain
(VW1) Watched and discussed video of
Mr Mark in which he planned his lesson
well and skillfully guided Ss to his
learning objectives.
Personal Domain
Felix feels resonated with Mr Mark. His
confidence in his goals of good science
teaching has increases. He is stimulated to
undergo self-actualisation.
Second encounter
External Domain
(VW2) Watched and discussed Mr Marks
video in which he used various methods to
continuously assess students in the lesson
Personal Domain
Felix has reinforced his idea of assessing Ss
continuously.
Third encounter
External Domain
(VW3) A student in Mr Marks video said,
As scientists, we are intelligent and
smart. We have wit.; Discussion focused
on teaching of nature of science.
Personal Domain
His mission as a science teacher, to cultivate
Ss moral conduct in doing scientific
investigation, has been strengthened.
5.3.3.3 Factors contributing to Felixs learning

The main individual factor that has contributed to Felixs learning is that he is eager to learn.
His strong will to learn (Van Eekelen, et al., 2006) can be inferred from the following incidences.
First, he initiated participation in the TPD project, which suggests that he wants to improve his
performance and take action to learn. Second, he is the only teacher in the project who watches
the videos of the meetings when he works on the FTs. According to Felix, watching the videos
of the meetings a second time has enabled him to learn things that he may have missed during
the discussion; it also helps him to reflect on the content of the discussions more seriously. Felix
makes this extra effort of his own accord, despite his heavy workload at school and the
coursework that he needs to do for his part-time Master of Education study. Third, Felix is also
one of the few teachers who completed all PTs and FTs for the TPD project on time and in a
serious manner. These things are all indications of Felixs eagerness to learn and his desire for
self-actualisation.
72
Another important contributing factor is that Felix has a high level of reflectivity. He does not
simply describe what he sees, but also interprets and analyses it. Whenever appropriate, he links
his reflection to a broader context, for example, his identity and mission as a teacher (see
Encounter 3). His frequent use of metaphors in articulating his thoughts and beliefs (e.g., the
tour guide in Encounter 1) is also indicative of his high level of reflectivity.
The last contributing factor relates to his role as Head of IS Department. Being the Department
Head, he wants to help equip the whole department for the recent education reforms, and for this
reason he was keen to join the TPD project. He feels he has an obligation to be a role model for
his colleagues and to participate seriously in the project. He also feels that engaging seriously
with the TPD activities is a way of expressing his gratitude to the TPD facilitators for their
valuable support and guidance. All these further multiply his already strong will to learn.
5.3.4
Summary
For Felix, the most important thing he has derived from this project is not the learning of
teaching theories but gaining the confidence to achieve his ideals of science teaching. Watching
the teachers in the exemplary videos realise his goals of good science teaching has stimulated a
desire in Felix for self-actualisation (i.e., to explore his inner self and realise his capabilities).
He becomes empowered and inspired to actualise his goal of good science teaching. His
learning path involves three iterations of enactment in the TPD activities in ED, reflection on his
identity and mission as a science teacher, and growth in PD. This is a self-motivated and
reflective process.
There are three major factors contributing to Felixs professional learning. He is reflective and
eager to learn. He is also the Head of the IS Department and wants to be a role model for his
colleagues. This has further intensified his will to learn and to work extra harder (e.g., reviewing
and reflecting on the videos of the meetings). Enactment in ED through participation in the TPD
activities (in particular, watching and discussing the videos of exemplary teaching), plays a
crucial role in his learning path (see Chapter 8 for details).
5.4 Chloe
5.4.1
Chloe joined the school after completing a full-time Postgraduate Certificate in Education. She
is the least experienced teacher in the IS department and in her fourth year of teaching at the
start of the project. She teaches mainly senior form Biology and junior form IS and has a very
heavy teaching load. Once she complained to the author that it is not normal to spend a long
73
time in school (from 7.40am to 6pm every day), but still has to continue to work at home. For
this reason, she found it hard to spare time to complete the project PTs and FTs required of her.
5.4.2
In the LS interview at the end of the project, Chloe singles out her experience of learning to
cooperate intensely with her colleagues in the course of project as her most important learning.
The biggest and the most important learning [from the whole TPD] is the intense cooperation with
colleagues We can express opinions to each other freely, without hesitation, be it our views on
certain teaching strategies, or comments on each others teaching. To establish this kind of
cooperation is an important learning for me. It is also an important learning for all of us. (LSIn2,
1:50:30)
Another important learning for Chloe is realising that she does not pay enough attention to
students needs. She confesses to the author in the final interview that this is the weakest part
of her teaching.
From the various discussions we have had, I realise that my weak point is that I dont really listen
to students responses. And even if I listen, I dont really understand why they respond in a certain
way and continue to teach in the way I think is best for their understanding. If I believe that a
concept should be understood in a particular way, then I present it to students in that particular
way. However, if students do not understand, I dont come up with alternative explanations based
on their responses. (LSIn2, 7:32)
As this quote shows, Chloe is unsure how to respond to students learning difficulties. She does
not understand why students do not grasp what she has taught them and is unable to think of
better alternatives to re-teach and help them understand. Hence, she gets the feeling that she is
not really listening to students responses and confesses that this is the weakest part of her
teaching. Arguably, this is also an important learning for Chloe, as one has to be reflective
before one can reveal to oneself (as well as to an outsider, the author, in this case) the weakest
part of ones own teaching.
5.4.3
A Reliant/Reactive Journey on Listening to Students Voices
This section reports the part of Chloes learning journey that reflects how she comes to
recognise the weakest part of her own teaching. Her learning about the importance of the
intense cooperation among colleagues will be discussed in Section 5.6 through the theoretical
lens of a community of practice.
5.4.3.1 Prior beliefs and practice

Chloes recognition of the weaknesses of her own teaching is in part related to her practice of
74
lesson planning. In her first year of teaching, Chloe wrote a lesson plan for every lesson. But she
stopped doing this after the first year due to the increasing workload and became more teachercentred (i.e., PD), as she says,
I feel ashamed for not planning every lesson properly. When you dont have enough time to think
through the lesson plan, the emphasis quickly becomes, I need to teach this concept; and I need to
talk about that concept. As a result, I dont give much careful thought to the likely responses of
students and their learning difficulties, etc. (VWIn, 17:15)
In a way, Chloes situation prior to the project was rather like that of Ben. That is, they both
focused on their own teaching and did not pay enough attention to students learning. Both of
them noticed the problem. However, unlike Ben, Chloe did not mention any intention to address
the problem at the beginning of the project. We can, thus, argue that Chloe, unlike Ben, did not
set herself a specific goal of what she wanted to learn from the project. In van Eekelen et als
(2006) term, she was wondering how to learn.
5.4.3.2 The reliant/reactive learning journey

For Chloe, the learning path of coming to realise the importance of listening to students voices
spans four occasions in an iterative manner. The first three encounters take place in VWs and
the last one in LS.
First Three Encounters From External Domain to Personal Domain
The first encounter occurs in VW1. In VW1, the facilitator has drawn teachers attention to an
episode in which the teacher in the video, Mr Mark, purposely asks students how to fill in a
table in the textbook 8 so as to ensure they understand how to complete the practical work.
Enactment in ED (i.e., watching and discussing the video of Mr Mark) stimulates Chloe to
reflect on her teaching, in particular on what to discuss with students,
Many students think that they can read it and understand everything themselves I also think the
textbook is simple and dont use it However, I hadnt realised that some students may not
understand the table in the textbook; some students may not know how to fill in it. This struck me
and I reflected on my own practice. When I discuss things with students, I wont touch on the parts
that I think are simple and straightforward. But, this is just my view; students may not think the
same way. So, I should discuss these parts as well. (VWIn, 1:24:06)
Similarly, in the second encounter in VW2, after watching and discussing the video of Mr Luke,
In that episode, some students answered wrongly suggesting that not all students knew how to fill in a
table. This goes against the common teacher assumption that students understand the textbook
themselves. See Appendix I for more details.
75
in which he does not set out clear learning objectives for the lesson9 (i.e., ED), Chloe recalls that
she also does not think carefully about what kind of ability [she] wants to assess in [her]
students. (VWIn, 20:15) She then reflects why this is,
I just look at it from my perspective, what I have to talk about or teach, so that I can finish the
lesson. However, certain student behaviours, levels of performance, can tell you whether they have
grasped a concept. I have overlooked this. I dont think about how to assess them in the lessons, I
mean, with what methods and when I could have assessed them. (VWIn, 16:26)
A similar path is identified in VW4 (i.e., the third encounter). After watching Mr Marks video
on how to tackle students misconceptions, Chloe comes up with the following reflection.
I have reflected on this. I have not paid much attention to students needs. Students may not learn
simply by listening [to the teacher] or doing an experiment. Sometimes they need help from the
teacher to clarify their misconceptions. Sometimes I may even be unaware of students
misconceptions, let alone help to clarify their misconceptions I am not skilful enough. I am not
able to pay special attention to students common misconceptions. I thought that I just needed to
teach them the correct things. Now, I understand this is not enough. (VWIn, 1:19:08)
The above three excerpts have one point in common Chloe is self-absorbed (Rodgers, 2002),
that is, her reflection gets stuck on the level of self; she is pre-occupied with anxiety about
herself and focuses on the question What did I teach today?. Clearly, Chloe is concerned
about herself as a teacher as she focuses on what to tell her students and how to finish the lesson
instead of on how students learn. In other words, she is too teacher-centred and overlooks the
learning and needs of her students. Although she begins to recognise the need to pay more
attention to the abilities, needs and misconceptions of her students (i.e., PD), she does not come
up with any concrete plans for improving her teaching (e.g., how to listen more closely to her
students). This is partly because of her heavy workload, and partly because the stimuli she has
received so far has not triggered a deeper reflection within her. This is not the case with the
situation reported in the next section.
Fourth Encounter From Domain of Practice and External Domain
to Personal Domain
The fourth encounter in the course of Chloes learning occurs in LS. Conducting the research
lesson constitutes professional experimentation in DP. Her own lesson videos and those of Ben,
along with input from the facilitator and the discussion with colleagues in LA1 and 2 constitute
In that episode, Mr Luke began the lesson by introducing three questions as the learning objectives. But
then he asked students to solve two problems. This confused the students as to what the learning
objectives were. In the discussion, the facilitator emphasised the importance of setting clear learning
objectives and how this relates to assessment in the lesson. See Appendix I for more details.
76
the resources/ stimuli in ED. When Chloe reviews and reflects on her own lesson video, she
notices that the transition from the first activity to the second activity is not smooth enough. But
she is unable to figure out the exact underlying reason until she watches and compares a similar
situation in Bens lesson video (i.e., ED). She shares her learning experience as follows:
I noticed that the way I received and responded to students answers was very different to Ben.
For me, if students did not give me the expected answer, I considered it incorrect. I then thought,
How can I guide them not to give me that answer irrespective of what theyre saying? However,
Ben seemed to understand his students more, especially why they gave a certain answer. He could
give them a proper response. He was really responding to what the students said but I was not.
(LSIn 1, 10:36, 11:03)
Reviewing, comparing and reflecting on lesson videos showing similar teaching situations has
enabled Chloe to figure out the problem with her own teaching, namely, she did not respond
properly to students answers but merely focused on guiding students to give her the expected
answer irrespective of the ideas they put forward. This, according to Chloe, was the major
reason why the transition between the first and second activity in her lesson was not smooth.
From the above excerpt, we can observe that Chloe is still focused on herself and her own
performance (rather than students learning) when she reviews the videos. When she did the PT
of LA1, she also mainly focused on her teaching, for instance, My teaching in this lesson was
dull and I made things complicated and it was so boring. (LA1-PT)
In LA1, the facilitator compares and points out the difference in the perspectives used by Ben
and Chloe when they reviewed the lesson videos and did the PTs, namely, that Ben focuses
more on aspects of students learning while Chloe focuses more on her own performance. The
facilitator also remarks on Chloes dismissal of experimental error10 in the lesson after analysing
her students assignments and videos. This enactment in ED stimulates Chloe to come up with
the following reflection.
I only consider what I have done and how much I have done; but, I seldom consider the responses
of the students and how much they have learned. I have to change this. I should consider whether
10
In the student worksheet, there was a question asking students why scientists take repeated
measurements. Most students answered for more accurate results; only two out of 40 were able to
provide a reason why it is more accurate, namely, to reduce experimental error. This puzzled the
facilitator and triggered him to review the lesson video again in order to find the reason. It was found that
Chloe missed several opportunities to bring up (and to revise) the concept of experimental error (which
students had learned at the beginning chapter eight months ago). The facilitator brought this up in LA1
and reviewed the relevant episode of the lesson. This incident also reflects Chloes insensitivity to
students learning information as she did not consider it an important issue that needed consideration
when she marked the worksheet herself.
77
students can grasp the concept if I teach it in a certain way. Will they be too bored? Is this too
difficult or too easy for them? It is better to think from their perspective. (LSIn 1, 35:34)
Clearly, Chloe has realised that she needs to think more from the student perspective. Indeed,
she regards this as the most impressive learning of LA1, and writes in the FT for the meeting
that, I have to adjust my attitude to teaching, and to let go of my ego appropriately so that I
can understand more about the potential of my students as well as their learning difficulties.
(LA1-FT) Clearly, there is a change in the PD of Chloe. In order to understand and cater for the
needs of her students, she needs to let go of her ego and listen more to her students, and to look
at the lesson from their perspective.
Fourth Encounter From Domain of Consequence to Personal Domain
Having realised that she has not been responding properly to students answers, Chloe is fast in
applying her new learning in the PT for LA2. In the following excerpt, she explains to the
author in great detail what she has put down in her PT for a lesson video11 to be discussed in the
coming meeting.
You see. I was trying to push the student to accept that he was wrong and to listen to my
explanation. I didnt know whether he understood or not. It seemed that I was forcing him to
understand. At that time, I thought it was natural and alright that I was trying my best to explain to
him. However, when I watched my lesson video again, I realised that I had dominated in the whole
lesson. I had explained everything. But did he really understand? Maybe I didnt tackle the
misconception he held but just injected another set of ideas into his mind. (LSIn 1, 13:52)
Clearly, Chloe has begun to pay more attention to students learning while watching the video.
She begins to consider whether the student understands or not. This is in great contrast to her
thinking during the lesson, as she reports, It was not in the lesson plan; I did not expect that
would happen. How can I guide you not to answer this way? I felt really impatient with the
student and wanted to get through it quickly. Therefore, in the lesson she believed that it was
natural and alright to explain the answer to the student. When reviewing the video, she
wonders, Did he really understand? ... Maybe [I have] just injected another set of ideas into
his mind. Perhaps this is a sign of Chloes change towards paying more attention to her
students learning. Arguably, the lesson study (especially with the guidance of the facilitator and
the comparison of her videos and those of her colleagues) helps Chloe experience deeply the
consequences of not listening to students responses properly, and she realizes the impact of this
11
In this video, one boy designed an experiment to vary two factors at the same time. This revealed that
the boy did not grasp the concept of a fair test i.e., all variables must be kept constant except the one
being investigated. Chloe first tried to guide him by questioning him for a while. However, when this
failed, she continued by directly explaining to him that only one variable can be changed in a fair test.
78
on her teaching (i.e., that she does not know the learning progress of students, cannot guide
students appropriately and make a smooth transition between activities). She understands why
listening to students is important to her teaching (i.e., knowledge of why). This is in line with
Shulmans (1986b) contention that teachers hold knowledge, not only of how the capacity for
skilled performance but of what and why. The teacher is not only a master of procedure but
also of content and rationale, and capable of explaining why something is done (p.9). In this
case, Chloe is able to explain why paying attention to students needs and ability is important to
her teaching and students learning. She not only successfully unveils her own weaknesses (e.g.,
being impatient and not listening to students), but also admits to them honestly. According to
Graven (2004), the confidence to admit ones own shortcomings is an important learning for
professional teachers. We can argue that this confidence to admit her own weaknesses was a
starting point for Chloes learning. When she realises and admits her shortcomings, she starts to
look for ways to improve them, thus increasing her awareness of students responses.
In sum, from watching the videos of exemplary teaching in VWs (in ED), Chloe notices that she
is teacher-centred and does not pay sufficient attention to student learning information (in PD)
and does not see how the problem impacts her teaching and students learning. It is first when
reviewing and comparing the videos of her colleague and herself with the guidance of the
facilitator (i.e., ED) that she fully experiences the consequence of not paying attention to
students (i.e., PD). She relies very much on the explicit foci brought up by the facilitator from
ED in coming to realise that not listening to students is the weak point of her teaching.
79
Figure 5.3 Chloes Learning Path on Listening to Students Voices

First encounter
Personal Domain
Chloe paid more consideration
to the ability of her Ss.
External Domain
(VW1) Watched and discussed video
of Mr Mark in which he asked Ss how
to fill in a table in the textbook to
ensure they knew how to do it.
Second encounter
Personal Domain
She often ignored Ss
behaviour and neglected daily
assessment in the lesson.
External Domain
(VW2) Watched and discussed video of
Mr Luke in which he lost track of the
learning objectives he wanted to
assess.
Third encounter
Personal Domain
She paid attention to Ss needs
and misconceptions.
External Domain
(VW4) Watched and discussed videos
in which teachers tackled Ss
misconceptions
Fourth encounter
Personal Domain
She admitted that not
listening to Ss was the weak
point of her teaching, that she
should let go of her ego and
listen to Ss more.
External Domain
Compared her video with that of Ben.
The facilitator pointed out that she
focused on reviewing her teaching
performance and overlooked Ss
learning information.
Ss compared two factors at a time.
Domain of Practice
Conducted the research
lesson and was video
recorded. The transition
of her lesson was not
smooth.
5.4.3.3 Factors Contributing to Chloes Learning

First, according to van Eekeln et al (2006), Chloe can be characterised as a teacher who is
wondering how to learn. She wants to improve her teaching; however, she does not know how
to do so or in which area she needs to improve. Unlike Ben and Felix, Chloe does not have a
clear idea of what she would like to improve or what she would like to learn from this TPD.
Second, Chloe exhibits a moderate level of reflectivity. She is able to describe her
ideas/experience with analysis (e.g., providing reasons and evidence). For instance, in
Encounter 4, she compares the different ways in which she and Ben respond to students. Unlike
Felix and Ben, she has not linked her learning to her goals of science teaching or the goals of the
curriculum. Awareness of her mission, identity, and/or other ethical issues are absent in her
reflection. During most of the TPD project, Chloes reflection focuses on herself as a teacher
80
and her teaching performance. Only in the latter part (see Encounter 4), does she become more
reflective and start to pay more attention to students learning in her reflection.
Chloes heavy workload is a crucial factor affecting her learning. As mentioned in Section 5.4.1,
she was unable to complete the PTs and FTs in the first phase of the project as she was fully
occupied by school work. It was not until the second phase (i.e., LS) by which time she had
finished her examination classes and could devote more time to reviewing the videos and
completing the reflection tasks that she found time to complete the tasks and reflect on her
learning experiences in the TPD project. Clearly Chloes heavy work during the early phase of
the project deterred her from engaging in the TPD activities and hindered her learning.
5.4.4
Summary
Participation in the TPD project has helped Chloe discover the weak point of her teaching and
helped her realise the importance of listening to her students. More importantly, she has gained
the confidence to admit her own weaknesses and try to improve. Her learning path is
predominated by the enactment in ED. Chloe is unable to come up with deep insights by
watching and reflecting on videos by herself and relies largely on the input from the facilitator
and discussion with colleagues in ED to discover the importance of listening to students and
realise her weaknesses in PD. Overall, this process can be described as passive and reliant.
Several factors have affected Chloes learning. Chloe is wondering how to learn. She joins the
TPD project without a clear direction of what to learn. Her heavy workload has precluded her
from engaging fully in the reflection tasks and reflecting on her learning experience in the TPD
activities. At first, she is not reflective enough to come up with insights from watching videos
herself, and input from discussions and from the facilitator (i.e., ED) are crucial to her learning.
5.5 Summary of the Most Important Learning to Teachers in BFC

Table 5.2 summarizes the most important learning to teachers in BFC. It is noteworthy that
teachers do report other learning in their reflection tasks and in the interviews. They were asked
to choose the most important learning among the various learning gained from the TPD, which
are then reported in this study. Different teachers select different learning important to them and
have undergone unique learning processes. Surprisingly, quite a large proportion of the
important learning falls into the affective and social domains. It seems that teachers in BFC
value quite a lot affective learning and social learning. Teachers also show high level of
consistence in social learning all reflect that they form a more cohesive team. A more detailed
discussion on the commonalities and differences of teacher learning can be found in Chapter 7.
81
Table 5.2 Summary of the Most Important Learning to Teachers in BFC
Ben
Knowledge & Skills

Pre-active
Interactive
Identify key questions
for a lesson, and ways
to assess students more
comprehensively
Post-active
Feels confident of
achieving his goals of
science teaching as he
has found ways to do so
Feels confident of
realising his goals of
has seen Mr Mark do so
Feels confident to admit
own shortcomings
Felix
Chloe
Affects and emotions
Listen more to
students voices
Social learning/
community building
Feeling like a team
Building a trusting
relationship with
colleagues
Developing intense
cooperation with
colleagues
5.6 A CoP with a High Level of Learning Energy

Teacher learning does not occur only inside the solitary head of a teacher. In this section, guided
by Wengers notion of community of practice (CoP), I shall report my analysis of the evolving
characteristics of the CoP in BFC and how these facilitated and contributed to the professional
learning of its members. Specifically, I will focus on three dimensions of the community,
namely, mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. These three dimensions
actually interact with each other to affect teachers learning. For the sake of clarity, I discuss
each of them separately.
5.6.1
A Joint Enterprise
Here, a joint enterprise refers to the idea that members in a CoP have a common vision/goal,
hold mutual accountability to each other, and work together in pursuit of their common
vision/goal. According to Wenger (1998), a joint enterprise is developed by aligning members
engagement with the enterprise (i.e., alignment), learning to become accountable and holding
each other accountable (i.e., mutual accountability), identifying gaps in knowledge and
addressing them collectively. Below is an analysis of how a joint enterprise is developed in the
BFC community.
All three teachers, Ben, Chloe and Felix, at different points of the project, indicate to the author
that they have developed a common vision (a consensus in their words) of setting priorities to
develop their students scientific investigation skills. This joint enterprise is not formed within a
short period of time, but develops over the year through the teachers sustained engagement in
the TPD activities, as detailed below.
First, participation in the TPD activities opens up the opportunity for developing a joint
enterprise. This learning community initially sets off with a goal to improve their teaching and
82
hence their students learning. Wenger (2003) terms this understanding of their participation in
the TPD programme an imagination, in which members construct an image of [themselves], of
[their] communities in order to orient [themselves], to reflect on [their] situation, and to
explore possibilities (p.78). This imagination can help to fine tune alignment as members have
a good understanding of the reasons behind an action or an agreement. Felix, the IS Department
Head, lets the other two teachers, Ben and Chloe decide for themselves whether they want to
participate in the TPD project or not. In other words, the teachers are persuaded to align their
engagement with this goal rather than being coerced to join the TPD project. Such persuasive
alignment (Tsui, et al., 2009; Wenger, 2003) helps to promote participation, which paves way
for the negotiation of a joint enterprise. This applies to this community. The three teachers
attend all meetings and make comparable contributions to the discussions. This affords teachers
the opportunity to identify important questions in their community and work together to address
them.
Participating in the VWs and expressing views on the videos enables the members of the
community to get to know each others teaching philosophies, the commonalities of which
eventually become a consensus to which all members of the CoP align. For instance, after the
discussion in VW3, Chloe aligns herself with her colleagues vision of the importance of
cultivating students scientific spirit. When designing the research lesson, this emerging
common vision helps them to easily reach a consensus on not telling students directly the
formula of density but letting students discover it themselves.
This emerging common vision is reinforced and developed into a joint enterprise during the
subsequent lesson study. By reviewing and discussing the lesson videos collectively, members
of the CoP notice that students do not grasp the basic and important concepts of a fair test and
controlling variables, which they should have learned at the beginning of the school year. Ben,
in particular, becomes stuck at this point, having identified the gap between the expected and
actual learning outcomes. Before LA2, Ben was concerned about how his colleagues would
comment on his lesson video in view of the unsatisfactory learning outcomes. He was unsure
about his colleagues priorities and perspectives for viewing his lesson video.
During LA2, Ben shares his reflection on the key points and branches of the lesson. He
thinks that he might have taken the branch for the root. That is, he has spent too much time on
trivial issues and left little time for teaching the main content the formula of density. However,
the other members of the CoP, and the facilitator, do not agree that this is the case. They
acknowledge and praise Ben for correctly deciding, on the spot, to alter the lesson plan in view
of students learning difficulties. This is reflected in the following remark made by Felix during
83
the meeting.
Ben is very humble in saying that he has not accomplished all the learning objectives When
students encountered problems in planning a fair test and Ben decided to handle these problems
first, he was helping students to build a better foundation. To me, a fair test is more important than
density From the viewpoint of accomplishing the lesson objectives, yes, he might have taken
the branch for the root. However, from the [perspective of] benefiting students learning for the
whole year or even for the whole science learning process, he has not. (Felix, LA2, 8:33)
In sum, during the discussion, members of the CoP are coordinating their perspectives for
reviewing the lesson (i.e., accomplishing the lesson objectives versus building a good
foundation for students to learn science in the long run). In other words, members of the CoP are
persuading each other to align with the vision of cultivating scientific investigation skills in
students. This alignment is a mutual process by which meaning is negotiated by teachers,
namely, persuasive alignment (Tsui, et al., 2009; Wenger, 2003). Eventually the teachers
develop a common vision of infusing scientific investigation skills into their Grade 7 curriculum.
After accomplishing the short-term goal (of completing the TPD activities), the teachers are able
to develop a long-term communal goal (i.e., setting priorities to developing students scientific
skills). This common vision is developed by teachers naturally in an organic way, rather than by
external pressure or authority. Their vision of science education has inspired the teachers to
modify their Grade 7 curriculum by infusing scientific investigation skills throughout the whole
curriculum instead of emphasising it only in the beginning unit of the curriculum.
In addition to having a communal goal, members of the CoP have to learn to become
accountable to their enterprise and hold each other accountable to it as well. The discussion and
analysis of the research lessons provides evidence of the mutual accountability among the
teachers. They become accountable to each other for what has happened in their own lesson
videos and share their understandings and resources with each other. They also take shared
responsibility for the lesson plan (please refer to Section 5.6.4). As they are held accountable to
each other, the agreement and acknowledgement from other members provides tremendous
support, as observed by Ben in this comment.
In discussions, I always emphasise the branches and key points. I maintain that learning the
scientific methods is very important. During the discussions, you can find that you are not alone.
Other colleagues think these things are important as well. As a result, my confidence in the team is
strengthened. (Ben, LSIn, 24:04)
Clearly, the support and recognition Ben receives from like-minded colleagues exerts a positive
influence on the community building. Similarly, Chloe regards the intense cooperation with
colleagues as the most important learning for her (see Section 5.4.2). This cooperation has
84
enabled them to comment on each others teaching freely without any hesitation. The
department head, Felix, highly values members positive and proactive attitudes towards the
TPD activities and their own learning. This mirrors his belief of the shared responsibility of
learning and improving, as he remarks below.
In my opinion, to improve teaching, it is not enough to improve only one person, [you] also [need
to improve] the learning community of teachers, or even the learning community of teachers and
students. The construction of the culture, the atmosphere and the foundation of a community, is far
more important than being able to grasp some fragmented skills or tricks. We cant go too far if we
fight individually. (Felix, LS In, 2:22:51)
Undoubtedly, a persuasive alignment with the common goals of learning together to improve
both their teaching and their students scientific skills has been established between Felix and
his colleagues. According to Felix, the feeling of fighting shoulder to shoulder and moving
towards the same goal of improving the teaching capacity together encourages him to keep up
his commitment and engagement in professional learning. Clearly, a high level of learning
energy is maintained in this community.
To sum up, members of this CoP have developed a joint enterprise with the long term goal of
cultivating students scientific investigation skills. This joint enterprise is developed through
teachers negotiation of the meaning of their engagement in the TPD activities, and persuasive
alignment of their beliefs and actions to those of the other members in the community. They
hold mutual accountability to each other and have a shared responsibility of learning together. A
joint enterprise has helped to maintain a high level of learning energy within the community and
sustain the teachers engagement in the pursuit of their common vision.
5.6.2
Mutual Engagement
Mutual engagement embodies the idea that members in a CoP do things together and interact
with one another, having access and making contribution to the joint enterprise and shared
repertoire of CoP. According to Wenger (1998), mutual engagement has several forms, including
discovering how to engage, developing relationships of mutuality, defining identities, and
establishing who is who. Moreover, teachers must trust each other in their ability to contribute
to the enterprise of the community (Wenger, 2003). Examples of mutual engagement in this CoP
are illustrated below.
First, engagement in the TPD activities, in particular discussing and analysing videos of each
other, allows teachers to have a better understanding of each other and develop trust within the
community. The three teachers have attended all workshops with comparable contributions to
85
the discussions. This, to a certain extent, may be taken as an indication of their mutual
engagement in the TPD activities. Arguably, it is the passion and enthusiasm exhibited by
members of the CoP towards the joint enterprise which is more important. This message is
faithfully reflected in Chloes use of the word wholeheartedly to explain how mutual
engagement in the TPD activities has brought about changes in the community.
All of us are learning the same things in the TPD [i.e., they have a shared repertoire (see Section
5.6.4)]. In the process, we exchange ideas with each other. In doing this, we get a better
understanding of each others views and beliefs. Therefore, when a colleague wants to try out
certain activities, its easier to understand the rationale for doing so. Similarly, if I want to do
something new, I can get support from the others more easily. This is because they fully
understand why you want to do something. (Chloe, LSIn 2, 1:20:39)
This excerpt shows that Chloe is cognisant of the interdependence among her colleagues. The
teachers need to be understood and supported reciprocally by colleagues in order to successfully
achieve what they want. To a certain extent, the excerpt also reflects that the mutual relationship
and trust that exists between Chloe and her colleagues. She understands and trusts her
colleagues, and, thus, she supports them. She is also trusted by her colleagues who provide her
with mutual support when she wants to implement something new. With trust, teachers are also
willing to speak truthfully when discussing their own lesson videos.
Understanding the importance of the interdependence among colleagues is a necessary but not a
sufficient condition for mutual engagement. According to Wenger (1998), members of a CoP
have to discover how to engage in collaboration, and to know what helps and hinders their
engagement. This is particularly the case when teachers are unfamiliar with using their own
classroom videos for professional development, as implied in Chloes remark, The opinions are
not only your views on certain teaching strategies, but also your comments on the performance
of your colleagues teaching. (Chloe, LSIn, 1:50:30). It is imperative for the teacher concerned
to bring up troubling issues for discussion. For instance, in LA1, Ben shares his concerns about
not following the lesson plan and his feeling of being restricted by it. As pointed out by
Lieberman (2009), when teachers reveal their vulnerabilities to colleagues, an open and safe
environment is created; they are opening up opportunities for learning and continuous
improvement. In this case, besides his own learning, Ben has opened up an opportunity for the
learning of the community. This will be discussed in Section 5.6.3.
In the same meeting, Chloe also expresses her concerns about the ownership of their lesson
videos. She worries that their lesson videos will be disclosed to the school management. This
follows an incident in which Felix has uploaded the reflection tasks of members onto the school
86
intranet without informing the members in advance. Felixs intentions are good. He wants to
share their experiences and learning outcomes with other colleagues, in particular, the half-time
teacher in the IS Department. However, Chloe worries that she may be viewed as not putting
enough effort into the TPD activities because she has not completed all the reflection tasks. This
incident has a great impact in the development of trust in the community, as Felix recalls in the
LS interview.
Trust does not necessarily mean having no arguments or differences of opinion. Perhaps, if you
express your worries, concerns and emotions at a suitable point, its easier to build up the trust
afterwards After the TPD, we had built a feeling of trust among the group. Sometimes there is
no occasion for us to air our thoughts. Usually we are suspicious of each other. However, the more
we suspect each other, the more misunderstandings we may create. (Felix, LSIn, 1:08:04)
Clearly Felix has learned that candid communication helps to reduce misunderstandings and
build up the trust among colleagues, which in turn helps to sustain their engagement in learning
together. Suspicion and distrust, on the other hand, greatly hinder the process, as he remarks in a
reflection task, In this kind of genuine discussion, we can put aside our psychological worries
and honestly analyse our own strengths and weaknesses (Felix, LA2-FT). This enables them to
understand each others inner self (i.e., their teaching philosophies, concerns and worries).
Their genuine discussions and exchanges also enable members of this CoP to understand each
other better, and, thus, to define their individual identities and establish who is good at what,
who knows what, etc. For instance, when Chloe reviews Bens video, she realises that he is
receptive to students answers; Ben discovers that his colleagues, like him, are giving the same
priority to the teaching of scientific investigation skills; Felix gets to know his colleagues
concerns and worries. Teachers are thus able to define their identities in the community. Table
5.3 summarises the teachers perceptions of their roles in the CoP.
Table 5.3 Summary of BFC Teachers Perceptions of their Roles in the CoP
Teacher
Ben
Chloe
Felix
Roles perceived by the teachers

A learner and a contributor: I share my own views. I do not only learn, but also make some
contributions Sometimes I bring up some of my doubts, which may trigger others to think
about [these things too]. (LSIn, 1:14:25)
A learner, a contributor and a cheerer: Definitely I am a contributor I affirm that I have
made some contributions I am the least experienced one. I am a learner. I have to learn from
them. I am also a cheerer. My active participation is a kind of encouragement to my
colleagues. (LSIn-2, 1:46:07)
A department head, a leader, a contributor, and a co-learner:I have multiple roles as a panel
head, or a leader, or as a contributor, as a co-learner For example, in front of the facilitator,
I would like to be a learner, or a follower, and learn something from him. Among my
colleagues I don't want to [appear to participate] too poorly. If I had done it poorly, I might
have set a bad example to the colleagues (LS Interview, 2:24:58)
87
As evident in Table 5.3, the teachers invariably identify themselves both as learners and
contributors in the community. This common and shared identification by teachers indeed
reflects their deep commitment to the TPD activities and to each others learning. The teachers
see their responsibility in contributing individual insights to the group. In addition, Chloe also
identifies herself as a cheerer in the learning community because she thinks that her
participation in the TPD project is a kind of encouragement to the other two teachers. Felix also
emphasises his role as a co-learner, which, according to him, means that he and his colleagues
participate in the TPD activities equally. They have equal status, ability and voice in the TPD
activities. This further supports the view that the three teachers are mutually engaged in the CoP.
To sum up, the teachers have mutually and equally engaged in the TPD activities. This mutual
engagement is grounded on the wholehearted participation of teachers achieved by persuasive
alignment, and the vision of learning and improving together. Through mutual engagement in
the TPD, the teachers have learned how to engage in collaboration in TPD. They have
developed a mutual relationship, interdependence and trust.
5.6.3
A Shared Repertoire
A shared repertoire is a communitys set of shared resources that are rehearsed and available for
further engagement in practice and production of new meaning (Wenger, 1998). The repertoire
is shared in a dynamic and interactive sense. The process of developing their repertoire includes
renegotiating the meaning of various elements; producing or adopting tools, artefacts,
representations; inventing new terms and redefining or abandoning old ones; creating and
breaking routines (Wenger, 1998, p.95).
Most importantly, during the production of a shared repertoire, the community needs to be
conscious of the development and the effects of repertoire (Wenger, 2003). This is reflected by
Felixs sayings that, We have created a great feat and accomplished a lot including the many
difficult, lengthy and daunting preparations and follow-up tasks. This is a big contrast to the
situation in the past when they worked in isolation and did not know each others inner self.
During their engagement in the TPD activities, the teachers produce a collaborative lesson plan,
lesson videos, and PTs and FTs. These tools and artefacts are introduced by the facilitator, and
adopted by the teachers for analysing their teaching recordings, and for reflecting on the events
in the TPD as well as the learning of individual teachers and the community as a whole. The
meaning of these artefacts is subject to negotiation. Unlike teachers in Sunset Valley High
School (see Section 6.7.3), the teachers in this CoP are aware of the unclear meanings of these
88
artefacts and re-negotiate the meaning of the lesson plan, the videos and the reflection tasks of
teachers. In LA1, Ben says that the lesson plan was like a shackle to him. He feels nervous and
under a lot of pressure from the influence of the lesson plan and struggles to decide whether
he should deal with students problems on the spot or complete the lesson as planned. The
facilitator relieves Bens worries by saying that the lesson plan is a product of collaboration and
that everyone has a responsibility for the plan. This meaning of the lesson plan is subsequently
accepted and adopted within the community. For instance, the department head, Felix, writes in
his reflection task after the meeting:
The lesson plan should not become a pressure, a shackle to impede the free flow of colleagues
teaching. It should not be a tool to test the ability of colleagues to complete the lesson plan. On the
contrary, a lesson plan is produced in collaboration. If a colleague cannot complete the plan, we
should not blame the individual, but the design of the lesson plan. The colleague needs not to bear
the pressure and responsibility alone. So their nervousness can be relieved. (Felix, LA1-FT)
Clearly, a new meaning of the collaborative lesson plan is established within the community.
They hold collective responsibility for the lesson plan. The meanings of the videos and the
written reflection tasks of the participating teachers are also renegotiated.
As mentioned in Section 5.6.2, the teachers discuss the issue of uploading the lesson videos and
the written reflection tasks onto the school intranet for wider sharing. This represents a
renegotiation of the meanings associated with the videos and written tasks. They are not tools
for the school to evaluate the performance of the teachers. They are personal records of the
teachers learning in the TPD and, thus, will not be publicised beyond the community. The
newly negotiated meanings associated with the lesson plan, videos and written reflection tasks
are widely adopted by all three teachers. This, in turn, greatly alleviates the teachers worries of
being evaluated by others, permitting them to participate wholeheartedly (as Chloe says),
and put aside their psychological worries and honestly analyse their strengths and weaknesses
(as Felix says).
The newly adopted tools and artefacts succeed in cultivating the development of new routines of
collaborative lesson planning and lesson observation as well as speeding up the abandoning of
old routines. For instance, in previous occasions of collaborative lesson planning, the teachers
merely considered the general flow of the lesson. However, during the TPD they consider every
detail of the lesson: the misconceptions and prior knowledge of students, the key questions and
anticipated students answers, and the assessments. These are clearly new routines that the
members of the CoP have developed in the course of their professional learning. For lesson
observation and analysis, videos and transcripts are employed. When analysing the videos, the
89
three teachers focus on students learning as revealed in the case reports of the three teachers.
The old practice of providing opinions based on a general impression of the lesson is abandoned.
When they comment on the teaching in the lesson videos, they provide evidence of students
learning from the videos or the transcripts to support their opinions and claims. This is all
evident in the preparation tasks submitted by the teachers, in which they consistently quote the
corresponding line numbers of teacher-student interaction in the transcripts to substantiate their
views.
These routines and artefacts, as well as the common experience of participation in the TPD
activities, all constitute to the shared repertoire of this CoP, or the great feat as described by
Felix. Indeed, he regards this shared repertoire as invaluable for future lesson observation with
his colleagues and describes it in his follow-up task for the lesson planning meeting as a
milestone of the communal learning. The routines of collaborative lesson planning and
analysis, in particular the focus on students learning, help them to identify the strengths and
weaknesses of their teaching in relation to their joint enterprise. Ben shares a similar view of the
ways in which the common experience and learning in the TPD have affected his teaching
beyond the completion of the TPD project.
The influence of the TPD continues even now [after the project] Felix and I still talk about the
experiences of the TPD last year. It is really interesting to find that both of us have applied the
same things we learned from the TPD in our lessons. He has also shared how he has applied the
learning from the TPD in other areas this year. (Ben, LSIn, 1:36:43)
Clearly, the shared repertoire developed in the TPD project has continued to serve as a common
resource for the teachers to use in discussions about their own teaching after completion of the
project. New meaning may be produced in this kind of discussion. In pursuing their common
goal of science teaching, this shared repertoire becomes a common reference point for them to
assess and direct their actions.
To sum up, a shared repertoire has been created by members of this CoP through their
engagement in the TPD activities. The shared repertoire includes, for example, common
experience of participation in the TPD, artefacts such as the lesson plans and classroom videos,
and routines of collaborative lesson planning and lesson analysis. The teachers are conscious of
the development and the effects of their shared repertoire. The meaning of the repertoire is
negotiated and adopted by the teachers and the facilitator by mutual agreement. This repertoire
is a record of their learning from the TPD programme and a resource for production of new
meaning in future engagement.
90
5.6.4
Summary of the Characteristics of the CoP in BFC
This section reports the evolving characteristics of the CoP in BFC. Before the TPD programme,
teachers worked in isolation and knew little about each other. Participation in the TPD enables
them to form a joint enterprise with a common vision to cultivate students investigation skills,
develop trust and relationships of mutuality, and produce a shared repertoire for engagement in
TPD and for further engagement in the pursuit of their common vision. Table 5.4 summarises
the characteristics of the CoP and the contributing factors for community development. Though
it is beyond the scope of this study to track the future development of this emergent CoP, there
are reasons to remain optimistic that it has the potential to develop into a more mature
community of practice given its high level of learning energy. A more thorough discussion on
the ways the characteristics of the CoP affect the learning of teachers can be found in Chapter 7.
91
Table 5.4 Summary of the Characteristics of the CoP in BFC

A Joint Enterprise
The TPD programme
provides opportunities to
negotiate a joint enterprise.
Ben identifies the fact that
students do not grasp
scientific investigation
skills. The teachers then
discuss the key points vs
minor matters of the
research lesson and science
education as a whole.
Mutual Engagement
Discussions and analysis
of colleagues videos
allow teachers to have a
better understanding of
each other and to develop
trust.
The teachers learn how to
engage and raise
troubling issues. For
example, Chloe raises her
concerns about the
disclosure and ownership
of the lesson videos.
A Shared Repertoire
Engagement in the TPD
activities enables the teachers
to produce a shared repertoire
and to negotiate its meaning
(e.g., the lesson plan, the
reflection tasks and the
videos). They hold a common
understanding of the
repertoire that becomes a
resource for their future
engagement.
Imagination
A common vision of
scientific investigation skill
as the priority of S1 science
curriculum is formed among
the teachers. This long-term
communal goal inspires the
teachers to modify the S1
curriculum in the pursuit of
this joint enterprise.
Teachers work together to

improve teaching and
learning. They recognise
the interdependence. Felix
believes that they are
fighting shoulder to
shoulder for the same
goal. Chloe trusts that
members will support
each other reciprocally.
Teachers are aware of the

meaning of the shared
repertoire. They are reflective
on the role of the shared
repertoire in achieving their
common vision. Felix treats
the lesson plan as a milestone
of the communal learning. He
even treats the experience in
the TPD as a goal/standard of
peer observation that he
should strive for in the future.
Alignment
Teachers participate in the

TPD through persuasive
alignment. Felix lets the
members decide whether
they will participate or not.
The common vision is
articulated through mutual
process of coordinating
perspectives and
interpretations of the video
clips (i.e., persuasive
alignment). All three
teachers subscribe to it and
hold each other accountable
to it (e.g., in the department
meeting they discuss the
possibility of infusing
scientific investigation
skills into the S1
curriculum).

TPD activities with a
more equal role. They see
themselves both as
learners and contributors
to each others learning.
These roles are mutually
defined. The atmosphere
of openness and equality
enhance the development
of strong relationships.
The facilitator introduces the

video analysis practice and
related materials (reflection
tasks, videos and transcript,
etc). The actual meaning is
subject to mutual negotiation
between teachers and the
facilitator. All three teachers
adopt and support the use of
videos and routines of video
analysis (e.g., providing
evidence and focusing on
student learning).
Engagement
92
Chapter 6 Teacher Learning in SVHS
Chapter 6 Teacher Learning in Sunset Valley High School

6.1. Background Information of the School
6.1.1.
The School and the Students
Sunset Valley High School (SVHS) is a Band 3 government school. Students are generally of
low academic ability, with a number of discipline problems and little learning motivation. Staff
development activities are mainly in the form of one-off workshops delivered by guest speakers.
The school has recently made plans to introduce collaborative lesson planning and peer
observation across all subjects in the near future. The IS Department joined the present TPD
project and sees itself as a pioneer within the school in the practice of collaborative lesson
planning and peer observation. However, the teachers participating in this project receive only
moral support from the school.
6.1.2.
Department of Integrated Science
There are four teachers in this department. They are mainly responsible for teaching Integrated
Science (IS) at the junior secondary level (i.e., Grades 7 and 8). Hugo, the Head of Department,
and Victor, the Discipline Master, have worked together for more than ten years. Together they
initiated to join the TPD project. The other two teachers, Sam and Stone, are newcomers, who
were posted to the school at the beginning of the school year 20062007. In other words, they
were informed of the decision to participate in the TPD project rather than being involved in the
decision-making.
Prior to the project, the working relationship in the department could be characterised at best as
contrived collegiality (Hargreaves, 1992). Four departmental meetings were held per year, all of
which focused on routine administrative matters such as setting the year plan, mid-year review
of teaching progress, and whole-year review, etc. Ad hoc meetings on extracurricular activities
and the sharing of teaching resources (e.g., worksheets, etc) were also held. The focus of these
meeting was also more on managerial and administrative aspects. The working culture of the
department was best described as individualism, with most teachers working in isolation. This is
best reflected by Victors description of his relationship with his long-term friend, Hugo, I
know him personally as a friend but not professionally as a colleague, despite the fact that we
have been working together for more than ten years. Clearly, the situation for the two
newcomers to the school was likely to be even worse.
93
6.2. Sam
6.2.1.
With only five years of teaching experience in senior secondary Physics and Mathematics
(Grade 10 to 13), Sam is the least experienced IS teacher in the department. For him, teaching
IS to Grade 7 students is a new challenge because of his lack of prior experience. The school
where Sam taught previously was also a Band 3 school, but one with fewer discipline problems
than the present school. As a newcomer, he knows nothing about this TPD project or his
colleagues teaching. He participates in the TPD programme because he feels that he has to
follow the decision that was made before he joined the school.
6.2.2.
Upon completion of the TPD programme, Sam modestly describes his most important learning
when he was asked in the LS interview as follows:
The most important learning is that, through analysis of my research lesson, it has proven that the
way I teach and the methods I use, to a certain extent, are effective for my students. This, in turn,
has confirmed that my teaching does have a beneficial effect on my students learning. This is
extremely important to me. It gives me the motives to carry on teaching, to keep myself in the
teaching profession. Before this, I was very discouraged because I really did not know how to
teach that class well. (LSIn, 1:36:40)
Clearly, the most important learning for Sam is affective in nature. He has regained his
confidence in teaching as a result of achieving satisfactory student learning outcomes in his
research lesson. This is a very important learning for Sam as he was once, as he put it, at the
bottom of a very deep valley, feeling discouraged and wondering whether he should stay in the
teaching profession. In brief, his learning journey has been one with ups and downs.
6.2.3.
6.2.3.1.
A Learning Journey of Restoring Confidence and Reconstructing Identity

Prior beliefs and practices
As a newcomer to the school and working in isolation, Sam knew nothing about his colleagues
teaching and the behaviour of the students in their classes. He had been very much bothered and
let down by the discipline problems of his students. With no prior experience of teaching junior
form students, Sam did not know how to deal effectively with their behaviour. He felt that
teaching Grade 7 students was a hard job for him because they were very noisy and
disobedient. This was completely different from his ideal image of science teaching, in which
students are eager to learn and the teacher provides students a conducive environment for
them to learn happily. Discipline problems, as he remarked dispiritedly in the VW interview
(VWIn), were the main factor barring him from achieving his ideal.
94
6.2.3.2.
The undulating learning journey
Compared with his colleagues, Sam experiences a very special and unique learning journey in
which his confidence and identity are shattered before being reconstructed. The undulating
journey by which his confidence is restored and his identity reconstructed is detailed below.
The First Two Encounters From External Domain to Personal Domain
The learning paths for the first two encounters appear similar but result in very different
learning outcomes in the Personal Domain (PD). Both learning begin with watching exemplary
videos in the External Domain (ED). Changes in PD then result from reflections prompted by
enactments in ED.
The video shown and discussed in VW1 shows the very skilful teaching of Mr Mark and the
outstanding performance and good behaviour of his students in class. After watching the video
and participating in the discussion (i.e., enactment in ED), Sam engages himself in a lengthy
process of self-interrogating his own teaching practices. Attempting to compare his teaching
with that of Mr Mark, he recalls:
Sometimes I would ask myself whether I was a teacher or not. It seems that I am not teaching at
all, just doing correctional services inside a prison. I need to punish my students all the time to
make them behave. When I saw the videos of Mr Mark, I found that he could teach his students
knowledge However, this did not happen in my case If students do not have any response to
you and do not learn anything from your teaching, you would also be unhappy. (LSIn, 7:48)
Apparently, Sam has lost confidence in his own teaching and queries whether he is a teacher or
a correctional services officer inside a prison (i.e., PD). He feels disheartened because his
teaching seems far from satisfactory when compared with what he sees in Mr Marks video.
Sam regards what he sees in the video as some sort of standard that a good science teacher
should be able to attain. He feels that not being able to handle the discipline problems in his
class means that he is not up to standard. This may be a sign of Sams medium level of
reflection as he docilely accepts the standard without questioning it or undergoing selfactualisation, unlike Felix, in the other case study school. After watching the video, Sam
describes his emotional state as at the bottom of a very deep valley. This echoes the findings
of a previous study (Wong, et al., 2006; Yung, et al., 2007), namely, that exposing student
teachers to videos of exemplary teaching too soon may lower their confidence by setting too
high a standard for them to attain. Indeed, focusing exclusively on good practice can be
daunting not only for student teachers, but also for practicing teachers with only a few years
experience, like Sam.
95
Unfortunately, such a miserable feeling has been lingering around Sam for several months, until
he watches and discusses the lesson video of another teacher, Mr Luke in VW3. Enactment in
ED, that is, reviewing and discussing the video of Mr Luke (whose students are noisy and also
have discipline problems), helps Sam to regain a little confidence in his own teaching.
In the video, I can see that there are also naughty students in other schools. Other teachers also
face the same problems that I am facing. This makes me feel better; because I have been
wondering if this is just my own problem, my inability to control the class. The students
behavioural problems have made me question my own abilities. (VWIn, 22:00)
Watching and reflecting on a video showing similar teaching circumstances has made Sam feel
better (i.e., an affective learning in PD). It has also stopped him questioning his ability to
control class discipline as he has realised that student behavioural problems also exist in the
classrooms of teachers whose teaching is known to be exemplary. He begins to appreciate that
one cannot simply equate students behavioural problems in class with a teachers competency
a perception he wrongly acquired when he watched Mr Marks video (which shows good
teaching and well behaved students). In sum, watching a video of a classroom situation with
student behavioural problems similar to those in his own class, has made Sam feel better and
laid a good foundation for him to re-build his confidence in his own teaching. This confidencebuilding process is described below.
Third Encounter From Domain of Practice and Domain of Consequence
to Personal Domain
The third and fourth encounters are situated in the video-based lesson study (LS). The
collaborative lesson planning and implementation of the research lesson constitute the Domain
of Practice (DP) in the third encounter. Sam and his colleagues co-design a lesson on Density
of Solid Cubes where they try to apply what they have learned from the VWs. In particular,
they want to infuse some elements of nature of science (NOS) into the lesson. Instead of
following what is prescribed in the textbook, they come up with a very innovative instructional
design and design a worksheet that begins with a table as shown in Table 6.1:
Table 6.1 A Table Extracted from a Student Worksheet used in the Research Lesson
Column A
Column B
Mass (g)
Volume (cm3)
Substance
Mass (g)
Volume (cm3)
Volume (cm3)
Mass (g)
Iron
Copper
Aluminum
Rubber
In the lesson, students are given four different kinds of solid cubes and asked to measure their
96
mass and volume, record the results and calculate the quantities as required by Columns A and
B in the table. On completion of the practical task, students are asked: Which column, A or B, is
a better way of representing density of metals and why? In short, in designing the lesson, the
teachers do not want students to simply memorise the formula of density, they want to challenge
students with questions such as: Why is density equal to mass over volume and not the other
way round? How did scientists come to an agreed definition of density? That is, the teachers
want their students to take on the role of scientists, to experience the process of defining the
concept of density, so as to arouse their interest in learning science (and to enhance their
understanding and memory of the definition of density, which is often confusing for students).
Clearly, such a lesson design requires students to practise high order thinking skills and
demands a lot from teachers in terms of their skills to guide students in a discussion about the
definition of density. For this reason, Sam was very worried during the planning process. He
was concerned about his own performance as well as that of his students, and felt that it would
be very difficult for my students to achieve the intended learning outcomes. However, as the
lesson plan was designed and agreed upon by all colleagues involved in the LS, he felt obliged
to follow it and taught the lesson gingerly, despite fearing that he would be unable to achieve
the intended learning outcomes.
After teaching the lesson according to the plan, and reviewing the video of the lesson, Sam
reflects on his students learning outcomes and realises that they did indeed learn something.
For instance, some students are able to recall the experimental results they obtained in the
previous days lessons and offer interpretations of the results. Reflecting on these favourable
learning outcomes (which constitute the Domain of Consequence (DC)) also results in positive
changes in Sams PD. Specifically, after reviewing the learning outcomes of his students as
shown in his teaching videos, Sam starts to regain confidence in his own teaching. However,
Sams confidence is not completely restored due to his noticing that there was one naughty
student who continuously played up during the lesson. A fact that causes him to question the
students learning.
The Fourth Encounter From External Domain to Personal Domain
The discussion with the facilitator and his colleagues in LA2 (i.e., enactment in ED) provides
Sam with an opportunity to analyse his students learning in greater detail. This, in turn, helps
him to identify further evidence of his students learning. For example, in reviewing and
discussing the lesson videos, the facilitator often refers Sam and his colleagues to the verbatim
transcript of the lessons. Using the transcript, Sam is able to focus on the interaction between
himself and the naughty student quietly, word by word, without the distractions caused by other
97
students in the lesson. In this way, Sam comes to realise that even the naughtiest student learned
from his teaching. Having evidence of student learning in his lesson is an important turning
point for Sams own learning.
Before this, I had no sense of satisfaction from teaching this class. I thought I was unable to teach
them anything; they didnt learn anything at all. However, after this lesson, I can see the effect;
which proves that, to a certain extent, I can teach students this science knowledge. This has
strengthened and boosted my confidence. (LSIn, 2:09)
Clearly, reviewing his own video and seeing the positive effects of his teaching on his students
has helped Sam regain confidence in his teaching and his identity as a competent IS teacher.
Researchers (Guskey, 1986; Kennedy, 1998) argue that when teachers find the evidence that
student learning outcome is enhanced, they gain confidence in new teaching strategies and/or
ideas. This case also illustrates how positive student learning outcomes can help boost a
teachers confidence about his own teaching and rebuild his identity.
Sams confidence was also enhanced by watching the videos of his colleagues, as he explains:
This may be due to the comparison that I was able to make when I watched my lesson videos and
those of my colleagues. As I watched my colleagues videos, I found that the performances of
other classes were similar to that of my class. The students were similar to mine. I could say that I
was not especially bad. That has helped me to regain some confidence. (LSIn, 9:25)
Clearly, Sam feels more confident after watching his colleagues videos. This is because he
notices that the student behavioural problems he faces also occur in his colleagues classes.
Watching the videos, he compares his performance with that of his colleagues12 and discovers
that he is not especially bad in dealing with students behavioural problems. Prior to this, Sam
had had no chance to observe his colleagues lessons and knew nothing about their teaching or
their students. The lesson study helped Sam find out more about what is happening in his
colleagues classrooms, and realise that his situation was not unique.
In fact, Sams colleagues think that his lesson is the best of the three research lessons taught by
him and his colleagues. And in LA2, he receives a lot of praise and complements from his
colleagues and the TPD facilitator, especially for his patience in guiding the naughtiest student.
This recognition from his colleagues and the facilitator also exert a great influence on his
12
Arguably, Sam was quite modest in saying that he was not especially bad compared to his colleagues.
In a class taught by his colleague, Hugo, the class discipline was so poor that he had to stop teaching and
ask the class monitor to get the Discipline Master to come and settle the problem before he could resume
teaching. This happened despite the presence of a video camera and an outsider (i.e., the author) in the
classroom. This illustrates the kind of situation Sam was facing and explains why he was so worried
about students behavioural problems and why he wondered whether his job was that of a Correctional
Services Officer rather than a teacher.
98
confidence about his teaching and his identity, as he recalls in an interview a few months later,
When discussing my lesson videos, everyone commented that my teaching was OK. I was very
happy If everyone thinks that my teaching is OK, then I am OK. (LSIn, 4:37)
Recognition from colleagues and the facilitator plays a crucial role in rebuilding Sams
confidence and identity. This echoes the assertion that recognition of competence by members
of the learning community is important to identity formation (Tsui, et al., 2009; Wenger, 1998).
As noted by Danielewicz (2001), the identity formation process of becoming a teacher involves
individuals defining themselves and being viewed by others as teachers. Reviewing and
discussing videos of each others lessons creates an opportunity for Sam to be recognised, both
by himself and by others. It is argued that, without such an opportunity, Sam might have taken a
much longer period of time to restore his confidence and identity, or even worse, he might have
left the profession, as Sam recounts,
It turned out that students could achieve what we have planned. So, my teaching did have some
effect on them. With such an experience, emotionally speaking, it was as if I had climbed out from
the bottom of a very deep valley. It showed me that its not a problem with my teaching. It was
like receiving an injection reinvigorating my heart to keep me alive. It keeps me in the teaching
profession. (LSIn, 1:37:32)
To sum up, Sam experiences an undulating learning journey in which his confidence and
identity are shattered and reconstructed. Figure 6.1 provides a summary of this journey. It
begins with an enactment in ED (i.e., watching the exemplary videos of Mr Marks excellent
teaching and the outstanding performance of his students), which results in a negative affective
learning in his PD (i.e., Sam loses confidence and wonders whether he is a correctional services
officer rather than a teacher). In a later enactment in ED (i.e., watching the videos of Mr Luke
and Sams colleagues and realising that they also faced similar student behavioural problems)
he regains a little confidence (i.e., a positive affective learning in his PD). The key turning point,
for Sam, is when he sees the impact of his teaching on his students learning (i.e., DC) and
receives recognition from his colleagues and the TPD facilitator for his teaching (i.e., ED). This
pulls him out from the bottom of a deep valley and largely reinvigorates his confidence about his
identity as a teacher.
99
Figure 6.1 Sams Learning Path on Regaining Confidence in Teaching and his Identity
First encounter
Personal Domain
Sam loses confidence in his own
teaching and queries whether he
is a correctional services officer
or a teacher.
Second encounter
Personal Domain
He feels better, and regains
some confidence when he sees
that Mr Luke faces the same
problems as he does.
External Domain
(VW1 & 2) Videos of Mr Mark
show excellent teaching and
students with high motivation
and good discipline.
External Domain
(VW3) Video of Mr Luke shows
students with discipline
problems.
Third encounter
Personal Domain
He regains confidence in his
teaching because students did
learn from his lesson.
Ss recall the experimental
results in the previous day and
propose rational answers to
Sams questions.
Domain of Practice
He conducts the research
lesson and is video
recorded.
Fourth encounter
Personal Domain
He regains his confidence in his
teaching and rebuilds his
identity as a competent IS
teacher. He realises he is not
especially bad as his
colleagues face the same
problem as he does.
6.2.3.3.
External Domain
(LA1 & 2) Colleagues videos
showing similar discipline
problems. Sams colleagues
and the facilitator provide
evidence of student learning
from his lesson video and
recognize his teaching.
Factors contributing to Sams learning
First, according to the will to learn framework proposed by van Eekelen et al (2006), Sam falls
into the category of those who are wondering to learn. For example, despite knowing his own
deficiencies in handling students discipline problems, Sam did not have a clear idea of how he
should tackle these problems and improve the situation. This might be attributed to his
emotional disturbance at the bottom of a deep valley and the fact that he was too dispirited to try
any new teaching methods to resolve the situation. This was reflected in his responses to the
100
research lesson plan before the implementation, for example, it would be very difficult for my
students to achieve the intended learning outcome and the fact that he describes himself as
having taught the lesson gingerly.
Second, Sam exhibits a moderate level of reflectivity. This is revealed by his attitudes towards
the exemplary teaching videos. Sam treats the teaching in the video as some sort of standard that
every teacher, including himself, should achieve or abide by submissively. He also believes that
students are not learning if the class is noisy. He does not challenge his own beliefs or subject
them to closer scrutiny until he discovers that even the naughtiest student in his class is actually
learning. Sams moderate level of reflectivity prevents him from searching his inner self and
realising his capabilities. Therefore, his confidence and self-image were shaky.
Third, as a newcomer to a school Sam knew little about the teaching of his new colleagues or
the nature of his students. The individualistic culture of the school and the lack of
communication intensified Sams problems. Teachers had few opportunities to exchange ideas
and discuss difficulties during the school day. This lack of communication made Sam felt
uneasy about sharing his thoughts and concerns at the beginning of the TPD, leaving him with a
sense of helplessness and with his problems unresolved.
6.2.4.
Summary
Sams case reminds us that it is important for TPD programmes to address issues related to
teachers affective learning. Sam regains confidence in his teaching and his identity as a
competent IS teacher, and this keeps him in the profession. His learning path involves an
undulating process of a loss of confidence and questioning of his identity after viewing the
exemplary videos of Mr Mark (in ED). This was followed by a rebound of confidence and a
restoration of identity as a competent IS teacher after viewing videos of Mr Luke and his
colleagues, who also faced similar problems (in ED), and after the analysis of students learning
outcome (in DC) in his own research lesson (in DP). Recognition from his colleagues and the
facilitator also has boosted his confidence as he remarked, If everyone thinks that I am OK,
then I am OK.
Several factors have impacted on Sams learning. He is wondering to learn and has a moderate
level of reflectivity. Being a newcomer to the school, he is unfamiliar with the students, the
teachers and the school culture. Working in isolation prevents him from sharing and getting to
know the problems of the other teachers. Enactment in ED through participation in the TPD
programme, in particular, sharing and discussing the videos of himself and his colleagues,
contributes a lot to his learning (see Chapter 8 for details).
101
6.3. Victor
6.3.1.
Victor, the Discipline Master, has been teaching Biology and Integrated Science in SVHS for 13
years, since his graduation. According to him, teaching three examination classes at Grades 11
and 13, though demanding, is not as challenging and time-consuming as dealing with the
endless discipline problems he encounters every day. Only half joking, he says that he is so
preoccupied with the discipline work that he barely has time to attend to his main duty
teaching. Despite the time-consuming nature of his duties and the fact that he is not teaching
Integrated Science this year, Victor volunteered to join the project and managed to complete all
the reflection tasks. This indicates that Victor has a strong will to learn and to improve his
teaching.
6.3.2.
When asked about his most important learning, Victor gives the following truthful and
consistent responses in the VW and LS interviews respectively.
First, watching the videos, I have really learned from the teaching of teachers in other schools. It is
really eye-opening. Second, the VWs have reminded me that I should not forget the basic teaching
tenets [e.g., setting short-term objectives, being patient] that I have already had. (VWIn, 18:27)
Actually this programme has made me aware of one important thing I am getting old. In other
words, my teaching is ageing. But this programme has helped to refresh me. This is the first and
foremost thing Being refreshed, I have more momentum to improve. (LSIn, 1:40:35)
In brief, participation in the TPD programme enables Victor to refresh his ideas about teaching
and regain his momentum to improve himself. He is reminded of the basic teaching tenets that
the pressures of work have made him neglect, for example, setting simple, short-term objectives
for low ability students, being patient. He observes that these things enable him to be a wise
teacher [who knows how to teach] low ability students.
6.3.3.
6.3.3.1.
A Refreshing and Empowering Learning Journey

Prior to the project, Victor is already aware of which ways of teaching are the most appropriate
for his low ability students (e.g., setting them small, short-term objectives, being patient, etc). In
the interviews, he says that although he knows to break down big questions into several small
questions when teaching the very low ability classes, he does not do this as often as he ought to,
and does not do this in the higher ability classes. He attributes this shortcoming to his
preoccupation with discipline and administrative duties, which leave him little time to
102
participate in professional learning activities. In his own words, his secondary duties sap
away the energy that he could use for improving his teaching.
6.3.3.2.
The refreshing learning journey
Participating in this project, and watching the exemplary lesson videos and the lesson videos of
his colleagues reinvigorates Victors desire to improve his teaching. It also sustains his
motivation to continue with his professional learning, as detailed below.
The Three Encounters From External Domain to Personal Domain
Reviewing and discussing the exemplary videos of Mr Mark and Mr Luke in the VWs constitute
the ED of the first two encounters in Victors learning journey. Enactment in ED results in the
following learning for Victor as he writes in the FTs for VW1 and 3 respectively:
Organisation of the lesson plan: short-term objectives set to arouse students interest, for
example, competitions (VW1-FT)
Lessons for low ability students should be broken down into simple and short-term goals (VW3FT)
Clearly Victor has gained cognitive learning in PD concerning setting simple and short-term
objectives for his low ability students. These objectives he defines as short, simple questions or
tasks broken down from a larger question or task. For instance, asking students to complete an
experiment is a big task, while asking them questions about what to measure and how to take
measurements, organising practical work as a competition, and so on are short-term objectives.
Interestingly, Victor arrives at the above learning by comparing the two different strategies used
by Mr Mark and Mr Luke, which are discussed separately in two VWs13, as he puts.
The two teachers conduct their lessons in two different ways. Mr Mark breaks down a big task into
several small questions for students to deal with one at a time. Mr Luke gives students a big
question. If I watch the videos from the perspective of a student, I prefer the first teacher because
he can guide me, and take me through to the next question without difficulties. As I have been
teaching for many years, I understand that students give up if they have too many big questions to
deal with at the same time. So, I think the short-term objective is very effective for teaching low
ability students. (VWIn, 25:34)
Comparison of the teaching strategies used by the two teachers in the exemplary videos
13
In VW1, Mr Mark, the teacher in the video, splits a practical session into several parts (pre-lab
discussion, experiment, post-lab discussion). He guides students to complete the experiment through
accomplishing several small tasks one by one. For instance, in the pre-lab he first asks students questions
about the experiment procedure to ensure that they know how to do it. In VW3, the teacher, Mr Luke,
simply asks students to propose three methods of measuring the volume of a metal cube without any prelab discussion or guidance.
103
stimulates Victor to reflect on the effects of these strategies and link them to his own teaching
situations and the nature of his students. It is important to note that the two videos referred to
were shown in two different VWs held several weeks apart. Moreover, among all the
participating teachers, Victor is the only one who explicitly compares the teaching approaches
shown in two different workshops. This suggests that Victor is very reflective and can integrate
ideas gained from different VWs. More importantly, he does not limit his reflection to what he
sees in the two videos but relates it to his own teaching:
When I reviewed the videos (of Mr Mark and Mr Luke), I noticed that the two teachers had
different attitudes towards the students I asked myself, If I were this teacher, what would be
the outcome of the lesson? How would the students behave and perform? Perhaps a key point
is that, since we cannot change the attitude of students, as teachers, we need to change our own
attitudes and our preparation for the lessons. This is a very crucial inspiration for me. That is, we,
as teachers, need to improve ourselves. We need to join your workshops. Reflection is very
important, as is our attitude. If we do not keep ourselves open to fresh ideas, our teaching
effectiveness will be reduced, sooner or later. Teachers need to reflect. We need to strive for
excellence We have to do so. (VWIn, 41:56)
Clearly, comparing and reflecting on the videos has also resulted in a very crucial affective
learning for Victor. That is, an inspiration that has reinvigorated his desire to strive for
excellence. According to Bell and Gilbert (1996), such feelings of being empowered to be
responsible for their own professional development is very important in the professional lives of
teachers.
To sum up, Victors learning paths in both VWs are very similar. Both start with enactment in
ED, then reflection, and finally changes in PD. Next, we turn to his learning experiences in the
lesson study in the third encounter.
Although Victor is involved in the collaborative lesson planning with his colleagues, his heavy
workload prevents him from attending the lesson planning meeting with the facilitator. However,
he is able to attend the two lesson analysis meetings to review his colleagues lesson videos and
also completes the PTs and FTs for the meetings. This reflects his commitment to the project
and, more importantly, his desire to strive for excellence.
Following Victors reflection on the importance of setting simple and short-term objectives for
students, it is natural for him to focus on this aspect when reviewing and discussing his
colleagues lesson videos. The first video episode is from Stone. In this episode, students put a
104
measuring cylinder filled with water on an electronic balance14. Victor notes this as an adverse
situation to be avoided in his FT after the meeting. Specifically he writes, avoid adverse
situations; confront off-task situations immediately (LA1-FT). He explains how he gains this
insight through reflection:
When I watched the video, it occurred to me that the students knew that they were required to
measure the mass and the volume [of the solid cubes]. So they measured the mass and the volume
at the same time. Thats the way students think. Our students cannot carry out multiple tasks at one
time. In this situation, we need to arrange the task in a more refined way [breaking it down into
several small and manageable steps]. By doing this, students have a greater chance of completing
the task successfully. This experience of failure could have been avoided. (LSIn, 46:20)
Through watching and reflecting on the video, Victor further reinforces his idea of the
importance of setting simple and short-term objectives for his students in order to avoid adverse
situations. He tries to analyse and interpret the thinking and behaviour of students in the video,
and to identify the potential consequences of the teachers practice. He is able to make links to
the nature of students (i.e., his students were with low ability and cannot carry out multiple
tasks at one time) and offer suggestions for improvement. Obviously, Victor is reflective.
The second video episode that stimulates Victor to reflect occurs in Sams lesson video. In this
episode, Sam is patiently guiding his students in a discussion on the definition of density,
despite the distractions of one naughty boy. When Victor watches the video before the meeting,
he wonders whether Sam is being fooled by the naughty student. He does not understand why
Sam dealt seriously with the students nonsensical answers. During the discussion in LA2,
Victor has an opportunity to listen to Sam and understand the rationale behind his approach.
This enables Victor to gain a different point of view regarding the same student problem.
Such an enactment in ED further stimulates Victor to reflect on his usual practices and compare
them with Sams, as he elaborates below.
In Sams video, his patience paid off. The naughty student got back on track through his guidance.
This is a really eye-opening experience for me If I had been the teacher, I would have punished
the student and had him copy column B 100 times for me. The outcome would have been very
different. The student would not have dared to say anything more in future. But, my judgement
might be wrong. The student might genuinely think that the answer is column B. And in that case
14
The proper procedure for students to complete the task was to measure the mass of solid cubes with an
electronic balance, and then measure the volumes by immersing the solid cubes in a measuring cylinder
filled with water. However the students did not understand the procedure well. They put a measuring
cylinder filled with water on an electronic balance and then dropped the cubes into water. That is, they
tried to measure the mass and volume at the same time. More importantly, according to Victor, students
should not put a measuring cylinder filled with water on an electronic balance because spilled water
would damage the electronic balance.
105

my punishment would have a negative impact on the students science learning in the future. This
is an important reminder for me. (LSIn, 1:09:34)
Victor seems to have realised that the long term effect of his usual practices may suppress
students confidence in expressing themselves and learning science in the long run (despite the
short-term effect of getting them to listen to him obediently). He has also learned the importance
of being patient with his students. Previously he did not believe that patience could help to
resolve problems in [his] teaching and students (LSIn, 23:55) and did not fully utilise his
patience. However, Sams lesson video is a proof of existence of good practice that convinces
Victor that patience could also work for his students. This echoes his learning about the
importance of setting simple and short-term objectives for his students. That is, he needs to be
patient to guide his students step by step, to arrange his teaching or experiments carefully and
divide them into small and short-term objectives, and so on. In brief, he is more alert to the
needs of the students and to the consequences (both short-term and long-term) and the ways in
which his practices affect his students.
More importantly, alongside the important learning described above, Victor has the courage to
admit his own deficiencies.
I thought I was teaching well. In fact, I was not. I was just covering up my own deficiencies,
ignoring them and pretending not to see them Now I am refreshed and reinvigorated with the
momentum to improve. When I see what others are doing, I realise a breakthrough is possible.
When I watch my colleagues teaching and compare theirs with mine, I ask myself, Why do you
continue like this? Though my colleagues have not said anything, nevertheless, they are
improving. What about myself? (LSIn, 1:43:09)
The TPD experiences prompt Victor to self-interrogate the deficiencies of his own teaching,
which he was previously aware of but didnt want to face up to. This affective learning, i.e., the
courage to admit to and face ones own deficiencies, results from watching his colleagues
lesson videos and seeing how they teach in similar contexts and face similar problems as he
does. Their experiences are real and familiar to him and he feels strongly that the deficiencies
identified in the videos are really not pleasant to watch (LSIn, 50:15). Victor realises that he
must change. Recognising that his colleagues have the courage to open up their classroom
practices for critique and to face their problems honestly, Victor is inspired to break through the
inertia of staying with the status quo, and to strive for excellence. In his words, he is moving
towards becoming a wise teacher [capable of] teaching low band classes (LA1-FT).
To sum up, Victor experiences a refreshing and empowering learning journey. Enactment in ED
106
(especially watching and discussing videos of exemplary teachers as well as those of his
colleagues) has resulted in both cognitive and affective learning in his PD. During the journey,
neglected teaching tenets, such as setting simple and short-term objectives for students and
being patient, are refreshed and reinforced. More importantly, Victor gains the courage and
momentum to face his own deficiencies and to look for ways to strive for excellence. In Bell
and Gilberts terms (1996), Victor has been empowered to be responsible for his own ongoing
professional development. Figure 6.2 provides a summary of his learning path.
Figure 6.2 Victors Learning Path on Empowering to Keep Learning
First encounter
External Domain
(VW1) The teacher in the video, Mr Mark,
sets small and short-term objectives for Ss.
Personal Domain
Set short-term objectives to arouse Ss
interest.
Second encounter
External Domain
(VW3) The teacher in the video, Mr Luke,
sets Ss a big task. Victor compares the
teaching of Mr Mark in VW1 with that of
Mr Luke.
Personal Domain
Split lesson for low ability Ss into sessions,
each with their own simple and short-term
goals. Victor feels empowered to keep
improving.
Third encounter
External Domain
(LA1 & 2) Colleagues videos reveal that
they are actively facing and dealing with
their difficulties. Victor listens to the sharing
of colleagues in the discussion.
Personal Domain
Short-term objectives can avoid adverse
situations. Set simple and short-term
objectives for Ss and be more patient. He
feels empowered to face his deficiencies
and to strive for excellence.
6.3.3.3.
Factors contributing to Victors learning
First, Victor has a strong will to learn. This is reflected in his voluntary participation in the TPD
programme despite his heavy workload as a Discipline Master and the fact that he is not
teaching Integrated Science. His strong will to learn keeps him engaged in the TPD activities.
He is a very active contributor during workshop discussions, and diligently completes the PTs
and FTs.
Second, Victor is an introspective person with a high level of reflectivity. In his reflections on
the videos, he tries to look at the problems from the students perspectives, and analyse both the
107
short-term and long-term effects of the teachers practices (see Encounter 3). He does not limit
himself to a superficial comparison of the different teaching strategies shown in the videos, but
moves beyond this to explore the teachers underlying attitudes towards students and
subsequently to self-interrogate his own (see Encounters 1 and 2). Moreover, he is able to link
up and integrate his learning from the VWs and LS logically and holistically. His high level of
reflectivity enables him to critically scrutinise the teaching shown in the videos and his own
teaching without losing confidence, as Sam does.
The heavy workload related to being a Discipline Master, and the need to handle student
discipline problems immediately as they arise, prevents Victor attending some of the TPD
activities. For example, although he plans to attend VW4 (and reschedules lessons to do so), the
need to deal with a serious discipline problem that occurs just before the meeting prevents him
attending. As a result, Victor attends only four out of seven meetings. Similar situations occur
during the interview sessions. For example, arriving at the school for a VW interview scheduled
for 5pm, the author found Victor still dealing with the discipline problems of a particular class
of students, despite the fact that school had ended at 3.20pm. On another occasion, a two-hour
LS interview is interrupted eight times by colleagues and phone calls asking Victor to handle
urgent discipline and administrative matters. Not only this, but Victor has not had time for lunch
before the interview starts at 4pm. This indicates the difficulty that Victor faces finding time for
professional learning and the strength of his will to learn and his desire to strive for excellence.
6.3.4.
Summary
Participation in the TPD activities has enabled Victor to refresh his teaching (e.g., revisit the
importance of setting short-term objectives for students and being patient) and empower himself
for ongoing professional development. His learning path involves three iterations between ED
(in particular, watching and discussing videos) and PD (involving both cognitive and affective
learning). This professional learning is mediated through critical reflection and introspection
and the comparison of the teaching in the videos with his own practices.
Prior to the project, the heavy workload of discipline and administrative work saps Victors will
to improve, he feels exhausted and his teaching is ageing. Watching the videos of the
exemplary teachers and his colleagues reminds him of the importance of holding onto the basic
teaching tenets and of facing his deficiencies and striving to do the best he can. This highlights
the role of using lesson videos to bring about teachers affective learning in the course of their
professional development (see Chapter 8 for details).
108
Several factors affect Victors learning in the TPD programme, most importantly, his strong will
to learn coupled with his high level of reflectivity. His heavy workload, in particular the duty of
a Discipline Master, occupies most of his time and restricts his participation in the TPD
activities. However, lack of time and reduced participation may not prevent meaningful learning
from taking place if the teacher is reflective and eager to learn.
6.4. Hugo
6.4.1.
Hugo joined SVHS 13 years ago, after his graduation. He is Head of the Integrated Science
Department. He is receptive to the practice of peer lesson observation, which he first
experienced while studying in United Kingdom. When he first heard about the TPD programme,
he discussed the possibility of joining with his long-term working and learning partner, Victor,
the Discipline Master, to seek his view. With Victors support, Hugo expressed their interest in
joining the project to the school management.
6.4.2.
Upon completion of the four VWs, Hugo identifies, in the VW interview, setting key questions
in planning a lesson, something he had never previously thought about, as the most important
learning for him.
I really hadnt thought about the fact that setting a few key questions could be so important to a
lesson The key questions can remind me of the teaching content of a lesson They can even
help me assess students learning. (VWIn, 1:26:27)
In the LS interview at the end of the TPD, Hugo regards knowing how to analyse a lesson
objectively as the most important learning for him. He attributes this to the guidance provided
by the TPD facilitator.
In the past, I commented on a certain teaching strategy rather casually without careful analysis
When analysing the videos of Mr Mark and Mr Luke, the TPD facilitator modelled to us how we
should substantiate our comments with evidence from the videos. Why this is good or important?
If we really want to improve our teaching, we need to analyse our lessons critically and objectively
to find out what is good and what is bad. (LSIn, 1:26:41)
In sum, through the TPD, Hugo has come to appreciate the importance of setting key questions
in lesson planning. He also learns the importance of undertaking critical and objective lesson
analysis for improving ones own teaching.
109
6.4.3.
A Journey of Acquiring Skills for Critical Lesson Analysis
This section focuses on the way in which Hugo acquires the skills necessary for critical lesson
analysis. His rediscovery of the importance of setting key questions in lesson planning will be
discussed in relation to content of learning in Chapter 7.
6.4.3.1.
Although studying in the UK made Hugo receptive to the practice of peer observation, it did not
equip him with the skills for critical lesson analysis. For example, he recalled that during peer
observations prior to the TPD, he mainly focused on the teaching content and the performance
skills of the teacher. He rarely paid attention to the lesson objectives and the rationale behind
the teachers approach. As the comments he made were often simply based on impression and
without supporting evidence of students learning, they tended to be superficial and subjective.
Also, being influenced by the traditional Chinese culture, Hugo and his colleagues tended to be
polite and hardly ever criticise each other. He notes, we just implement [peer observation] in a
superficial way, rather than studying our lessons thoroughly and deeply. (VWIn, 28:44)
6.4.3.2.
The practice-prominent learning path
Participation in the TPD activities offers Hugo the opportunity to develop a totally new set of
lesson analysis skills. His learning journey is detailed below.
First Encounter From External Domain and Domain of Practice
to Personal Domain
During all VWs, the TPD facilitator repeatedly emphasises the importance of focusing on
student learning instead of teacher performance when analysing the lesson videos and urges the
teachers to provide evidence from the videos to support their opinions. He also models how to
analyse a lesson in depth by referring to the transcripts of the videos. Continual guidance and
modelling by the facilitator (i.e., ED) make Hugo aware of the importance of listening to
students voices. He needs to analyse a lesson from the student perspective, to find evidence of
students learning, and to consider the objectives and the rationale behind the teachers action.
Apart from the input from the facilitator, another source of stimulus for Hugos professional
learning in ED are the perspectives offered by his colleagues. One case in point is an example
from VW3 discussion of a video episode15 in which the teacher in the video asks a student to
15
In this video episode, a student has broken a piece of glassware. Mr Mark, the teacher in the video,
makes use of this opportunity to discuss issues on lab safety. He also instructs the class on the proper
procedures of reporting lab accidents to the teacher and tidying up the broken pieces of glass. In the
discussion, Hugo agrees with Mr Marks strategy. Victor, however, disagrees, because he worries that the
110
tidy up some broken pieces of glassware. In his initial sharing, Hugo supports the teachers
action, as he believes that students will learn from this that they need to be responsible for their
own deeds. However, his colleague, Victor, holds a different opinion, which Hugo recaps in
VW interview as follows.
Personally, I agree that students need to take responsibility for tidying up the mess. However,
during the discussion, Victor voiced a different opinion He even questioned why the student
was only given a pair of cotton gloves for cleaning up the broken pieces of glass. He was attending
to very minute details and giving a lot of thought to students safety. I learned from this incident
that we should be open to different perspectives when we analyse lesson videos. (VWIn, 32:26)
By comparing and reflecting on the comments made by himself and Victor (i.e., student
responsibility VS student safety), Hugo comes to learn that he should consider every single
detail of a video episode from multiple perspectives. His learning about lesson analysis is not
restricted to understanding or changes in belief in PD, changes are also observed in his practice
(i.e., DP). For example, he provides specific evidence of student learning to support his opinions
during the video analysis discussions, and, in the PT for VW4, he cites the line numbers of the
student-teacher conversation in the transcript. This illustrates that, during the VWs, Hugo is
developing a new practice in lesson analysis that is in great contrast to his previous superficial
and subjective approach.
To sum up, participation in the VWs enables Hugo to practise lesson analysis of exemplary
videos in DP. In ED, he makes use of the lesson analysis skills modelled by the facilitator, and
is inspired by his colleagues to compare and reflect on the perspective he uses to view a video
episode. This results in changes in his understanding (in PD) and practice (in DP).
Second Encounter From External Domain and Domain of Practice
to Personal Domain
The second encounter is situated in the LS. DP includes collaborative lesson planning and
implementation of the research lesson. In his research lesson, Hugo has a very long pre-lab
discussion with students, detailing the precautions and procedures before they actually carried
out the practical work. The result of this is that his lesson overruns and some activities and
objectives of the lesson plan are not achieved.
During the lesson analysis meetings, the facilitator and Victor comment on the fact that the
prolonged pre-lab discussion makes students lose interest in the lesson and point to evidence of
student might be hurt by the broken pieces of glass. He thinks it would be better to have the lab attendant
clean up the broken pieces of glass instead of the student.
111
this as they watch the video. The evidence of unsatisfactory students learning constitutes DC
for Hugo, who accepts their comments wholeheartedly. This experience triggers Hugo to reflect
on his previous experiences of lesson observation and compare them with the current experience.
Previously when I observed a lesson, I would not look for evidence to support my opinions.
Gradually, I became more and more subjective when giving comments. Now I am doing it in a
more objective manner. If it is good, how good is it? What is the evidence? If I provide evidence,
my colleagues will be more convinced. This is more scientific, isnt it? Science is about
objectivity. It is a great shame, for us as science teachers, if we cant do that. (LSIn, 2:27)
Being a science teacher and believing in objectivity, Hugos experiences in VWs and LS
convince him of the importance of providing supporting evidence during lesson observations or
lesson analysis. In his words, this is more scientific and colleagues will be more convinced.
He regards critical lesson analysis skills as the most important learning from the year-long TPD
as these enable him to pin point the good and bad areas of his teaching and to improve, as he
says in Section 6.4.2.
Hugo comes to appreciate the importance of undertaking critical lesson analysis for his
professional development. Arguably, he is developing an analytic mind set towards his own
teaching and those of his colleagues (Sherin, 2004, p. 13). In the long run, this should enable
him to become autonomous in his own professional development. Indeed, as in the VWs, Hugo
shows corresponding changes in DP during the LS. For example, in the PT for LA2, he makes
note of video episode time codes to support his opinions. In the discussion, his opinions are
focused around specific students responses and actions. This suggests that Hugo is continually
applying his newly learned lesson analysis skills in the TPD activities. When asked how he has
learned these skills, Hugo portrays the learning journey as follows.
It was a gradual process, like a subtle influence. At the beginning, we found it hard to get used to
this mode of lesson analysis. In the LS, we started to apply the techniques of video analysis when
we watched our own videos When I got used to it, I found it very useful. (LSIn, 4:08)
In other words, the VWs that take place in the first school term prepare Hugo (and his
colleagues) for the practices of critical lesson analysis. The LS in the second term provides him
with the opportunity to apply his newly learned skills to critically and objectively analyse his
own lesson videos. In sum, he has acquired an analytic mind set of inquiry into his own teaching.
Figure 6.3 summarises Hugos learning path. In the figure, ED and DP constitute a significant
part of Hugos learning path. His learning experiences in these two domains stimulate him to
undergo reflections (as shown by the dashed arrows), which eventually result in changes in his
beliefs and understanding in PD, and, in turn, changes in DP.
112
Figure 6.3 Hugos Learning Path on Critical Lesson Analysis Skills

First encounter
Personal Domain
Hugo should pay more
attention to Ss voices
when analysing videos.
He should be attentive to
every detail of the lesson
and think from multiple
perspectives.
External Domain
(VW1-4) The facilitator guides
and models the analysis of lesson
videos. (VW3) Victor, his
colleague, attends to very minute
details in the video and comments
from a different perspective.
Domain of Practice
Hugo analyses and discusses
exemplary videos with
colleagues and the
facilitator. He provides
supporting evidence by
quoting the corresponding
line no. in the transcript.
Second encounter
Personal Domain
Providing supporting
evidence is convincing.
He appreciates that
critical lesson analysis
can enhance his TPD.
6.4.3.3.
External Domain
(LA1 & 2) One colleague
comments that his pre-lab was too
long and Ss didnt learn much.
Ss did not learn much because not
everything on the lesson plan was
covered.
Domain of Practice
He conducts the research
lesson and is video
recorded. When he reviews
and discusses his video and
those of his colleagues, he
provides supporting
evidence by quoting the
corresponding time code of
the video episodes.
Factors contributing to Hugos learning
First, Hugo has a rather strong will to learn. He initiates participation in the TPD programme,
which shows that he wants to improve and undertakes action to improve. He is open to others,
listens well and pays attention to the advice and comments of others during the TPD activities.
For instance, in Encounter 1, he is alert to the different opinion voiced by Victor. He is receptive
to the comments of the facilitator and Victor on his prolonged pre-lab discussion (see Encounter
2). All this suggests that he is willing to learn and improve.
Second, Hugos moderate level of reflectivity enables him to draw insights from his TPD
experiences. In particular, he is able to describe and analyse what he sees. For instance, in
Encounter 2, he is able to compare and contrast the differences between his previous and current
practices of lesson analysis, providing reasons why the current practice is preferable. That he is
aware of the different perspectives held by himself and Victor (in Encounter 1) is also a sign of
his moderate level of reflectivity.
Being the Head of the Integrated Science Department also has a bearing on Hugos learning in
113
this project. Since the school is planning to implement collaborative lesson planning and peer
observation in all subjects in the near future, Hugo feels the need to align with the school policy.
He thinks that joining the project can help prepare the teachers in his department for the
upcoming changes in policy. As the Head of the first department to implement these changes, he
also wants to set a good example for other departments. He also feels obliged to set a good
example for his colleagues during TPD, for example by completing the reflection tasks required
of him before reminding his colleagues to complete them. In sum, his role as a Department
Head has pushed him to be very engaged with the TPD activities for several reasons.
6.4.4.
Summary
For Hugo, the most important learning is not a teaching theory or strategy but a practice and
skills that can help him to improve his teaching autonomously. In lesson observations prior to
the TPD, he focuses on the teaching strategies and performance of the teacher, but seldom
considers the objectives of a lesson, the rationale of a strategy, or the learning of students.
Participation in the TPD activities permits him to practise and grasp the skills for critical lesson
analysis, including focusing on students learning, and finding evidence to support his opinions.
His learning path consists of two iterations that mainly involve ED, DP and PD. Enactment in
ED and DP trigger Hugos reflection on his previous and current practices of lesson analysis.
This results in changes in his PD (e.g., the role of critical lesson analysis skills in his
professional development) and DP (i.e., analysing a lesson critically and objectively).
There are three factors contributing to his learning. He has a strong will to learn and a moderate
level of reflectivity. As the Department Head, he feels the need to align himself with the school
policy, and to push himself to complete the TPD tasks before asking his colleagues to do so.
Participation in the TPD activities (e.g., enactment in ED and DP) plays a crucial role in his
learning (see Chapter 8 for details).
6.5. Stone
6.5.1.
Stone, another newcomer to the school, has 18 years of teaching experience. He mainly teaches
Physics. The nature of the students in his previous school was similar to that of his students in
the current school. That is, academic low achievers with serious discipline problems.
6.5.2.
At the end of the VWs, Stone identifies the following as the most impressive learning for him
during the VW interview:
114

Mr Mark [the teacher in the video] shows an extremely positive attitude towards one students
answer. He even claps his hands to acknowledge his appreciation of the students answer Junior
form students care about this [type of acknowledgement] very much. It makes them happy and
motivates them to give better answers. (VWIn, 1:00:21)
Not surprisingly, he nominates a related insight as the most important learning upon completion
of all the TPD activities, as he explains in the LS interview:
Waiting for students answers more patiently I believe that, from the perspective of students,
they care a lot about how much attention a teacher pays to them. So, I regard this as the most
important learning for me. (LSIn, 50:42)
Together, the above excerpts suggest that Stone is mindful of a teachers attitude towards
students contribution in the lesson and how this affect students learning. The next section is a
recap of his learning journey.
6.5.3.
6.5.3.1.
Rediscovery of the Importance of Patience in Teaching

The goals of science teaching, as espoused by Stone, are to teach students scientific methods,
scientific attitudes and to apply scientific knowledge to daily life. In order to achieve these
goals, he says, the first thing is to arouse students interest in learning science. This is especially
important for students with low academic ability and motivation. For this reason, he often tries
to make learning fun for his students and relevant to their daily life. He also understands the
importance of providing chances for students to express their ideas, and respecting their
contributions in the lessons. Stone claims that he knew this before the TPD project. In other
words, the important learning Stone cites above is not new learning to him but a rediscovery of
something he learned before a reaffirmation of its importance!
6.5.3.2.
A doubtful and questionable learning journey
Stones learning path on rediscovering the importance of encouraging students contribution to

the lesson and being patient to wait for students answers is detailed below. Yet, as we go along,
readers may question how much Stone has genuinely learned from participating in the TPD
project.
First Encounter - From External Domain to Personal Domain

After watching and discussing videos 16 of Mr Mark and Mr Luke in VW1, 2 and 4 (i.e.,
16
In the exemplary videos, Mr Mark and Mr Luke (the teachers in the videos) often praise their students
for their contributions to the lessons. For instance, Mr Mark praises his students for their efforts in raising
and answering questions, as well as critiquing and commenting on peers views. And he often does not
115
enactment in ED), in response to the question What are the new insights you have gained?
Stone put down the following closely related ideas, supposedly with due reflection, in the FTs
after each of the VWs:
The teachers positive responses towards questions raised by students during the lesson. (VW1FT)
The teacher always responds positively to students answers, even if they are wrong. (VW2-FT)
The teacher always responds positively to students answers instead of just giving them the
correct answer. (VW4-FT)
The above three new insights are clearly similar in both content and depth. This might reflect
that Stone is genuinely concerned about the way in which a teacher deals with students
questions and answers. However, the fact that he simply repeats what he sees in the videos
without providing any explanation of why it is important to his teaching or students learning
suggests a low level reflectivity. In the VWIn, when probed on this, he briefly mentions, as cited
in Section 6.5.2, S1 students care about this very much. This makes them happy and motivates
them to give better answers. In other words, he is not able to differentiate between the learning
that occurred on each of the three occasions (VW1, 2 and 4) neither in terms of content nor in
terms of the depth of his explanation. Hence, in Figure 6.4, this learning is treated as one
encounter because his understanding has not been deepened or increased.
A related new insight gained by Stone in the first encounter is that teachers should provide
chances for students to express their opinions and ideas in pre-lab and post-lab discussions. In
VW1, after watching and discussing the video of Mr Mark (i.e., enactment in ED), Stone put
down the following as his new insight in the FT:
Discussion of experimental error is essential for the students. Post-lab discussion can enrich
students understanding of the concepts. Pre-lab discussion on the aim of the experiment is
valuable. (VW1-FT)
Stone seems to believe that pre- and post-lab discussions are very important and seems to
understand the underlying reasons well (e.g., to ensure students understand the experimental
procedure). Also, that he needs to allocate more time for student discussion. This constitutes a
change in his belief (i.e., PD). However, it transpires that this is just an espoused belief and not
one that he acts upon in a later research lesson (see the Second Encounter below).
To sum up, enactment in ED (watching and discussing exemplary videos) reminds Stone of the
importance of providing students with opportunities to express themselves (in pre- and post-lab
indicate the correct answer until he has listened to all the students views. Similarly, Mr Luke often gives
students positive reinforcement in order to encourage them to speak up and engage in learning activities.
116
discussion), and showing appreciation of students answers (even though the answer is
wrong). It seems as if Stone genuinely encourages and values students contributions in the
lesson. However, his practice in the research lesson tells another story.
Second Encounter From Domain of Practice and External Domain
to Personal Domain
The second encounter embraces activities in LS. DP refers to the implementation of the research
lesson while ED includes discussion and opinions from the facilitator in the Lesson Analysis
Meetings. Concerning DP, two episodes in the post-lab discussion suggest some inconsistency
with what Stone says in the first encounter.
In the first episode, at the end of an experiment, Stone asks a group of students to record their
results on the blackboard. Noticing that the reported results are wrong, Stone simply erases them
without showing any appreciation of the students contribution. Then he invites another group to
report their results on the board. In the second episode, when going through the experimental
worksheet (see Table 6.1 in Section 6.2.3.2), Stone does not prompt students to discuss which is
a better definition of density as agreed in the research lesson plan. Instead, he merely writes the
answer on the blackboard and asks students to copy it onto their worksheet. Obviously, what
Stone does contradicts what he has espoused in the VWs, namely that a teacher should respond
positively to students answers even if they are wrong and that post-lab discussion can enrich
students understanding of the concepts.
In reviewing his own lesson video before LA1, as reflected in his PT, Stone does not pay
particular attention to the two episodes described above nor their possible negative influences
on students learning; at least he does not consider them worth mentioning in the discussion
during the meeting. Instead, in the PT for LA1, he attributes students failure to carry out the
experiment properly to a lack of lesson time, students lack of interest in the lesson, and their
poor maths skills. In other words, he attributes the cause of the problem to a source outside
himself (Van Eekelen, et al., 2006).
Despite the fact that Stone does not mention these two episodes in his PT, the TPD facilitator
thinks that they have the potential for inducing productive discussion among the teachers. Hence
he brings them up for discussion in LA1, and points out that Stone, for instance, in letting
students directly copy his answer from the blackboard might have missed an opportunity for
assessing students learning progress. In the same meeting, videos of Sam and Hugo are also
discussed. Reviewing and discussing videos of his own and his colleagues (i.e., enactment in
ED) triggers Stone to reflect on his own teaching, as he puts,
117
The discovery approach has been used in Science education for many years. It is essential. The
problem is: To what extent can a teacher implement it? I can see from the lesson videos, my
colleagues can implement the discovery approach more thoroughly than I do I do not
implement it enough. Very often I dont care about finding out what has gone wrong in the
procedure and simply give students the answers. I just dont want to say very much at those
moments However, if I was more patient, I could have given students more opportunities to
think things over or elaborate more. (LSIn, 5:32)
Clearly, as the above excerpt shows, Stone is aware of the importance of waiting patiently for
students answers. This is the first time he reflects on his teaching and admits his own
inadequacies, an event that is triggered by comparing his own research lesson video with that of
his colleagues. However, he still focuses primarily on his own teaching performance (i.e., not
implementing the discovery approach as thoroughly as his colleagues) rather than the students
learning. In the LS interview, when he is asked why it is important for students to discover the
answers by themselves, he responds as follows:
If a student gives the teacher an answer that is then accepted and taken as representative of the
opinion of the whole class, the student will feel very proud. The effect will be very different from
asking them to copy the answers given by the teacher. Students love to be praised. (LSIn, 4:57)
It seems that Stone does not fully grasp the main point made by the facilitator (i.e., to assess
students learning by scrutinising and following up on their answers on the board) but sticks to
his original belief (i.e., making students happy in the lesson). He does not listen well to others
opinions, and fails to question his own beliefs. This is why he chooses waiting for students
answers more patiently as the most important learning, because, as cited in Section 6.5.2,
students care a lot how much attention a teacher pays to them. It is doubtful and questionable
if Stone really re-learns the above or just simply repeats long-held beliefs.
To sum up, Stone reports that he has learned the importance of being patient in waiting for
students answers. His learning path is recapped in Figure 6.4 and comprises two encounters
involving both PD and ED. The second encounter also involves DP. As Stone is a teacher with
low reflectivity, the arrows connecting to the Personal Domain are represented by a thin dashed
line.
118
Figure 6.4 Stones Learning Path on Waiting for Students Answers Patiently
First encounter
Personal Domain
Teacher should give
positive responses to Ss
answers, and allow more
time for Ss to discuss
Second encounter
Personal Domain
Ss should discover the
answer themselves. Teacher
should wait for Ss answers
more patiently.
6.5.3.3.
External Domain
(VW1, 2 & 4) Stone watched and
discussed videos of Mr Mark and
Mr Luke who often praise Ss,
and have in depth discussions
with Ss
External Domain
(LA1 & LA2) The facilitator
raised his concerns about losing
the chance to assess Ss learning
when Stone and his colleagues
watched and compared lesson
videos of each other.
Domain of Practice
Stone conducted the research
lesson and was video recorded.
He erased Ss wrong answers
from the blackboard, and gave
answers directly without any
discussion with Ss.
Factors hindering Stones learning
First, Stone does not see the need to learn. He holds on to established teaching habits (see
Encounter 2). He attributes the cause of the problem (students not learning well) to external
sources (e.g., inadequate lesson time, students lack of interest). He is not open to others and
does not listen well to the opinions of others. As shown in Encounter 2, he does not grasp the
key idea of the facilitators comment, but constantly refers back to his established belief of
making learning fun for students. Being unable to see the need to learn, he is only marginally
engaged in the TPD activities. He fails to attend two of the meetings and very often arrives late
or leaves early.
Stone shows a low level of reflectivity. In the reflection tasks, he simply re-states or recalls what
he sees in the videos without analysis or reflection on what he has seen or related issues. Most
of the time he fails to provide reasons to substantiate his views as to why certain
teaching/learning strategies are good for students learning. His reflection remains in the
behavioural level, that is, he restricts himself to the observable features of the videos and fails to
interpret students underlying thinking. He clings to long-held beliefs and habits of mind and
rarely questions his assumptions and perspectives. All this suggests that he does not engage in
deep reflection, and that his learning remains shallow.
119
6.5.4.
Summary
Stone reports learning related to encouraging and valuing students contributions to the lesson,
in particular waiting patiently for students answers. However, these ideas were strongly held by
him before the TPD. Participation in the TPD merely reinforces his long established beliefs.
Stones learning path involves two iterations. Enactment in ED and DP leads to changes in PD.
Though Stone reports learning in PD (e.g., giving positive responses to students answers)
several times, the content and the depth of his learning remain at the same level. His actions in
DP even contradict what he reports. Despite his claim that waiting for students answers more
patiently is his most important learning, it is uncertain whether he has learned this through the
TPD or whether he is simply restating his espoused beliefs.
Disappointedly, Stone does not see any need to learn. His lack of a will to learn results in
marginal engagement in the TPD activities. His low level of reflectivity also keeps his learning at
a superficial level. Overall, participating in the TPD activities has had little impact, if any, on his
professional learning.
6.6. Summary of the Most Important Learning of Teachers in SVHS

Table 6.2 summarizes the most important learning to teachers in SVHS. Similar to teachers in
BFC, teachers in SVHS select different learning important to them and have undergone unique
learning processes. Teachers in SVHS seem to appreciate affective and social learning as half of
the important learning falls into these two domains. A more detailed discussion on the
commonalities and differences of teacher learning can be found in Chapter 7.
Table 6.2 Summary of the Most Important Learning to Teachers in SVHS
Pre-active
Sam
Victor
Hugo
Stone
Knowledge & Skills

Interactive
Students noisiness
may not be equivalent
to students not
learning
Set short-term
objectives for
students
Identify key
questions for a
lesson
Post-active

Regains confidence in
own teaching and
identity as a competent
IS teacher
Feels empowered to
strive for excellence
Lesson
analysis
skills
Social learning/
community building
Receiving recognition
from colleagues and the
TPD facilitator
Increasing trust and
bonding with colleagues
Developing a
collaborative spirit with
colleagues
Wait for students

answers more
patiently
Unlike teachers in BFC, the social learning of teachers in SVHS varies, from receiving
recognition to developing trust and bonding. This may reflect the uneven development of the
community of SVHS which will be discussed in the next section.
120
6.7. An Unstable CoP

In this section, Wengers (1998, 2003) framework of a community of practice (CoP) is adapted
to account for the changing characteristics of the community to which the teachers belong, to
discuss how those changes have been accomplished, and how they have contributed to the
teachers professional learning. Changes in the CoP are organised according to the three
community dimensions (a joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a shared repertoire) as
detailed below.
6.7.1.
A Yet-to-develop Joint Enterprise
In this CoP, the two old timers initiate participation in the TPD project before the newcomers
joined the school. The two new teachers are thus not involved in the decision to participate in
this TPD programme, they are just informed of the decision and merely submit to participate.
Coercive alignment and other individual factors (e.g., the teachers will to learn, busy workload,
etc) results in various levels of engagement. Table 6.3 summarises the TPD activity attendance
of the teachers in SVHS. Hugo and Sam have a core position in the CoP. Victor participates
peripherally. Stone, because of his low will to learn, participates marginally in the TPD
activities. Various levels of engagement are not conducive to the development of a joint
enterprise.
Table 6.3 Attendance of Teachers in SVHS

Sam
Hugo
Victor
Stone
VW1
VW2
VW3
VW4
LP
LA1
LA2
Participation in the TPD programme affords teachers opportunities to negotiate a joint enterprise.
However, the teachers do not fully utilise the opportunity to do so. This may be because the
teachers have not learned how to engage in collaboration and raise troubling issues (see Section
6.7.2). During the TPD meetings, teachers share their opinions and strategies for how to deal
with students discipline problems, a common concern to all teachers. Nonetheless, there is no
follow-up within the Department after the sharing. No common solution or communal approach
to the problem is reached, as Hugo admits in the LS interview.
We seldom unified our practices. We just threw out our opinions We did not have any followup in our department since our departmental members are very busy. However, if time allows, it
would be worth having some follow-up. I have never thought of this before. I think you are right.
We are a community. Something more could be done. (Hugo, LSIn, 58:19, 1:20:04)
121
Clearly, a joint enterprise has not been formed within the community. Even the Department
Head is unaware that members form a community and that they could follow-up with colleagues
to jointly design a common solution to the problem until the researcher asks him about this in a
post-programme interview. This may be related to the initial purpose of their participation. The
Department Head saw the Department as the pioneer of co-teaching for other subjects in the
school. However, both he and the other participating teachers have overlooked the fact that the
ultimate goal of collaboration is to improve teaching and students learning. This imagination of
the community, in Wengers terms, is not conducive to the formation of a joint enterprise.
Members in this CoP have not worked together to resolve the problem of students discipline.
Nor have they come up with a more long-term communal goal to enhance students learning.
Without a common goal, it may be difficult to keep the learning energy of this community at a
high level after the completion of the TPD programme.
To sum up, the members of this CoP have yet to develop a joint enterprise. The coercion
alignment, various levels of engagement and the view of teachers on their participation in the
TPD are not conducive to the negotiation of a long-term communal goal. Without a long-term
common vision, the community may not be able to keep the learning energy at a high level.
6.7.2.
Unequal Mutual Engagement
For the second dimension, mutual engagement, there are two major types of opinion within the
community. First, the two old timers, Hugo and Victor, very much appreciated the improved
relationship among colleagues. Hugo is grateful for the ideas expressed by his colleagues on
how to improve his teaching, and feels that a collaborative spirit has been formed within the
community (LSIn, 0:39). Victor treasures the increased trust and bonding between colleagues,
as he says below.
The second most important learning is that this programme can really help me to build a close
relationship between my colleagues and myself. It is different. It is really different. When you
approach them, now, at least you won't feel that they are strangers. (Victor, LSIn, 1:40:50)
However, the two newcomers, Sam and Stone, only feel that they have got to know more about
their colleagues. They make no mention of a relationship or sense of trust among the members.
This is evident in the following response from Sam.
The opportunities to collaborate with the others have increased. We are in touch with each other
more. So we understand each other more. This has positive effects on teaching and the division of
resources. (Sam, LSIn, 1:34:42)
Clearly, the CoP in SVHS has yet to develop a sense of a mutual relationship and trust between
122
members. The two old timers feel that they have built a better relationship with each other,
whereas the newcomers feel that they have simply got to know each other, rather than trusting
and collaborating with each other. This is in great contrast to BFC, where all teachers recognise
the trust and team spirit that has been built within the community.
One thing that these two communities have in common is that engagement in the TPD activities
(especially watching and discussing videos of exemplary videos and their own videos) has
enabled members to know more about each others teaching practices and thinking. For example,
Sam discovers that his colleagues face the same problem of students discipline and that his
teaching is not especially bad when compared to that of his colleagues (see Section 6.2.3.2).
Recognition from his colleagues also boosts Sams confidence about his teaching. Victor also
comments on how participation in the TPD increases the mutual support among the group:
Through this programme, I can see how colleagues teach I realise that my colleagues are facing
the same problems and difficulties as I am. This helps us identify with each other more Because
everyone suffers the same experiences, I feel we support and encourage each other more. It
doesnt matter whether the teaching is successful or not, through discussion and sharing of our
teaching videos, the bonding among us grows stronger. (Victor, LSIn, 1:10:58, 1:13:15)
Participation in the TPD programme provides teachers with a common experience that helps to
create a closer relationship among them. According to Victor, this bond has helped teachers to
regain the morale of teaching. But Victor is a rare case in this community because he has
been cooperating with Hugo for a long time. He has already built up a trusting relationship with
Hugo, and knows how to interact with him. He is able to speak his mind frankly. Engagement in
the TPD activities has enhanced his understanding of Hugo and strengthened the relationship
between the two of them, if not between him and his other colleagues.
Some members behave very differently from Victor and do not speak truthfully in the discussion.
For example, Sam deliberately does not answer the questions in the PT of LA2 that ask him to
name the episodes in his colleagues lessons during which students were not learning well.
Clearly Sam does not feel comfortable commenting on the less successful aspects of his
colleagues teaching. In addition, although he would like to know why his colleagues do not
discuss the definition of density with students, he does not raise this question in the discussion
because he has reservations about discussing [his] colleagues videos (LA2-FT).
Because I am a newcomer, I am not very familiar with my colleagues. I am not sure whether they
are open to discuss their teaching publicly or accept the opinions of others, I have some
reservations here. I am worried that the others wont accept my opinions so easily. (Sam, LSIn,
58:09)
123
Clearly, after the year-long TPD programme, Sam is still concerned about how to comment on
his colleagues videos. He does not know his colleagues well enough to be able to voice his
opinions honestly. In Wengers terms, Sam has not discovered how to engage in the community
and his ability to raise troubling issues in the discussion has not been greatly increased.
Not only the teachers engagement in the TPD is unequal, but also their perceptions of their
roles in the CoP, a further sign that a mutual relationship has not developed among the members
of the community. Table 6.4 summarises the responses of the four teachers to the question,
How do you perceive your role in the learning community of the TPD programme?
Table 6.4 Summary of Teachers Perceptions of their Roles in the CoP
Teacher
Hugo
Victor
Sam
Stone
Roles perceived by the teachers

A coordinator: To be responsible for the coordination work. As a panel, very often I
coordinate the times of the meetings, the TPD materials, etc. Sometimes I need to make
decisions. (LSIn, 1:18:45)
An outsider: Since I have not been video recorded, my role is to give opinions. I am an
outsider. I am a stander-by. (LSIn, 1:50:58)
A beginner: Since this is my first time to teach IS. I have no experience to share with my
colleagues. I can only listen to and learn from their sharing. Hence, I am a learner, a
beginner. (LSIn, 34:20)
A participant: My role is a participant because I took part. (LSIn, 49:54)
Clearly, the roles as perceived by the teachers are unequal, if not hierarchical. Hugo focuses on
the managerial aspect the fact that he is the Department Head and in charge of the
coordination work. The responses of Victor and Stone reflect their peripheral participation in the
TPD. Sam emphasises his inexperience as a beginner learning from his experienced colleagues.
In contrast to the teachers in BFC, the teachers in SVHS do not identify themselves as learners
or contributors to each others learning. Even Chloe in BFC, who has less experience than Sam,
is confident in her contribution to her colleagues learning. It is argued that the teachers in
SVHS do not see themselves as equal learning partners. Some are also unaware of the
interdependence among them and do not see how they can support each others learning
reciprocally.
To sum up, the members of the CoP in SVHS have got to know more about each others
concerns and problems through participation in the TPD activities. However, a mutual trust and
relationship has not developed between all members in the team. The old timers have
experienced increased bonding and a strengthening of their relationship, whereas the newcomers
have yet to learn how to engage and speak truthfully. It is unclear whether the bonding and
relationship between these two sets of teachers is strong enough to hold the community together.
124
6.7.3.
An Unevenly Shared Repertoire
Through participation in the TPD programme, teachers in SVHS have produced a shared
repertoire (e.g., a lesson plan, lesson videos, completed reflection tasks, and a common
experience of participation in the TPD). The teachers have equal opportunities to access this
repertoire. Even the least engaged teacher, Stone, has recognised the creation of a shared
repertoire, as he says in the LS interview, the density lesson is a product of collaborative
teaching. Without this project, we would not have this lesson. We would just look at the textbook
and teach in our own way. (Stone, LSIn, 55:21)
Furthermore, the facilitator introduces video analysis skills and related materials (e.g., reflection
tasks, videos and transcripts), and persuades teachers to adopt them. Not all teachers have
adopted the practice of lesson analysis. As evident in the case reports in Sections 6.2 to 6.4, Sam,
Victor and Hugo have developed routines for video analysis (e.g., focusing on students learning,
and substantiating their comments with specific evidence). Hugo even regards the lesson
analysis skills as the most important learning he gained from the TPD programme. However,
Stone fails to grasp the practice of providing specific evidence of students learning and
focusing on students learning instead of teachers performance. Stones inability to grasp the
lesson analysis routines is partly due to individual factors related to him (e.g., his marginal
engagement in the TPD activities and his low level of reflection), and partly due to the fact that
the community does not discuss openly the purposes and concerns arisen from analysis of
videos. Thus, he did not have a good understanding of the purpose and value of these practices.
Engagement in the TPD activities has not guaranteed a negotiation of the meaning of the
repertoire, especially the use of videos. Teachers in this CoP have reservations and worries
about commenting on each others videos. For example, as discussed in Section 6.7.2, Sam does
not feel at ease commenting on his colleagues lesson videos. He prefers to analyse and discuss
the videos of teachers in other schools as there is no stress in this. Victor and Stone are also
concerned about hurting their colleagues feelings and for this reason rephrase their comments
to be less direct. Despite teachers reservations and worries, they do not discuss their problems
openly or coordinate their interpretations on the use of videos and other artefacts as the teachers
in BFC do (see Section 5.6.3). Without reconciliation of their various interpretations, teachers
concerns about the analysis and discussion of each others videos have not been eased.
Researchers have highlighted the importance of establishing communication norms in videobased TPD as the sharing classroom is likely to seem threatening to many teachers (Borko, et al.,
2008). Facing the psychological burden of hurting their colleagues or causing disharmony,
teachers hesitate to honestly analyse and discuss each others strengths and weaknesses. As a
result, teachers cannot participate in the TPD wholeheartedly for their own professional learning.
125
The discussion is not vigorous and does not have any inspiring points, as Stone says.
Without negotiation and coordination of different members interpretations, members in the
community hold divergent understandings of the practice of video analysis. Some teachers are
not clear about the ways video analysis of ones teaching can help improve their teaching. For
example, Stone cannot distinguish between video analysis and lesson observation and treats
video analysis as a replacement for lesson observation. Thus, he watches the video episodes
once and provides comments based on his immediate responses. Sam presumes that the learning
gained from analysis of exemplary videos is the same as that gained from analysis of his own
video and that of his colleagues. Only Victor and Hugo have an understanding of how analysis
of their own teaching videos can help them to improve their teaching in the future. For instance,
Hugo foresees that lesson analysis skills can help him to pursue continuous professional
development autonomously in the future. Given the drawbacks of video analysis, without a clear
vision of how it can help them to move forward (i.e., imagination), it is unsure whether the
teachers will continuously employ this practice in their future engagement.
To sum up, a repertoire (e.g., lesson plan, lesson videos) has been created through members
engagement in the TPD activities. Not all teachers are able to reflect on how the repertoire can
help them improve their teaching. Some are passive subscribers to the things required of them
by the TPD programme. They do not voice their concerns and worries about commenting on
their colleagues videos or attempt to negotiate its meaning. As a result, not all teachers adopt
the routines of video analysis. It is unsure whether the community will continuously adopt the
repertoire in their future engagement.
6.7.4.
Summary of the Characteristics of the CoP in SVHS
For the IS Department at SVHS, teachers have got to know more about each others teaching
and concerns, but have yet to develop a strong bonding or mutual relationship. No common
vision for science teaching or consensus on how to deal with students discipline problems has
been formed. They have an unevenly shared repertoire. That is, not all teachers have adopted it
and used it to improve their teaching. Table 6.5 provides a summary of the characteristics of the
community in SVHS and the contributing factors for community development.
To sum up, without a common vision to maintain the learning energy, a strong relationship to
keep the members together, and a repertoire to sustain teachers self-awareness of their learning
and community development, the sustainability of this CoP is uncertain. Please refer to Section
7.3 for a more thorough discussion on how the characteristics of the CoP affect the learning of
teachers in SVHS.
126
Table 6.5 Summary of the Characteristics of the CoP in SVHS

A Joint Enterprise
In the discussion, teachers
have exchanged their
opinions and strategies for
how to deal with students
discipline problem, a
common concern for all.
However, they have not had
any follow-up and do not
have a long-term common
vision or coherent strategy
for how to deal with this
problem.
Mutual Engagement
Discussion and analysis of
their colleagues videos
helps them get to know each
others teaching practices.
However, trust has not been
formed among all members.
Not all members have
learned how to engage, and
speak truthfully. For
example, Sam has
reservations about
commenting on his
colleagues videos.
A Shared Repertoire
Teachers develop a shared
repertoire during their
participation in the TPD.
However, they have not
negotiated the meaning of
the repertoire. It is unsure
whether teachers will adopt
this shared repertoire in
further engagement in the
community.
Imagination
Some teachers viewed

themselves as a pioneer of
co-teaching in the school.
This view has not
facilitated the formation of
a long-term communal
vision for science
education. The community
does not look forward to its
future development.
Teachers still work

individually. The newcomers
have not recognised the
interdependence of the
group. They have no idea of
how members in the
community will support
each other.
Teachers are not self-aware

of the meaning of the
shared repertoire. Some
members do not have a
clear idea of how the
repertoire helps them to
move forward. For
example, Stone is not
conscious of the uses of
video and treats video
analysis as a replacement
for lesson observation.
Alignment
Participation in the TPD is

by coercive alignment. The
two old timers have made
the decision before the
newcomers join the school.
The newcomers participate
in the TPD by mere
submission. As a result, the
teachers have different
levels of engagement.

TPD with unequal roles,
(e.g., coordinator, beginner,
outsider, participant). This
unequal identification of
teachers and lack of
collaborative culture may
hinder the development of a
strong relationship and trust
within the community.
The facilitator introduces

the video analysis practice
and related materials
(reflection tasks, videos and
transcript, etc) to the
teachers. Some teachers
passively subscribe to do
what is required of them.
Not all teachers have
adopted the meaning and
routines of video analysis
(e.g., providing evidence
and focusing on student
learning).
Engagement
127
Chapter 7 Cross-case Comparison
Chapter 7 Looking across the Cases

This chapter compares the learning of the individual teachers and characteristic features of the
two communities of practice (CoPs) reported in Chapter 5 and 6. Section 7.1 focuses on the
similarities and differences in what the teachers have learned (i.e., RQ1) and the impact on the
teachers. Section 7.2 accounts for the learning process (i.e., the focus of RQ2) through which
teachers arrive at their important learning. Commonalities and differences in the learning
process are identified and discussed. The use of IMTPG in studying the teacher learning process
is also discussed. Section 7.3 discusses the factors (i.e., the focus of RQ3) that account for
teacher learning. Both individual factors and communal factors will be covered.
7.1. What Teachers Learn

This section addresses RQ1, namely: What do teachers learn in the CoPs? Table 7.1 summarises
the most important learning by the teachers as reported in Chapters 5 and 6.
Table 7.1 Teachers Most Important Learning
Ben
Knowledge & Skills

Pre-active
Interactive
Identify key
questions for a
lesson, and ways to
assess students more
comprehensively
Post-active
Listen more to
students voices
Sam
Students
noisiness may not
be equivalent to
students not
learning
Victor
Hugo
Stone
Set short-term
objectives for
students
Identify key
questions for a
lesson
Social learning
Feels confident of
Feeling like a team
achieving his goals of
has found ways to do so
Felix
Chloe
Feels confident of
realising his goals of
has seen Mr Mark do so
Feels confident to admit
own shortcomings
Regains confidence in
own teaching and
identity as a competent
IS teacher
Feels empowered to
strive for excellence
Lesson
analysis
skills
Building a trusting
relationship with
colleagues
Developing intense
cooperation with
colleagues
Receiving recognition
from colleagues and the
TPD facilitator
Increasing trust and

bonding with colleagues
Developing a
collaborative spirit with
colleagues
Wait for students

answers more
patiently
As evident in Table 7.1, teacher learning in the TPD programme is more than just the
acquisition of knowledge and skills, but also learning in affective domain as well as social
128
domain. The nature of each kind of learning and its impact on the teachers concerned are
detailed below.
7.1.1.
Knowledge and Skills
Gains in knowledge and skills related to teaching are most frequently reported by the teachers as
their most important learning. In Table 7.1, this is further divided into three sub-groups. Those
related to (i) lesson planning (i.e., pre-active), (ii) interaction during the lesson (i.e., interactive),
(iii) post-lesson review (i.e., post-active). For example, Bens learning on lesson planning and
assessing students, Hugos learning on identifying key questions for a lesson, and Victors
learning on setting simple and short-term objectives for low ability students are all related to the
pre-active phase of teaching. Chloes learning on listening more to students voices, Sams
understanding on students noisiness, and Stones learning on waiting patiently for students
answers are related to the interactive phase of teaching. Hugos learning of lesson analysis skills
is related to the post-active phase of teaching.
Most of the ideas in the first two groups (e.g., identifying key questions for a lesson, waiting for
students answers more patiently) seem to be sort of foundation that should have been covered
in initial teacher education. It is therefore slightly puzzling that this group of experienced
teachers still nevertheless regards these as their most important learning from the year-long TPD
programme. The teachers admit that these ideas were not entirely new to them; that they had
learned them in their pre-service or in-service teacher education courses. However, when they
first learned these ideas, they did not see their value or importance, and regarded them as too
theoretical to help them resolve practical teaching problems. They found practising these
theories difficult and rarely practised them in their own classrooms. This is consistent with the
criticism of the overemphasis in teacher education of theory that is irrelevant to the reality of
teaching practice in schools (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006) and, thus, exerts a limited
impact on teachers (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998).
In revisiting these fundamental ideas during the TPD activities, however, the teachers come to
appreciate the usefulness and value they failed to recognise in their previous encounters. Such
revitalisation of the fundamentals is important for the professional learning of experienced
teachers. As Victor says, it refreshes his teaching. Bens case is even more revealing. He did
not see the importance of lesson planning and assessment of student learning in his initial
teacher education and early years of teaching. Revisiting these fundamentals during the TPD
activities actually changes his preconceptions and allows him to relive their importance.
Eventually he realises that these fundamentals are key to achieving his goals of science
education (see Section 5.2.3.2). This corroborates with Lewiss (2005) study where the teachers
129
are able to establish a stronger connection of their practice to their long-term goal of teaching.
In comparison, Chloe and Hugo recognised the importance of these fundamentals during their
initial teacher education and practised them in their early years of teaching, but then abandoned
these practices because of their increasing workload, the changing nature of students, and the
influence of their colleagues and school culture, etc. Such wash out effect is not unique to Hong
Kong (So & Watkins, 2005), but also occur around the world (Calderhead & Shorrock, 1997;
Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981). The present study suggests that
revisiting the fundamentals may help to prevent these initial setbacks and thus prevent further
deterioration of thinking and practice as teachers are given opportunities to experience and
develop a renewed understanding of and meaning for the ideas/concepts that they have already
learned. For example, Chloe accepted the importance of paying attention to students needs
during her teacher education course without fully understanding why she needed to do so.
Revisiting the ideas in the TPD programme enables her to relive the importance of these
strategies and re-adopt them into her teaching. This points to the importance of grounding the
learning of theories in classroom practices.
These cases suggest that revisiting the fundamentals of teaching is important to in-service
teachers. This is not only applicable to novice teachers like Chloe, but also to experienced
teachers such as Victor and Ben. Teachers in different stages of their career may have different
needs concerning their professional development (see Berliner, 1994; Fuller, 1969; Michael
Huberman, 1989). Hence, opportunities for teachers to revisit fundamentals in TPD activities
are needed to enable teachers to rediscover an important theory or practice that they may have
overlooked, or that they knew but have forgotten or abandoned for various reasons. This is in
line with the idea that teacher education is not an end to itself but rather a step along the road to
effective classroom teaching (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, cited in Davis & Smithey, 2009). The
present study also illustrates how teachers can be helped to revisit these fundamentals through
video-mediated activities that are grounded in their own practices.
As shown in Table 7.1, lesson analysis skills are cited by Hugo as his most important learning.
Compared to the fundamentals described above, lesson analysis skills have generally not been
given sufficient attention in teacher education courses in the past (perhaps due to the restrictions
of video technology at that time). It is therefore not surprising that Hugo considers this to be his
most important learning. In fact, the data reveals that Chloe, Felix, Ben, Sam and Victor also
exhibited a gradual improvement in their lesson analysis skills as they participated in the TPD
activities. This, in turn, results in the important learning discussed above. For example, during
lesson analysis, the teachers have shifted their focus more to student learning instead of teacher
130
performance (e.g., see Chloe in Section 5.4.3.2 and Sam in 6.2.3.2), increasingly giving more
supporting evidence to substantiate their opinions (e.g., see Victor in Section 6.3.3.2 and Hugo
in Section 6.4.3.2), and playing more attention to the interaction between the teacher and
students by making reference to the transcripts of the videos (e.g., see Felix in Section 5.3.3.2
and Hugo in Section 6.4.3.2). In sum, these findings add to the literature on using video to
develop teachers ability to notice pedagogically significant events in classroom interaction as
well as to nurture their professional vision (Sherin & Han, 2004; Sherin & van Es, 2005, 2009).
As rightly pointed out by Hugo, this enhanced ability to notice helps him to find out the
weaknesses and strengths in his teaching, and identify the areas that need to be improved.
Thus, he has the autonomy to determine the direction of his professional learning (i.e., taking
control and ownership of his own professional learning). The case of Hugo illustrates that
besides focusing on knowledge of teaching and pedagogy, the TPD programme could put more
emphasis on developing teachers lesson analysis skills. Arguably, it is more important to teach
a person how to fish than to feed him with fish.
7.1.2.
Affects and Emotions
Surprisingly, five of the seven teachers considered affective learning as their important learning
in the TPD (see Table 7.1). For example, Sam regains confidence in his teaching and his identity
as a competent IS teacher. This, in turn, keeps him in the profession. Ben and Felixs new
confidence in their goals of science teaching motivates them to pursue these goals. Chloe
develops the confidence to admit the shortcomings of her own teaching and to improve upon
them. Similarly, Victor is empowered to face his deficiencies and strive for excellence.
Teaching is an emotional labour which involves the management of emotion in work
(Hochschild, 1983). Teacher emotions are expressed, repressed, or manufactured in teaching in
and through interaction with students, colleagues, and parents. Research on teacher emotion in
science teaching finds that there are positive and negative dimensions of emotional labour
(Zembylas, 2004). Findings of the current study are in line with the findings of Zembylas (2004)
that negative emotional labour (e.g. doubt of identity in Sams case, Victors fear to disclose and
face deficiencies) leads to disappointment and alienation whilst emotional rewards (e.g. regaining confidence in Sams case) in science teaching are gratifying and reduce frustration. The
experiences of these teachers remind us of the warning that if teachers are unable to manage
emotional issues, uncertainties, stresses and worries, they may become burned-out or
disengaged (Claxton, 1989). Possibly, if Sam had not regained his confidence in his teaching
and his identity as a competent teacher, he may have left the profession. If Chloe and Victor had
not broken through their worries about disclosing their shortcomings, they might have simply
ignored them and not made any attempt to improve at all. If Ben and Felixs uncertainties about
131
their goals of science teaching had not been cleared, they might have stuck to their existing
practices and done nothing further to try to achieve their goals. All these things point to the
importance of paying attention to teachers affective learning in the course of their professional
development.
Indeed, as demonstrated in this study, teacher learning involves not only positive feelings but
also negative feelings, which is consistent to study on teacher emotions in professional
development (Scott & Sutton, 2009). For instance, Sam loses his confidence and queries his
identity as a competent teacher after viewing the video of Mr Mark (see Section 6.2.3.2). Ben
also expresses concern about how his colleagues will comment on his lesson video because he
has deviated a lot from the lesson plan and student learning was not satisfactory (see Section
5.6.3). However, the social and cultural norms in the school setting have limited the range of
express-able emotions (Shapiro, 2010, p. 618). Negative emotions are usually suppressed in
the interactions between teachers, meaning that the conversations between teachers remain safe
and shallow. It is argued that if negative emotions are managed well, as in the cases of Sam and
Ben, they can be a precondition for learning. We need to let teachers know that having positive
and negative emotions is an integral part of the change process, and a part of teacher
development. The negative feelings especially need to be seen by teachers as a part of the
change process to be managed, rather than as an aspect to be avoided or ignored (Bell & Gilbert,
1996; F. Y. Lo & Yung, 2009).
In this study, confidence plays two roles in teacher learning. Firstly, it is a learning outcome
resulting from the TPD activities, for example, Sams confidence in his teaching and his identity
as a competent IS teacher. Secondly, as demonstrated in the cases of Ben, Felix and Victor,
confidence may also be a resource that mediates teachers effort, attention, and desire to engage
in further learning (Bransford, et al., 2006; Graven, 2004; Norman & Hyland, 2003). This
implies that emotion and cognition are inextricably interconnected and inseparable (Hoekstra, et
al., 2007; Nias, 1996; van Veen & Lasky, 2005).
For example, in the study of Norman and Hyland (2003), it is found that student teachers
increased confidence enables them to adapt to new situations faster, engage in the learning
process more deeply, and interact with others more easily. Actually, lack of confidence is not a
problem unique to student teachers. In the current study, Sams case points to similar problems
being faced by experienced teachers who are newcomers to a particular school. Increased
confidence is also crucial in helping them to quickly settle in the new environment. In another
study by Graven (2004), it is asserted that the confidence to admit ones own weaknesses is a
primary condition for ongoing learning in a profession. Some teachers in this study also show
132
confidence in admitting their own weaknesses during their reflection or during the discussion
with their peers. For instance, Victor finds that he is impatient and needs to tackle this
deficiency in order to improve. Chloe also admits that not listening to students is the weakest
part of her teaching. The confidence to admit her own weakness stimulates Chloe to be more
open and listen more to her colleagues comments and suggestions. This confidence develops as
a result of Chloes interaction with her colleagues and the facilitator. In all, this illustrates that
emotions are not purely personal and psychological but are also socially and culturally shaped
and maintained (Nias, 1996).
7.1.3.
Social Learning
All the teachers, except Stone, emphasise changes in the relationship and cooperation within
their CoPs as important learning for them. This is evident from the following list of expressions
extracted from Table 7.1: feeling like a team, trusting relationship, cooperation, trust and
bonding, collaborative spirit. Wengers CoP framework of has been adopted to account for the
changes in the two CoPs. The characteristics of the two CoPs are shown in Table 7.2.
CoP Dimensions
A Joint
Enterprise
Mutual
Engagement
A Shared
Repertoire
Table 7.2 Characteristics of the Two Communities of Practice

Bright Future College (BFC)
Sunset Valley High School (SVHS)
A common vision of developing students No consensus is reached on the goals of
scientific investigation skills is shared
science education or on how to deal with
within the community as the priority for
students discipline problems.
the S1 science curriculum.
Teachers have learned how to engage and Teachers have not discovered how to
speak truthfully. Trust and stronger
engage and still have reservations in
bonding are formed among all members.
expressing their opinions. Trust and
They are aware of their interdependence. bonding have not been built up among all
members. Teachers still work
independently.
A shared repertoire (e.g., routines of
Teachers have failed to produce a
lesson planning and analysis, lesson plan, repertoire that is shared, used, and seen to
lesson videos, etc) is produced and used
be useful by all members for their
by all members for their professional
learning.
For the first dimension, namely, a joint enterprise, the teachers in BFC come to share a common
vision of what should be the emphasis of the S1 Science Curriculum. For this reason Ben says
that they feel like a team and Chloe acknowledges the establishment of intense cooperation
with colleagues. On the other hand, teachers in SVHS have not yet reached a consensus on
how to deal with students discipline problems or a common vision of the goal of science
education. Despite Hugos claim that a collaborative spirit has developed with colleagues, it is
argued that this is Hugos unilateral wishful thinking; the two newcomers (Sam and Stone) do
not appear to think the same way. Wenger (2003) argues that a joint enterprise increases
133
coherence within a community and retains the energy among teachers to learn together in the
pursuit of the joint enterprise. This is the case in BFC. The teachers plan to infuse investigation
skills in their S1 Science Curriculum, and they continue to fight shoulder to shoulder (as
reported by Felix) in pursuit of achieving their vision in the year following the completion of the
TPD project. In comparison, teachers in SVHS have no plans to work together on a specific goal.
Regarding mutual engagement, in BFC, mutual trust and a stronger bonding have been built up
among all members in the community, in Felix words a trusting relationship with colleagues.
On the contrary, in SVHS, the two newcomers have not yet established a trusting relationship
with the two old-timers or learned how to engage in collaboration and speak truthfully. Even
though Victor emphasises the [increased] trust and bonding among colleagues, the two
newcomers do not admit to learning to voice their opinions truthfully, only to getting know each
other more. Sam regards the recognition from colleagues and the TPD facilitator as
important to him rather than the establishment of trust and relationship. According to Wenger
(2003), relationship and trust are the social capital of a community supporting and helping
members to learn. With mutual trust among colleagues, it is envisaged that the teachers in BFC
will continue to support and seek help from each other when they encounter problems and
difficulties in the future. However, it is unclear whether this will happen in the case of SVHS
(especially with the newcomers).
A shared repertoire is produced and used by all members in BFC and is recognised by Felix, for
instance, as a great feat in his community. Felix also says that the lesson plan produced is a
milestone of their learning in the TPD programme, and that the practice and routines of peer
observation are a goal/standard that he should strive for in the future. Wenger (1998) asserts
that a shared repertoire is a set of communal resources that enable further engagement or
negotiation of meaning in the community. Being reflective on this repertoire enables a
community to understand its own state of development (Wenger, 2003). Apparently the shared
repertoire developed in BFC enables the teachers to envision the development of their
community, which, in turn, engages them in further collaboration and moving forward to their
common vision. On the contrary, the repertoire produced in SVHS is unevenly shared in the
community. Not all teachers adopt and make use of the repertoire for their professional learning.
Stone, for instance, is yet to adopt the routine of focusing on students learning and providing
specific evidence to substantiate his claims in reviewing classroom videos even though other
teachers are doing so.
The teachers in BFC are on the way to forming a more mature learning community, whereas
their counterparts in SVHS need more time to develop a similar community. With minimal
134
support from the school and contrived collegiality among the teachers (see Section 7.3.2) at the
beginning of the TPD, the positive changes found in the CoP of BFC corroborates the findings
of Clausen et al (Clausen, Aquino, & Wideman, 2009) that it is not necessary to have all ideal
characteristics of learning community set out in the literature in place from the outset for
school-based collaborative TPD to be successful. In comparison, few changes took place in the
CoP of SVHS, despite the fact that their participation in the TPD was in alignment with new
school policies (see Section 6.1.1). This concurs with the findings of Melville and Yaxley (2009)
that school policy has a negligible effect on the work of teachers. It is the teachers who are in a
position to shape the context of their own professional learning.
The differences in the community dimensions identified above speak to the difficulties in
fostering a learning community among teachers. After one year of learning together, teachers in
SVHS have yet to discover how to speak truthfully (i.e., establish discourse norms within the
community). The implication is that simply gathering teachers together does not in itself lead to
the creation of a teacher learning community. As pointed out by Hindin, Morocco, Mott, and
Aguilar (2007), a teacher learning community is more than just a group. Simply engaging
teachers in TPD activities is not sufficient for the cultivation of a learning community with a
common vision, trusting relationship, and a shared repertoire
7.1.4.
Summary
In this section, the content of what teachers have learned in the TPD context is compared and
discussed. The findings suggest that the learning perceived by teachers as important is more
than just knowledge and skills, and also occurs in the affective and social domains. Teacher
learning in knowledge and skills are widely reported in previous studies on TPD (e.g., Justi &
van Driel, 2005; Lewis, 2009; Olivero, et al., 2004; Sherin & van Es, 2005). However, what is
surprising is the frequent report of affective learning and social learning as the most important
learning for teachers in this study. This has three implications.
First, such a predominance of views suggests that, for this group of teachers, affective learning
and social learning are as important as, if not more important than, learning of knowledge and
skills. This emphasises the need for TPD designers to pay attention to teachers affective and
social learning (Bell and Gilbert, 1996). Second, the prevalent view of the importance of social
learning is particularly noteworthy in the Hong Kong context, where more and more schools are
considering carrying out school-based teacher professional development. Much effort will be
required to cultivate a learning community with a common vision, trusting relationship, and a
shared repertoire. Lastly, the finding that teachers attach great importance to affective and social
learning in their professional development would not have been revealed if I had not set off
135
studying teacher professional learning from the teachers own perspectives. This implies a need
for more research in teacher learning from the teachers own perspectives rather than from
researchers predetermined perspectives.
7.2. Process of Teacher Learning

To answer RQ2, this section focuses on the process of teacher learning. Clarke and
Hollingsworths (2002) Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth (IMTPG) is
adopted to delineate the teachers learning pathways. Figure 7.1 shows the learning pathways of
the seven teachers with regard to their most important learning in the TPD project. In each
diagram, the teachers learning is described in the Personal Domain (PD) (i.e., the left column
of the learning pathway). Teacher learning is represented by changes in PD, which is captured
by multiple iterations/encounters, each enclosed by a dotted rectangle. The related events
contributing to a particular learning are described in the Domain of Consequence (DC) and
External Domain (ED) in the central column, as well as the Domain of Practice (DP) in the right
column of the learning pathway.
ED refers mainly to stimuli or features of the TPD programme (e.g., video and facilitation). DP
refers to teachers professional experimentation in their own teaching practice (including both
lesson preparation and implementation in lesson study). DC refers to the salient learning
outcomes of students that have a significant influence on teachers professional learning. The
arrow with dotted line represents teachers reflection that has been stimulated and brought about
by inputs from ED, DP or DC and resulted in a new learning in PD. Teachers different levels of
reflectivity are represented by the thickness as well as the colour of the dotted arrow, while the
extent of their will to learn (and thus their level of engagement/enactment in the TPD activities)
is represented by the filled arrow in between two learning iterations. Finally the community of
practice the teachers belonged to is represented by the outermost rectangle of each diagram.
To facilitate comparison and discussion, the learning paths of the participating teachers are
grouped into two types based on whether DP was involved in the process or not. In the
following parts of this section, differences and common patterns among the learning paths are
identified and implications to TPD drawn. Since the learning process and the factors affecting it
are intertwined, the discussion will slightly touch on the factors influencing teacher learning
wherever appropriate. More in-depth discussion of the factors can be found in Section 7.3.
136
Figure 7.1 Learning Paths of the Seven Participating Teachers

Type 1: Learning paths not involving DP
Felixs Learning in Search of SelfActualisation
Victors Learning on Being Empowered to

Strive for Excellence
ED
Video, discussion
PD
Cognitive.
affective
PD
Cognitive &
affective
ED
Videos
PD
Cognitive.
affective
ED
Videos, discussion
PD
Cognitive
ED
Video
PD
Cognitive
ED
Videos, discussion
PD
Cognitive,
affective
ED
Colleagues videos,
discussion
Type 2: Learning paths involving DP

Stone Learning on Waiting for Ss Answers
Patiently
PD
Cognitive
PD
Cognitive
Hugos Learning on Lesson Analysis Skills

ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
ED
Video
PD
Cognitive
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
DP
Research
lesson
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
PD
Cognitive
DC
Ss learning
outcome
Keys:
represents low level of reflection
DP
Analysis of
exemplary
videos
DP
Research
lesson,
analysis of
own videos
represents medium level of reflection

represents high level of reflection
represents enactment in TPD activities
(teachers who do not see the need to learn)
(teachers who are wondering how to learn)
(teachers who are eager to learn)
represents teachers from BFC
Notes:
1. The relevant events/features in ED, DP and DC that contribute to
a particular learning in PD are identified by the teachers in
interviews. For example, facilitation refers to the guidance and
support given by the TPD facilitator in the TPD programme.
2. Levels of reflection and will to learn are distinguished based on
interpretation from the data collected from teachers interviews
and reflection tasks.
represents teachers from SVHS
137
Figure 7.1 Learning Paths of the Seven Participating Teachers (continued)

Type 2: Learning paths involving DP
Chloes Learning on Listening to Ss Voices
Bens Learning on Lesson Planning & Assessing Ss
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
PD
Cognitive
PD
Cognitive
PD
Cognitive
PD
Cognitive,
affective
PD
Cognitive
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
PD
Cognitive
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
DC
Ss learning
outcome
PD
Cognitive
PD
Cognitive
DP
Research
lesson
PD
Cognitive
Sams Learning on Regaining Confidence and
Building his Identity
PD
Affective
PD
Affective
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
ED
Facilitation
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
DC
Ss learning
outcome
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
PD
Cognitive,
affective
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
DP
Co-lesson
planning
DP
Research
lesson
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation
DC
Ss learning
outcome
Keys:
represents low level of reflection
PD
Affective
PD
Cognitive,
affective
DC
Ss learning
outcome
DP
Research
lesson
represents medium level of reflection

represents high level of reflection
(teachers who do not see the need to learn)
(teachers who are wondering how to learn)
ED
Video, discussion,
facilitation

(teachers who are eager to learn)
represents teachers from BFC
represents teachers from SVHS
138
7.2.1.
The Idiosyncratic Nature of Teacher Learning Process
If we take a glance at the seven pathways in Figure 7.1, we may feel uneasy about the
complexity and uniqueness that surfaces visibly in the diagrams. First, some pathways are rather
simple involving only two domains, like those of Felix and Victor, while some pathways are
rather complex involving all four domains, like those of Chloe and Hugo. Second, some
pathways are quite short, such as those of Stone and Hugo, which consist of two iterations only,
while some are relatively long, like that of Ben, which is made up of six iterations. The learning
pathways of the teachers are so different from each other that no two are identical. Even the
pathways of Felix and Victor are similar in structure (concerning the domains and the iterations
involved), the content in each domain is different (i.e., what they learned in PD and what
triggered them to learn in ED are different). Moreover, the level of reflectivity of the teachers
and their enactment in the TPD activities also varies. The wide variety in the learning pathways
empirically supports the complex and idiosyncratic nature of teacher learning found in previous
studies (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Coenders, 2010; Gravani, 2007; Zwart, et al., 2007).
The involvement of certain domains, but not others, may be related to the teachers participation
in the TPD activities. For instance, as Felix and Victor do not conduct the research lesson their
learning paths do not involve DP and DC (as illustrated in the Type 1 learning path in Figure
7.1). Nevertheless, they are still able to gain fruitful learning from the TPD programme. This is
in contrast to Chen (2007) who finds that DP is crucial to teacher professional growth as it
provides teachers with the chance to reflect on their teaching activities and student learning
outcomes. It might be argued, therefore, that what seems to be more crucial is that teachers
undergo deep reflection after participation in an activity, whether it involves DP or not.
There are also differences in the learning paths of the teachers who participate in lesson
planning, conduct the research lesson and analyse their own teaching and student learning
outcomes (re: Type 2 learning paths in Figure 7.1). For instance, only Bens learning path
involves DP related to co-lesson planning. Arguably this may relate to his deep concerns about
lesson planning and hence motivating him to engage more deeply in the co-lesson planning
meeting. That in turn results in more important learning for Ben compared with the other
teachers.
The learning path of Stone, however, does not consist of DC, unlike the learning path of the
other teachers who conducted the research lesson. This may be related to his low level of
reflectivity and the fact that he does not reflect on student learning outcome deeply enough to
gain a meaning from it. To Stone, analysis of student learning does not lead to deeper
understanding of the content taught or better connection of pedagogy and student learning needs.
139
Similar findings are evident in other studies (see for example, D. K. Cohen & Hill, 1998;
Kennedy, 1998).
A comparison of Felix, Victor, Ben and Stone may suggest that active engagement in the TPD
activities is a pre-requisite for important learning to take place (Kwakman, 2003). Victor and
Felix exhibit a strong will to learn and actively engage in the TPD activities. They are able to
acquire important learning even without involvement of DP and DC. Ben, who has a strong
desire to find ways to plan his lessons more effectively, feels that the lesson planning meeting
has brought about his learning. Stone who does not see the need to learn does not gain much
learning even after participation in the Lesson Study.
The idiosyncratic nature of the teacher learning process discussed above has implications for
TPD. TPD developers should be alert to the fact that one size cannot fit all. Teacher learning is
affected by various factors related to the individual teachers as well as factors related to the
specific features of the TPD programme. Even if teachers participate in the same TPD
programme, what they consider to be important and helpful to their learning will be largely
different from teacher to teacher. TPD developers might need to consider the individual
characteristics, existing knowledge and background of teachers, in the same way as teachers do
for their students. We concur with the literature on effective professional development that
multiple strategies might be used in a TPD programme to bring about teacher learning (Birman,
Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003).
This enables teachers to learn at their own pace and in the ways most suitable to them.
TPD developers need to address the prime concerns of the teachers, as well as their experiences
and the values they hold. This is not only essential in the developmental stage of a TPD, but also
in the implementation stage. This is especially true for TPD of considerable duration, which
might begin with enthusiastic teacher participation but lead to a wearing off of enthusiasm if the
activities involve heavy and/or repetitive workload. It is important to keep teachers engaging
and learning in the TPD throughout the whole TPD programme.
7.2.2.
The Recursive Nature of Teacher Learning Process
If we look at the seven diagrams in Figure 7.1, we see that all seven learning paths display at
least two or more learning iterations/encounters. In other words, it is common for the
participating teachers to revisit the same idea, concept or issue during the TPD programme. This
shows the recursive nature of teacher learning (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Senger, 1999).
Bens renewed appreciation of the importance of lesson planning illustrates a recursive learning
journey revolving around the cognitive domain. Sams increase in confidence shows that
140
affective learning also involves an undulating process. This illustrates that the recursive nature
of teacher learning process is not unique to cognitive learning, but also affective learning.
The current TPD programme affords teachers the opportunity to revisit fundamentals. Being
stimulated by the experience and information from ED, DP, and/or DC, teachers reconsider and
reflect on the same idea at different points of the TPD programme. For example, Ben returns to
his ideas about lesson planning in VW1, VW2, VW4, LP, LA1 and LA2. Through the video
analysis and discussion in the VWs (i.e., ED), he learns about using key questions to plan a
lesson and considering assessment and students misconceptions during lesson planning.
However, he only considers the various aspects separately and does not see the interrelationships among them. After being prompted by the facilitator in LP (i.e., ED), he realises
that lesson planning is not simply putting all activities together but linking various concepts and
activities. After trying out the lesson (i.e., DP) and analysing student learning (i.e., DC), his
understanding is deepened, he recognises that he needs to consider the linkage of the activities
from the student perspective rather than from the teacher perspective. Ben reorganises his
existing knowledge and integrates the new idea into the existing ones. Eventually his
understanding of lesson planning moves from vague to more lucid. Finally, a higher importance
is attached to these ideas, namely, that they are ways of helping him achieve his goals of science
teaching, rather than just a headache, as in the past.
Similarly, in Sams case, his confidence is rebuilt not on one single occasion, but through
several iterations: (i) watching videos of exemplary teachers with students whose nature is
similar to his own; (ii) conducting the research lesson and seeing evidence of his students
learning from his teaching; and (iii) comparing his colleagues teaching with his own and
receiving recognition from colleagues and the TPD facilitator. In sum, similar to cognitive
learning, affective learning may be gained through several iterations.
Figure 7.1 suggests that the number of iterations in teacher learning pathways might be related
to the teachers level of reflectivity and will to learn. The learning path of Stone, who was the
least reflective and willing to learn, displayed two iterations only. The learning path of Ben, who
exhibited a high level of reflectivity and a strong will to learn, consisted of six iterations.
Section 7.3 will discuss how the level of reflectivity and will to learn affect teacher learning.
The recursive nature of teacher learning suggests that more permanent and stable changes in
teachers might not occur suddenly or as a single event but as a rather complex and thoughtful
process over time. This may imply that one-off TPD may not be very conducive to more stable
and lasting professional growth. A TPD programme may include design and features that enable
141
teachers to revisit the same ideas at different points in the programme, to consolidate their
learning, and to develop a deeper understanding.
7.2.3.
Learning Process Being Influenced by the Design of the TPD
In all cases (except Hugo), only ED and PD are found in the early part of the learning pathways
(regardless of the number of iterations involved); DP and DC appear only in the later iterations
of the learning pathways. This can be attributed to the design of the TPD and data collection.
Specifically, four VWs were held before the LS. In the VWs, teachers mainly received input
from external sources such as videos, discussions or the TPD facilitator (in ED). At this stage,
they did not undertake any professional experimentation (in DP); and thus have little or no
student learning outcomes (in DC) to reflect on. Therefore, teacher learning at this stage is
characterised by iterations of enactment in ED and then reflection to PD. This explains why
only ED and PD appear in the early part of the learning pathway. Regarding the data collection,
this study did not observe the changes in teachers daily teaching practices, thus, no data is
available on the changes in DP and DC in the period when the VWs were held. We cannot rule
out the possibility that DP is involved in the early stage of the learning process.
Regarding interactions between different domains, the number of associations between ED and
PD dominates in each pathway, regardless of the number of iterations or the level of reflectivity
exhibited by the teacher concerned. One possible explanation similar to the previous point is
that there were four VWs but only one cycle of LS. More opportunities were available for
teachers to receive stimuli from ED than changes in DP and DC. It is believed that ED exerted a
great impact on the teachers learning so that they repeatedly mentioned learning triggered by
ED. Among the various features in the ED, video, discussion, and facilitation are most
frequently cited by teachers as factors contributing to their learning. This may imply that input
from external sources outside the teachers personal world (i.e., ED) are influential in fostering
teacher learning (in PD) in the context of this TPD programme.
These TPD features have contributed not only to cognitive learning, but also to affective
learning in teachers. For instance, in the second iteration of Victor learning path, watching and
comparing videos of Mr Mark and Mr Luke empowered Victor to keep learning and striving
for excellence. In the fourth iteration of Sams learning path, watching and discussing his own
videos and those of his colleagues under the guidance of the facilitator helped him rebuild his
confidence about his teaching and identity. This suggests that video, discussion, and facilitation
help to bring about teacher learning in both cognitive and affective domains. In sum, the teacher
learning processes are largely fostered by the design of TPD and its various features. This
implies the importance of external input and systematic supports from the TPD, especially video,
142
discussion, and facilitation. Despite the fact that teachers may gain informal learning from their
daily work, we concur with Hoekstra and Korthagen (2011) that supervision/facilitation is
essential for fostering teacher professional learning. The questions arise: How do these TPD
features help to promote teacher learning? What roles do these TPD features play in teacher
learning? Chapter 8 will try to provide answers to these questions.
Overall, the findings of this study support the call for studying the process of teacher learning.
As argued by Beijaard, Korthagen and Verloop (2007), understanding how teachers learn is a
prerequisite for promoting teacher learning. The present study clearly shows that even if
teachers participate in the same TPD programme and activities, what they regard as important
and helpful to their learning is largely different from teacher to teacher. Studying the process of
teacher learning can thus reveal how the TPD design and features, various factors of the
teachers and the community affect their learning. With this information, TPD developers can
design learning activities that may bring out optimal learning in teachers.
7.2.4.
Summary
This section has identified and discussed the characteristics of the teacher learning process with
the use of IMTPG as an analytical tool to trace and analyse data of teacher learning in the
context of a school-based TPD programme. Findings reveal that the teacher learning process is
idiosyncratic and recursive in nature and largely influenced by the design of the TPD and its
features, in particular, video, discussion, and facilitation (i.e., ED).
Three implications for TPD are drawn. First, as the teacher learning process is idiosyncratic in
nature, TPD developers may need to address the individual characteristics, existing knowledge,
and prime concerns of teachers. Multiple strategies may be used in a TPD to cater for the
different needs and learning styles of teachers. Second, as teacher learning is deepened by
revisiting the same ideas in different times, TPD programmes may include design and features
that enable teachers to revisit the same idea at different times during the programme, in order to
consolidate their learning and to deepen their understanding. Third, teacher learning is fostered
by the design and various features of the TPD programme, which shows the importance of
external input and systematic support in TPD.
Overall, the findings of this study support the need for more studies on the process of teacher
learning as argued by Beijaard, Korthagen and Verloop (2007), namely, that understanding how
teachers learn is a prerequisite for promoting teacher learning. Getting to know the nature of
teacher learning process, and how it is affected by various factors, including the design and
features of TPD programmes, will enable TPD developers to design learning activities that can
143
bring out optimal learning in teachers.
7.3. Factors Affecting Teacher Learning

Research question three (i.e., factors affecting teacher learning in the TPD), is addressed in this
section, and two types of factors individual and communal are discussed. Factors related to
the specific features of the TPD programme will be discussed in Chapter 8.
7.3.1.
The Individual Factors
Individual factors refer to those that are specific to the individual teachers. As revealed in their
respective case reports in Chapters 5 and 6, teachers will to learn, their level of reflectivity, and
the time available for them to undertake TPD are the key individual factors determining their
7.3.1.1. Will to learn

A major determining factor affecting teachers professional learning is their will to learn. This
affects their engagement in, as well as the quantity and quality of their learning. Based on the
set of manifestations derived from van Eekelen and colleagues (2006) study, teachers in this
study are categorised into three groups according to their will to learn as shown in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Teachers Will to Learn
Not seeing the need to learn
Stone
Wondering to learn
Sam, Chloe
Eager to learn
Hugo, Ben, Felix, Victor
As revealed in the case reports, teachers (like Felix and Victor) who are eager to learn engage
more in the learning activities of TPD (i.e., attending meetings, contributing to the exchange of
ideas, and completing all tasks required of them). They are open, listen well, and are receptive
to others comments and advice. These teachers are able to gain more fruitful and in-depth
insights from their deep engagement in the TPD activities. Not all teachers with strong will to
learn show a long learning path (see Figure 7.1). For example, Hugos path has two iterations
only. The learning paths of Felix and Victor have three iterations. Bens learning path is the
longest, and has six iterations. The difference in the length of the learning paths may also relate
to the teachers level of reflectivity (see Section 7.3.1.2) and the availability of time (see Section
7.3.1.3) to participate in the TPD activities.
Teachers who are wondering how to learn, like Sam and Chloe, want to improve their teaching
but do not know how to do so or in which areas they need to improve. They usually require
more advice and support from their peers and the TPD facilitator (i.e., ED) in order to find out
the direction of their learning and be motivated to learn. Sam is a case in point. He wanted to
144
tackle the students discipline problems but was so dispirited that he lost the direction of his
learning until he received support from the TPD facilitator.
Teachers who dont see the need to learn (e.g., Stone) do what is asked of them by the TPD
facilitator but do not engage in learning deeply. This may be reflected by the relatively short
learning path of Stone (see Figure 7.1), who also holds on to his established habits of teaching
and thinking. He is not open to others and does not listen well to the opinions of others. For this
reason, he gains only a few and shallow insights, if any at all, even with support in ED. The case
of Stone concurs with van Eekelen et als (2006) assertion that a will to learn is a necessary
prerequisite for teacher learning and development to occur. Teachers must first engage with the
learning activities actively in order to learn (Kwakman, 2003).
Recent studies of teacher learning in TPD programmes mainly focus on teachers who are
motivated to change (i.e., the teacher participants have at least a certain level of will to learn).
Not much is known about how TPD programmes impact the learning of unmotivated and nonvolunteer teachers (Bobrowsky, Marx, & Fishman, 2001). Desimone (2009) also calls for
studies on TPD using non-volunteers. Indeed, the case of Stone sheds light on the issues
involved and poses a great challenge for TPD developers on how to cultivate a will to learn in
teachers who do not see a need to learn.
7.3.1.2. Level of reflectivity

The will to learn is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for effective professional learning.
The teachers level of reflectivity exerts a great impact on their depth of learning. Table 7.4
summarises the level of reflectivity of the participating teachers.
Table 7.4 Level of Reflectivity Exhibited by the Teachers

Low level of reflectivity
Stone
Medium level of reflectivity

Sam, Hugo, Chloe
High level of reflectivity

Ben, Felix, Victor
Teachers with a high level of reflectivity, such as Ben, Felix, and Victor, can usually arrive at
relatively deeper insights themselves upon personal reflection of their experiences in the TPD
activities. For example, Felix reflects on his mission as a science teacher after watching the
video of Mr Luke in VW2 (see Section 5.3.3.2). Similarly, after reviewing and comparing the
videos of his colleagues, Victor is inspired to reflect on his own teaching and arrives at his
insight on striving for excellence (see Section 6.3.3.2). In short, these teachers are able to
analyse what they have seen and done in the TPD, linking their learning to their teaching and/or
the broader context (e.g., curriculum goal, identity, and mission as a science teacher). This is the
145
kind of core reflection advocated by (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005) who assert that by linking
core reflection to ones own identity and mission enables teachers to scrutinise their teaching
and learning experience holistically, and produce a deeper meaning of their participation for
their work and professional learning in the present and future.
Teachers with a medium level of reflectivity, such as Sam, Hugo, and Chloe, gain less in-depth
insight into their own professional learning. Like the previous group of teachers, they are also
able to describe their experience in the TPD with analysis. However, they seldom show
awareness of their mission and identity as science teachers and seldom challenge and subject
their beliefs to close scrutiny. For instance, Sam treats the teaching in the exemplary video as
some sorts of standard that he has to achieve, in contrast to Felix who does not want to blindly
imitate the teacher in the video. When analysing and reflecting on their teaching, these teachers
tend to focus on their teaching performance and overlook students learning (e.g., Chloes case
in 5.4.3.2). For this reason, they require more support from ED (input from the TPD facilitator
in particular) in order to derive deeper insights from the TPD activities. For example, Sam
gained a deeper insight into his students learning through the facilitators guided analysis of his
lesson transcript (see Section 6.2.3.2). Similarly, through a video-based discussion of her lesson
raised by the TPD facilitator, Chloe discovered that she had overlooked a certain aspect of her
students learning (see Section 5.4.3.2).
The learning of teachers with a low level of reflectivity (e.g., Stone) is rather superficial. Their
reflection tends to focus on the behavioural aspects of teaching and often lacks analysis, as in
the case of Stone, who simply restates what he sees in the lesson videos without analysis or
reasons to substantiate his view. He rarely considers the underlying rationale of teachers actions
or interprets the students thinking. Unlike the more reflective teachers, his reflection is also
disconnected (i.e., he cannot link episodes or events discussed in the different workshops). For
this reason, he is unable to identify a deep meaning in his participation in the TPD for his work
and professional learning. Or, perhaps, he simply does not want to do so.
7.3.1.3. Availability of time

Similar to many other studies (e.g., Lee, 2008; Scribner, 1999), lack of time is most frequently
reported by teachers in this study as a factor hindering their professional learning. The effect of
limited time on teacher learning is controversial. Undoubtedly, time has an impact on teachers
participation in the learning activities. As revealed in the case reports, Victor is fully occupied
by his work as a Discipline Master and as a result, he does not have time to attend all the TPD
meetings (which is why his learning path is relatively short). Nonetheless, he is eager to learn
and reflective; for the workshops he participates in, he is able to complete the reflection tasks
146
required of him, come up with deep insights himself, and contribute a lot to the exchange of
ideas in the discussion. In brief, Victor finds his professional learning to be a deep and
meaningful one despite the competing demands on his time. Similarly, though Felix is busy with
his school work and the course work of his part-time master degree, he is still deeply engaged in
the TPD activities. For example, he even takes the troubles to watch the video-recordings of the
VW meetings before he attempts to complete the reflection tasks required of him after each of
the workshops (see Section 5.3.3.3).
Based on the cases of Victor and Felix, it is argued that the scarcity of time available for teacher
professional learning may limit a teacher from full attendance or participation in the TPD
activities. However, it will not limit the quality and depth of teacher learning if the teacher is
reflective and has the will to learn. Given their limited time and the competing demands of
administration duties, teaching workload, and teachers own learning, teachers have to prioritise
and make choices. The question may be whether a TPD programme can enable teachers to learn
efficiently and effectively, and make teachers believe that their limited time is well invested.
7.3.2.
The Communal Factors
Communal factors refer to those that are characteristic of the communities of practice (CoP) to
which the teachers belong. These factors interact with each other in a dynamic way to affect the
teachers professional learning as the community develops and evolves. At the beginning of the
study, the conditions for teacher professional learning in the two communities are very similar.
First, other than moral support from their school principal, teachers from both schools receive
little further support, be it reducing teaching load or rescheduling of timetable to create common
free periods for the TPD meetings. The teachers, therefore, have to squeeze time out of their
busy schedules to attend the TPD meetings and complete the preparation and follow-up tasks.
Arguably, the teachers in this study might have learned more if more support was in place.
A second factor common to both contexts at the outset, is the working culture of the two IS
Departments, which in both cases can best be described as contrived collegiality (Hargreaves,
1992). The teachers cooperate with each other on administrative matters, such as setting the year
plan, reviewing teaching progress, etc (i.e., meetings focused on managerial and administrative
aspects) but rarely discuss and share their personal views on teaching and learning, and know
little about each others educational beliefs and visions for science education (this is true even
for those who had been working together for years). The problem is further compounded in
SVHS when two new teachers join the school shortly before the start of the TPD project.
As the two CoP develop, they differ from each other in several ways. First, the members of both
147
communities have quite different understandings of their purpose for participating in the TPD
activities. In Wengers terms, this is about the imagination of the community, namely, how
members construct an image of themselves and their communities so as to orient themselves, to
reflect on their situation, and to explore possibilities (Wenger, 2003). Teachers in BFC clearly
articulate and formulate a shared understanding on the purpose of joining the TPD programme
that is, to improve teaching and learning in their school (see Section 5.6.1). With such a shared
understanding and vision, the teachers participate wholeheartedly in the learning activities of the
TPD and take collective responsibility for each others learning. However, this is not the case in
SVHS. Some members of the community (e.g., Hugo and Victor) perceive themselves as
pioneers in the practice of co-lesson planning and peer observation for other departments to
follow (see Section 6.7.1). However, not all teachers (e.g., Stone) align with this vision and
participate wholeheartedly for their professional development. They take part because they are
coerced to do so as newcomers to the school. Arguably, they are held accountable for aligning
with the school policy rather than having a collective responsibility for their own learning and
that of the community (see Section 6.7.1).
The second difference lies in the open and egalitarian culture that subsequently develops in the
two communities. According to Wenger (2003), this is related to the ways in which teachers
engage with activities taking place in the community. Teachers in BFC express their opinions
without hesitation or reservation. Felix, the Head of Department, deliberately maintains his role
as a co-learner with his colleagues (see Section 5.6.2). He lets his members decide whether they
want to join the TPD programme or not, rather than imposing his ideas on them. The Head of
Department in SVHS, Hugo, is not as sensitive as Felix to the unequal, perhaps hierarchical,
roles among his members. Although he seems to think that equal participation and role-taking
exists, his members (especially the two newcomers) do not feel the same way and do not voice
their thoughts directly to him (see Section 6.7.2).
The third difference is to do with the ways in which teachers manage conflicting issues in the
community. According to Wenger (2003), this is related to how teachers align their thinking and
actions with each other. When conflicting issues or interpretations arise, the teachers in BFC are
able to voice their concerns directly and frankly. For instance, Ben tells his colleagues that he is
concerned about their priorities and perspectives when viewing his lesson videos (see Section
5.6.1) and Chloe voices her concerns about the ownership of their videos and reflection tasks
(see Section 5.6.2). The teachers then negotiate a common solution or interpretation agreed by
everyone in the community. According to Wenger, this is persuasive alignment by persuasion or
inspiration, which is a mutual process of negotiation of meaning. This persuasive alignment
further motivates teachers in BFC to learn together (i.e., their will to learn).
148
In contrast, many of the teachers at SVHS, if not all, submissively do what is expected of them
by the TPD and the community, without trying to negotiate their own terms (e.g., Stone and
Sam). They hide their genuine feelings and thoughts to keep a faade of harmony within the
community. Clearly, this is a one-way process of compliance with external authority (e.g.,
fulfilling the school managements wish for them to be pioneers in the practice of co-lesson
planning and peer observation). Arguably such coercive alignment may exert a negative effect
on the teachers will to learn and on their engagement in the learning activities (this is evident in
the case of Stone).
7.3.3.
A Holistic Picture of Factors Affecting Teacher Learning
Section 7.3 identifies and discusses the individual and communal factors that have had a bearing
on teacher learning in the context of the TPD programme. Factors pertaining to individual
teachers included their will to learn, their level of reflectivity and the availability of time for
professional development. The most crucial communal factors are the engagement, imagination
and alignment of members in the two communities. These factors do not exist in isolation from
each other, but interconnect and interact with each other in promoting or impeding teacher
learning.
As implied in Section 7.3.2, studying the individual factors alone will not provide a holistic
picture of teacher learning. Teacher learning does not occur in a vacuum or only within the
lonely head of a teacher. It occurs in a social space where teachers interact and share each
others thoughts and feelings. During the process, individual factors (e.g., the will to learn and
level of reflectivity) may not remain static, but may change either positively or negatively
through interaction with the communal factors (e.g., engagement, imagination and alignment of
members). For instance, the cases of both Chloe and Ben illustrate that teacher learning may
have been positively affected by the high level of common understanding among members of
the community, whereas Stones low level of reflectivity can be attributed to the fact that his
participation in the TPD project was based on coercion rather than a genuine desire to learn. In
brief, the communal factors may have a moderating effect on the individual factors in affecting
teacher learning. To optimise teacher learning, TPD developers need to take into consideration
both individual and communal factors when designing and implementing TPD programmes. For
this reason, more research needs to be conducted to find out how individual factors interact with
the communal factors in affecting teacher learning.
As argued in Section 2.2.1, used in conjunction, IMTPG and CoP can complement each other in
describing the learning path of individual teachers and accounting for the ways in which the
149
individual factors and the social settings affect the teachers learning in the TPD. Based on data
of the present study, a refined model of teacher learning is given in Figure 7.2.
Figure 7.2 The Refined Model of Teacher Learning
ED
ED
Teacher 1
Teacher 2
DP
PD
DP
PD
DC
DC
Engagement,
imagination,
alignment
Enactment
Reflection
At the centre of the refined model are the learning paths of individual teachers (in this case,
Teachers 1 and 2) as depicted by the IMTPG (i.e. the red parts). The individual factors affecting
the teachers learning (i.e., level of reflection and their will to learn in terms of enactment) are
represented by the red arrows in the model. The change environment originally drawn as a
black box in the IMTPG is now expanded into three concentric ellipses (i.e. the three purple
layers). Each layer refers to the communal factors affecting teacher learning and corresponds to
one of three dimensions addressed by the CoP model: namely, a joint enterprise, mutual
engagement and a shared repertoire. It is noteworthy that the three dimensions co-exist and are
equally important. For the sake of clarity in presentation, they are arranged into three different
layers with dashed lines in between.
Figures 7.3 and 7.4 give examples of the use of refined model in describing the learning of
teachers in the present study. It acknowledges the interconnectedness and interrelation between
individual factors and communal factors. For instance, the higher level of reflectivity and
stronger will to learn (represented by the thick red arrows in Figure 7.3) of Ben and Chloe make
150
them engaged more in the TPD activities. They learn how to speak truthfully and how to raise
troubling issues (i.e., mutual engagement), which in turn helps to reduce their worries and to
establish a high level of common understanding among each other. This increases their will to
learn as they become more willing to take risk and hold accountable for the learning of each
other.
Figure 7.3 An Illustration of the Learning of Ben and Chloe Using the Refined Model
ED
ED
Ben
Chloe
DP
PD
DP
PD
DC
DC
Engagement,
imagination,
alignment
Enactment
Reflection
As for the cases in SVHS, the low level of reflectivity, lack of a will to learn and coercive
alignment in Stone make him participate in the TPD activities peripherally (see Figure 7.4).
Hence, he does not develop a trusting relationship and strong bonding with his colleagues and
does not adopt the routines of lesson analysis.
151
Figure 7.4 An Illustration of the Learning of Sam and Stone Using the Refined Model
ED
ED
Stone
Sam
DP
PD
DP
PD
DC
DC
Engagement,
imagination,
alignment
Enactment
Reflection
As illustrated from the above examples, the refined model helps to provide a more holistic
picture of teacher learning which takes into account both individual and communal factors.
Theoretically Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002, pp. 955-956) has discussed the applicability of
the model to a situative perspective of learning (in which CoP framework is grounded). This
study has empirically illustrated that how the IMTPG and CoP frameworks work in synergy
with each other to provide a more holistic picture on teacher learning and the factors affecting it.
Indeed Grierson (2009) has also adopted a second framework (Cognitive-Affective Model of
Conceptual Change), in addition to IMTPG, to explain the process of teacher learning. The
present study provides an additional perspective to look at the effect of characteristics of the
CoP (and the roles and the influence of TPD activities to be discussed in Chapter 8) on teacher
learning. This may shed light on the design of TPD and cultivation of a learning community
conducive to teacher learning. Hitherto, the current study makes use of the two interpretive
frameworks in a rather separate manner. More integrative uses of the IMTPG and CoP
frameworks may provide more insightful information in the area of teacher learning. The
current study sheds light on this fertile ground of research using the refined model.
152
7.4. Chapter Summary

This chapter has identified the similarities and differences concerning the content, the processes
of teacher learning, and the factors that have a bearing on teacher learning in relation to the
three research questions stated in Chapter 1. Concerning the content of teacher learning,
findings suggest that learning perceived by teachers as important is more than knowledge and
skills, but also affective and social learning. Surprisingly, a majority of the teachers have chosen
affective learning (e.g., confidence in their teaching and identity, being empowered to strive for
excellence) and social learning (e.g., a common vision, trust among colleagues) as the most
important learning for them. This highlights the importance of teacher learning in the affective
and social domains, and calls for TPD developers to pay more attention to fostering learning in
these two domains.
The current study also provides a window into the process of teacher learning. The idiosyncratic
and recursive nature of teacher learning, and the influence of the external resources in the TPD
to teacher learning are revealed with the use of IMTPG. This reminds TPD developers that one
size cannot fit all. Multiple strategies, opportunities to revisit learning at different times during
the TPD, and systematic support are needed to cater for the unique learning needs and
characteristics of teachers.
Two types of factors affecting teacher learning in the TPD context are identified and discussed
in Section 7.3. The first type is the individual factors related to the teachers (e.g., their will to
learn, level of reflectivity, and the availability of time). A teachers will to learn and level of
reflectivity have a positive influence on the depth of learning that takes place, compensating
perhaps even for the negative effects of having inadequate time for participation in TPD
activities. The second type is the communal factors related to the characteristics of the
community the teachers belong to. Despite the fact that both communities had similar
collaborative cultures and received similar support from their schools at the outset, the
engagement, imagination and alignment of members in the two communities became more
divergent as the TPD programme proceeded. These differences marked the variation in the
learning of the individual teachers and of the two communities. A third type of factor related to
the specific design and features of the TPD will be discussed in Chapter 8.
Lastly, this study has empirically tested the feasibility (and productivity) of using the refined
model, which has been derived from combining the IMTPG and CoP frameworks, to arrive at a
more holistic picture of factors affecting teacher learning. It paves way for more research in
looking at teacher learning from a holistic perspective.
153
Chapter 8 TPD Features
Chapter 8 TPD Features Affecting Teacher Learning

The case reports in Chapters 5 and 6, and the discussion in Chapter 7 have shed light on the role
of various TPD features play in facilitating teacher learning. This chapter continues with the
discussion on the factors affecting teacher learning (i.e., RQ3) focusing on the ways in which
the TPD features (i.e., ED of IMTPG) have brought about or impeded teacher learning in the
context of the school-based TPD.
Consistent with the stance of the present study, to look at teacher learning from the teacher
perspective, this chapter begins by sharing a metaphor articulated by a participating teacher to
explain his view of the contribution of various TPD features to his learning. The metaphor
provides a holistic picture of how the specific design and features of the TPD have brought
about teacher learning. Sections 8.2 and 8.3 then discuss in depth the affordance and challenges
associated with the use of videos in facilitating teacher learning. Section 8.4 discusses the role
of the facilitator in the TPD context. A summary of the whole chapter is provided in Section 8.5.
8.1. A Metaphor of Growing Apples

When asked about how various features of the TPD had contributed to his professional learning,
Felix first takes a few moments to organise his thoughts, then shares his views using a metaphor
of growing apples on a farm.
The preparation [with guiding questions, videos and transcripts] is like a seed of learning. The
discussion [during the workshops] provides a good environment and stimulation for the seed to
grow, for example, the sunshine The facilitator is the farmer who adjusts the input factors
When you do the follow-up tasks, its as if you are harvesting the apples on an apple farm. (Felix,
VWIn1B, 9:11)
The metaphor of growing apples, from sowing seeds to harvesting the apples, vividly highlights
how the various TPD features work together to bring about teacher learning in a workshop. It
reveals two important characteristics of the TPD programme: (i) the use of multiple strategies to
support teacher learning, and (ii) the inter-relationships and inter-dependence among the various
TPD features/multiple strategies to support teacher learning. Just like growing apples, each and
every factor in the process will have a bearing on the final harvest, that is, the teacher learning.
In the following sections, we examine in greater detail the role of each of the TPD features in
facilitating teacher learning, using the metaphor of growing apples as the advanced organiser.
154
8.1.1.
Sowing a Seed of Learning Completing the Preparation Task Individually
The requirement for teachers to complete a preparation task (PT) before a VW is seen by Felix
as sowing a seed of learning. A typical PT consists of videos and the corresponding verbatim
transcripts, as well as some guiding questions to facilitate teacher reflection. By completing a
PT (watching the videos, reading the transcripts, and answering the guiding questions), the
teachers are expected to take an active role in identifying areas and issues that are of interest to
them and about which they would like to learn more in the discussion. They can explore these
issues and consider their responses to the guiding questions in their own time and at their own
pace, as expressed by Hugo.
Preparation before a workshop allows me more time to think over the guiding questions. I have
had the experience, several times, of coming up with something better the day after I completed
the PT and then modifying my previous work If I was asked to think on the spot, I might not be
able to come up with the same things within the limited time in the workshop, or even worse, I
might not be able to contribute to the discussion at all. (Hugo, VWIn, 13:30)
Other teachers agree that the PTs help prepare them for the discussion and facilitate the
interflow of ideas during a workshop, as less time is needed to comprehend the materials on the
spot. Thus, as Felix pointed out, there is a greater chance for them to move the discussion to a
higher level and have a more meaningful discussion.
8.1.2.
Cultivating the Seed of Learning Discussion in the Workshops
According to the metaphor of growing apples, the discussion during a workshop provides the
stimuli and nutrients needed for the seed of learning to germinate and grow. The stimuli and
nutrients include the opinions and viewpoints of colleagues and the TPD facilitator. Most
teachers (with the exception of Stone, who does not think that inspiring ideas are generated
during the discussions) are appreciative of the opportunities to discuss various issues with
colleagues and the facilitator, and think that it can further deepen their learning in the PT. The
following excerpt from Ben best represents the teachers ideas.
The discussion has largely deepened my learning. When I watch the videos or do the PT on my
own, I just view an issue from my own perspective. Just focus on the things I want to see. During
the discussion, I can see how my colleagues view the same issue. They may look at it from
different perspectives and in more depth. It also makes me reflect on the perspectives Ive used.
This is more fruitful than watching and comparing the teaching in the videos on my own. (Ben,
VWIn, 1:05:43)
Through discussion, teachers can gain new insights from looking at an issue from various
perspectives. This enriches teacher thinking and stimulates teachers to further reflect on their
own perspectives. A typical example would be Hugos learning in VW3 (see Section 6.3.3.2)
155
regarding the discussion about how to deal with the incident of a student breaking a piece of
glassware. Hugo originally considered the issue from the perspective of student responsibility,
while Victor did so from the perspective of student safety. By comparing and reflecting on the
comments that he and Victor made, Hugo realises the benefit of looking at each detail of a video
episode from multiple perspectives.
The discussion not only exposes teachers to various perspectives but also helps them to delve
more deeply into the underlying rationale and/or theories behind the act of teaching shown in
the video, as Ben elaborates.
When I watch the video by myself, I simply recognise the activities used by the teacher in the
video. At best, I can imitate or steal their teaching methods. But I may not have understood the
underlying rationale as to why the activities have been adopted, or the educational theory behind
the activities. For instance, in VW1, you may not be able to grasp the message underpinning the
video. That is, to show you how to use key questions to link up several concepts in a lesson. In the
discussion, you can see each key point and what can be learned from each video episode. So, it is
not simply showing you the activities in the lesson, but actually the goals and visions that science
education wants to achieve. (Ben, LSIn, 1:06:02)
Clearly, the discussion has helped the teachers to move beyond the observable features/activities
shown in the videos, to the more implicit rationale/theories embodied in what they see. Below,
Felix uses another metaphor to visualise the ways in which the participants enactment in the
discussion contributes to the learning community as a whole. He views the process of teacher
learning during the discussion as equivalent to the exchanges between wulin masters in a fight,
during which the wulin masters may reach a new level of expertise, as revealed below,
Exchanging views in the discussion enables us to rectify each others incomplete thoughts.
Moreover, one plus one may be greater than two. Those extra opinions are the result of the
thoughts stimulated by the discussion. The discussion raises the original thoughts in the teachers
minds to a higher level. As in a wuxia novel [martial arts novel], to begin with, the two wulin
masters are only at a certain level. During a fight they stimulate each other and may reach a new
level due to this stimulation. (Felix, VWIn 1B, 4:48)
Clearly, the exchange of ideas that occurs during discussion enables the knowledge in the
learning community to grow both quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, teachers are
able to consider more issues from different perspectives as a result of the stimulation they
receive from each other during the discussion. Qualitatively, they can move beyond the
superficial features of a teaching act to a more in-depth probing of the underlying rationale and
theories behind the act. This is consistent with the metaphor of a seed of learning. That is, when
a seed germinates, it grows larger in size and the roots grow deeper into the soil.
156
8.1.3.
Harvesting the Fruit of Learning Completing the Follow-up Task
After being well nourished and cultivated in a good environment (i.e., facilitated by the PT and
meaningful discussion during the workshop), the fruit of learning matures and grows ready to be
harvested. According to Felixs metaphor, completing the follow-up task (FT) is like harvesting
the fruit of learning. All teachers (except Stone and Sam) acknowledge the usefulness of the FT
in helping them to reorganise their ideas, track their learning and reinforce their memory. For
instance, Hugo says that he is thinking about how to apply the things he learned from the PT
and discussion, and write down his learning in a detailed and systematic way, in order to
compile a set of useful and systematic knowledge for future reference.
8.1.4.
The Farmer of Learning the Facilitator
According to Felixs metaphor, the facilitator is the farmer who adjusts the input factors. He
takes care of the whole process, from sowing the seeds to harvesting the apples, by adjusting the
input appropriately to ensure a good harvest (i.e., meaningful learning on the part of the
teachers). Victor expresses a similar idea to Felix.
The facilitator is the mastermind of the VWs. I appreciate very much his ideas and his effort its
very important to our learning. Without him, there would be no VWs. He must have done a lot of
preparation before each workshop. His facilitation in the workshops, the questions he prepared and
his attitude also taught us something. (Victor, VWIn, 1:16:48)
Other participating teachers also appreciate the work that the facilitator put into organising the
TPD programme (i.e., selecting the video materials and designing the PTs and FTs for
teachers) just like a farmer who prepares the seeds. The facilitator also discusses issues with
the teachers and provides input when necessary like a farmer providing water and fertiliser to
facilitate the growth of his plants. The farmer monitors the growth of a plant regularly, as does
the facilitator, who tracks the reflection tasks submitted by the teachers. The metaphor of a
farmer is also consistent to Wengers argument (1998) that learning cannot be designed: it can
only be designed for that is, facilitated or frustrated (p.229). The farmer can only prepare a
suitable environment for seeding, he cannot guarantee that every seed will geminate and grow
into a healthy plant as Stones case reminds us.
8.1.5.
Other Key Features of the Farming Metaphor
To round up this discussion, it may be useful to make use of the farming metaphor to reiterate
two key design features of the TPD. First, the metaphor encapsulates the design feature of
adopting multiple strategies for teachers professional learning (Loucks-Horsley, et al., 2003),
which allows teachers to learn in a way and at a pace that is best for each of their own unique
professional situations. For instance, the PTs before the workshops provide teachers with an
157
opportunity to learn by themselves by going through the video materials and reflecting
individually. Participating in discussions with peers enable teachers to learn from their peers and
the facilitator. The LS gives teachers the opportunity to try out what they have learned in the
VWs and thus learn by doing. Second, embodied in the metaphor is the notion of the interconnectedness and inter-dependence of the various TPD features and how they interact with
each other to facilitate teacher learning. A single strategy has its own strengths and weaknesses.
The multiple strategies adopted complement each other and provide an optimal opportunity for
learning to take place. Lastly, and most importantly, it is the nature of the individual teachers
that determines their own growth and development under the nourishment of the farmer. Again,
the case of Stone serves to remind us of the influence of individual and communal factors on
teacher learning and the need to pay attention to both factors when designing and implementing
TPD programmes.
Metaphors can convey rich meanings and uncover beliefs that are deeply rooted in individual
minds. Examination of the metaphors conveyed by a teacher can reveal his or her tacit beliefs
about teaching and learning, which might not be articulated by literal language (Buaraphan,
2010). In the study of Yung (2001), the metaphors given by teachers reflected their teaching
beliefs and practices in an assessment reform.
In the present study, teachers metaphors
reflected the views they made sense of their learning experiences (e.g. their learning process is
like the process of growing an apple), and the TPD features that they found helpful to their own
learning (e.g. interconnectedness and inter-dependence of the TPD features). Future studies may
investigate the metaphors used by teachers in describing their learning experience and help to
unfold teachers beliefs on their own professional learning.
Having introduced the various TPD features in this section, the following sections will zoom in
to the roles of video and the TPD facilitator in bringing about teacher learning. These two
features are selected for further discussion because they are the unique features of this particular
TPD programme, and because, according to the participating teachers, they are also the two
most useful and effective features in bringing about their learning.
8.2. The Affordances of Video

As we have seen, video plays an important role in facilitating teacher learning in the context of
this video-based TPD. Previous studies on the use of videos for TPD (e.g., Sherin, 2004; Wong,
et al., 2006; Yung, et al., 2007; Yung, et al., 2010; Zhang, Lundeberg, Koehler, et al., 2011) have
identified several major ways that videos help to bring about teacher learning. The findings of
this study are in line with the existing literature and will be briefly discussed below.
158
8.2.1.
Increasing Awareness of Alternative Strategies and Classroom Situations
Teachers usually work alone in their own classrooms and seldom have the chance to watch other
teachers teaching, be it in their own schools or in other schools. Video acts as a window
showing teachers the teaching practice in their own schools as well as in other schools
(Lundeberg et al., 2008; Zhang, Lundeberg, Koehler, et al., 2011). It is also able to present the
complexity of classroom situation in an authentic way (Goldman, 2007; Olivero, et al., 2004;
Seidel, Strmer, Blomberg, Kobarg, & Schwindt, 2011). In the present study, these views are
fully endorsed by the teachers. For example, Felix explains why he loves doing professional
development with the aid of classroom videos, Video displays an entire scene without any
filtration, interpretation, or distortion. It can capture the flavour, the scene, or the
atmosphere that cannot be captured by mere sound or text. (VWIn 1B, 11:17)
The videos of authentic teaching situations help to increase teachers awareness of new and
alternative teaching strategies and classroom situations (Yung, et al., 2007). For example, Ben
learned new assessment strategies from watching the videos of Mr Mark (see Section 5.2.3.2),
and Sams eyes were opened to the teaching situations and student performance in other schools
(see Section 6.2.3.2).
8.2.2.
Providing Exemplary Models of Teaching and Proof of Existence of Good Practice
Videos can provide teachers with exemplary models of teaching or proof of existence of good
practice and encourage them to try out these practices in their own teaching (Yung, et al., 2007).
Seeing a strategy successfully implemented in a classroom, teachers are motivated to try it out
in their own classrooms. For example, the teachers in SVHS infuse NOS into their research
lesson after being inspired by the exemplary videos they watched in VW3 (see Section 6.2.3.2).
Ben begins to set key questions for his lessons and applies the assessment strategies he learned
from watching the video of Mr Marks successful lesson (see Section 5.2.3.2). Although none of
these teaching strategies or ideas is new to the teachers in the TPD programme, there is a
difference between listening to people describing them in seminars or lectures and watching
those strategies or ideas being implemented successfully, as exemplified by Ben and Victor
below.
I have been aware of these ideas for a long time. I have wanted to try them out but I was unsure
whether they would work or not as I had not seen them implemented. Now, having watched the
video, I can see how a strategy is applied practically and successfully in a lesson. It is much more
concrete now. I am really motivated to try the strategy in my own classroom. (Ben, VWIn, 26:55)
159

If I havent seen something before, I dont have the guts to do it. But Mr Marks demonstration [in
the video] shows me that he can do it. If there is a model that I can see I will persevere and try
to improve. (Victor, VWIn, 30:13)
Clearly, simply informing teachers about an idea or a strategy may not be sufficient to convince
them to try it out in their own classrooms as they may still be doubtful of its effect. Watching a
strategy being successfully implemented in a real classroom provides teachers with more
convincing proof of the practical value of the strategy because it allows teachers to see the
results and the students responses themselves. This proof can dispel their doubts, give them the
confidence, the guts and the perseverance to try out the strategy satisfactorily. In other words,
watching real exemplars in a video increases teachers confidence in unfamiliar strategies.
The findings of the current study seem to suggest that the proof of existence of good practice is
not only found in exemplary videos of teachers from other schools, but also in the teaching
videos of colleagues within the same school. For example, Victor reassures himself of the
importance of being patient with students after watching the video of his colleague, Sam, who
patiently and successfully guides his students onto the right track (see Section 6.3.3.2). This
helps Victor realise that he should be patient with students, which he was not in the past.
Arguably, watching the teaching videos of colleagues in the same school should be more
effective than those from other schools, as the teaching situations shown in the video are the
same and, thus, teachers could not make any excuse of not to implement a practice. However,
one must also be aware of the pitfalls and challenges of watching and discussing videos of
teachers in the same school. These will be discussed in Section 8.3.
Moreover, as demonstrated in Felix case (see Section 5.3.3.2), when teachers watch another
teacher implementing the kind of teaching envisioned in their ideal goals of science teaching,
they becomes more confident and motivated to pursue their goals of science teaching. Watching
Mr Marks video, Felix recognised his own goals and was motivated to achieve his science
teaching ambitions.
In sum, video affords teachers the opportunity to acquire vicarious experience (Bandura, 1997) ,
that is, to witness peers modelling situational competencies and visualise themselves in the same
or similar situations. Researchers (Gunning & Mensah, 2011; Yoon, et al., 2006) found that this
vicarious experience, acquired through reviewing videos, can boost the confidence of preservice teachers to try out new teaching practices. The current study suggests that this finding on
pre-service teachers is also applicable to experienced teachers, who also need to witness
successful practices being implemented before being convinced that they should try them out
160
themselves. Arguably, because of the socialisation effect (Zeichner & Gore, 1990), experienced
teachers need even more proof of existence of good practice in order to be convinced to change
the practices they have established. Video of exemplary practices in authentic classroom
situations appears to serve this purpose well.
8.2.3.
Promoting and Facilitating Reflection and Comparison
8.2.3.1. Critical reflection

Video can also promote and facilitate teachers reflection as it provides a simulated
environment which stimulates us to reflect If I were in that situation, what would I do?
(Hugo, VWIn, 33:55), that is, video affords authenticity (Olivero, et al., 2004; Seidel, et al.,
2011). This authenticity creates a unique advantage of a video case over a written case that is
difficult for readers to judge its authenticity. Viewing an authentic situation stimulates the
participating teachers to reflect on their teaching and their professional life, their teaching
strategies/skills (e.g., setting key questions, assessing students), their identities (as in Bens case,
as a facilitator of students learning), and their goals of science teaching science (e.g., Felix).
Nevertheless, it must be noted that video by itself may not serve this purpose teacher
reflection may need to be guided. In this study, the teachers were not asked to review and reflect
on the video by themselves, their reflection was facilitated by guiding questions in the PTs and
FTs, and the provision of video transcripts.
The videos of the teachers own teaching allows them to review and reflect on their teaching
multiple times, something that they are unable do in the classroom (Sherin, 2004). During the
act of teaching, teachers may be too focused on the classroom interaction and discourse and
unable to notice and reflect on every detail of the lesson. Consciously and reflectively analysing
their own lesson videos enables teachers to step outside of the teaching moment and closely
examine their teaching strategies in relation to their students learning (Loucks-Horsley, et al.,
2003, p. 205). For instance, watching and reviewing his own video with the help of the lesson
transcript, Sam becomes aware of the fact that the naughtiest student, who always seemed
merely disruptive, does in fact learn from his teaching (see Section 6.2.3.2). This learning could
not be arrived at during the actual moment of teaching given the noisy and undisciplined
behaviour of Sams students during the lesson. However, analysing and discussing the video
with his peers stimulates Sam to reassess his preconception of equating students noisiness with
not learning.
Another example is the case of Chloe, who develops a very different view of her teaching after
reviewing and reflecting on her own video for a second time in LA2. In this video episode,
Chloe is guiding a student to the correct answer (see Section 5.4.3.2). During the lesson, she
161
believed it was natural and alright to do so, but after reviewing and reflecting on the video
episode she changes her mind. She realises that she is dominating the whole lesson and seems to
be forcing students to listen to her. In sum, watching the video stimulates Chloe to reflect on the
way she responds to students. Without the video, as Felix states, you dont do any organised
and serious reflection on your real situation in the classroom Just like, we dont know there is
a black stain on our faces if we dont look in a mirror. (Felix, LSIn, 1:20:16). This echoes
Lundeberg and colleagues (2008) description of a teachers own video as a mirror in my face
(p.11). Reviewing ones own teaching through a video is like looking at oneself in a mirror the
flaws become clearly evident.
The cases of Sam and Chloe both confirm the strengths of video-supported reflection over
memory-based reflection as revealed in the study of Rosaen and colleagues (Rosaen, et al.,
2008). Compared with memory-based reflection, video-supported reflection enables the preservice teachers to focus more on their instruction than on classroom management, and more on
their students and less on themselves as teachers. Both Sam and Chloe reflect more on student
learning when watching their own video than they did without the video. In particular, Sam pays
more attention to the learning of the naughty boy and less attention to classroom management
(e.g., the noisiness and lack of student discipline). Chloe considers the responses of her students
rather than focusing on her teaching approach. Arguably, without the video, Sam and Chloe may
not have been able to reflect in the same way or come up with the same learning.
8.2.3.2. Meaningful comparison

Video helps to engage teachers in meaningful comparison of different teaching situations (Yung,
et al., 2010; Zhang, Lundeberg, Koehler, et al., 2011). Comparison may be made between the
videos of two exemplary teachers or between colleagues in the same school. In the current
study, comparison between videos were made possible by providing several videos of two
exemplary teachers under similar classroom situations, and by video recording at least two
participating teachers conducting the research lesson in the LS.
One example of teacher learning from the comparison of two exemplary teaching videos is the
case of Victor. Comparing the teaching strategies used by Mr Mark and Mr Lo in their videos
stimulates Victor to reflect on the effect these strategies have on student learning and to link this
back to his own teaching (see Section 6.3.3.2). In another example, Felix also explains how
comparing two exemplary videos facilitates his learning, The videos showed two extreme
examples. The difference was intensified and stood out more explicitly. It was good to have the
two different examples for comparison. I could spot the differences more easily. (Felix, VW
Interview 1, 1:01:39) In sum, comparison of videos showing similar teaching situations but
162
different strategies is more likely to help teachers recognise the pros and cons of different
teaching approaches and stimulate them to reflect on their own strategies. This may facilitate a
practical conceptual change (Feldman, 2000), in which teachers modify their existing practical
theory and accept a new one. Recognising the cons in the videos may make teachers discontent
with the weaknesses in their own practices, while recognising the pros of another practice
enables the teachers to find it beneficial and enlightening. In short, video can speed up the
process of practical conceptual change in teachers.
Teachers also reported learning afforded by comparing their own video with that of their
colleagues. For example, Chloes comparison of her own teaching video with that of Ben
enables her to recognise her weakness, namely, that she does not respond to students answers
properly. This is not clear to her when she reviews her own video without comparison (see
Section 5.4.3.2). In Chloes case, comparison of her own video with that of her colleague helps
her to problematise the unproblematic (Tsui, 2003). That is, the comparison enables her to
recognise a problem with an approach she initially considers unproblematic (i.e., she originally
thought her approach natural and alright). In Sams case, comparing his own video with
those of his colleagues helps him to regain his confidence in teaching. Through this comparison,
he notices that his colleagues face similar problems and that his performance is not especially
bad (see Section 6.2.3.2).
Despite these findings, we need to be cautious that there may also be cases in which comparison
leads to a decrease in confidence, especially if comparison makes a teacher realise that his or
her performance is notably worse than that of his or her colleagues. It is suggested that TPD
developers remind teachers that the focus of the comparison should not be to evaluate the
performance of individual teachers but to investigate or analyse the learning of students.
8.2.4.
Fostering Community Building
Video-mediated activity also helps to foster community building. Teaching is often

characterised as an isolated profession (Bakkenes, De Brabander, & Imants, 1999). As teachers
mostly work in their own classroom, they seldom have the chance to go into other classrooms
and see the teaching of their colleagues and or teachers in other schools. Victor highlights this
when he admits that even though he had been working with Hugo in the same school for more
than 10 years, and knew each other well personally as friends but not professionally as
colleagues. Video provides teachers with the chance to get to know each others teaching and
help to reduce isolation, as Victor said,
Watching the videos, colleagues were exposed in those moments when they lost their dignity
[when they were not teaching so well]. These undignified situations are not usually discussed with
163

other teachers. If we can break through these forbidden areas, it is much easier to build trust
among each other Peer collaboration with the use of video has opened up a new space for
teachers interflow of ideas. You have to create this kind of space, a kind of gap in the wall,
regardless of its size if you want to have interflow. Then we all can look through this gap
occasionally, or recall what we have seen through the gap before. This is communication. This is
ice-breaking. (Victor, LSIn, 19:14)
We see that Victor is earnest about having experienced a breakthrough in being able to
communicate professionally with his colleagues. He has high hopes of being able to use video
as a means to this end. In Victors words, it opens a gap for communication and ice-breaking
among teachers. Teachers are able to see what their colleagues are teaching and how they teach.
This enables them to get to know each other better professionally. It is not only the sharing of
the positive aspects of each others teaching (as described in Section 8.2.2) that helps to build up
a community, but also the sharing of those situations in which teachers lose their dignity. Victor
further elaborates on the way in which seeing each others vulnerabilities has helped to build up
a sense of team spirit,
Through this TPD programme, I realised that my colleagues are facing the same problems and
difficulties as I am. Since then, we can identify with each other more. If I simply tell you that I
have also encountered the same problem, you may think that I am just comforting you because you
are upset. However, if you watch the video of my lesson and find that the situation is very similar
to yours both are chaotic and muddled then everyone can understand and be more sympathetic
to each other because we are in the same boat. More importantly, the feeling of being a team is not
only based on kind words, we can see that all of us are facing the same students, the same
problems. We can support each other and be empowered to keep on improving. (Victor, LSIn,
1:10:58)
According to Victor, disclosing ones vulnerabilities does not necessarily make others think that
you are incompetent. Instead, it may help to build a more cohesive team, one in which
individual members identify with each other more and try to help each other solve the problems
they are all encountering. This makes Victor feel that he is not alone, that he is accompanied by
colleagues who face the same problems. He has high hopes that by working together, they can
solve the problems and improve themselves collectively. This is in line with Liebermans (2009)
findings that exposing ones vulnerabilities in lesson study helps to create a culture of openness
and continual improvement. We support the assertion that teachers in a learning community not
only learn about what it means to be a teacher in the classroom, but also what it means to be a
colleague that is, a community member (J. Lieberman, 2009). This, in turn, necessitates their
classrooms (materials, practices), their minds (beliefs, reasons) and their vulnerabilities
(uncertainties, perceived failures) to be open for sharing (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008).
164
8.2.5.
Summary
To sum up, the video provides several affordances in bringing about teacher learning in the
cognitive, affective and social domains. This is consistent with the literature on the role of video
in (i) increasing teachers awareness of alternative teaching strategies and classroom situations;
(ii) providing exemplary models of teaching and proof of existence of good practice (e.g., Seago,
2000; Yung, et al., 2007); and (iii) promoting teacher reflection on their own teaching (e.g.,
Rosaen, et al., 2008; Sherin, 2004; Zhang et al., 2010). In addition, video-mediated TPD
activities also play a role in fostering community building as they open up the teachers
classroom exposing their vulnerabilities as well as their talents. This helps to create a culture of
openness and continual improvement (J. Lieberman, 2009). Table 8.1 provides a summary of the
affordances of videos as revealed by the data in this study.
Table 8.1 Summary of the Affordances of Videos in Bringing about Teacher Learning
1.
2.
3.
4.
Increase awareness of alternative teaching strategies and classroom situations

Videos are able to present the classroom complexity in an authentic way
Provide an exemplary model of teaching and proof of existence of good practice
Videos enable teachers to acquire vicarious experience that can remove teachers doubts about
particular practices and boost their confidence to try them out
Promote critical reflection and meaningful comparison
Videos allow teachers to review and reflect on their own teaching multiple times
Videos from two or more teachers facilitate comparison
Foster community building
Videos open up the classrooms of individual teachers and help to create a sense of community
among teachers
Videos that show teachers vulnerabilities help to create a culture of openness and striving for
continual improvement
8.3. Challenges of Using Videos in TPD

Although video has the potential to promote teacher learning, the findings of this study show
that the use of videos in TPD also creates some challenges. First, as in other studies on videobased TPD (e.g., Eilam & Poyas, 2006; Sherin & van Es, 2005; Star & Strickland, 2008), some
participating teachers were unable to notice important classroom events by themselves. For
instance, Sam does not notice that the responses of his naughty student reveal that he was
nevertheless listening and learning (see Section 6.2.3.2); Chloe is unaware that she has missed
several opportunities to bring out (and revise) the concept of experimental error, and that this is
perhaps the reason why most of her students fail to answer a worksheet question correctly (see
Section 5.4.3.2).
Second, videos of exemplary teaching may also exert a negative effect on teachers. For example,
Sam loses his confidence after watching the excellent teaching of Mr Mark and the good
165
performance of Mr Marks students. This reminds us that one size cannot fit all and that teachers
should be given a wide variety of videos showing a range of various competencies of teachers at
various stages of their professional development (Yung, et al., 2007).
Third, some teachers express negative feelings about having their own lessons video recorded
and their own videos viewed by others in the video-based lesson study. This is similar to
findings in the literature on lesson study in Hong Kong, the context of the study (Lee, 2008).
Initial negative feelings are associated with the pressure of being video recorded. Ben, Chloe
and Sam all express their nervousness about being video recorded and say that they did not feel
ease during the recording. For example, Chloe, who is concerned about how others will look at
her, feels a pressure to perform better. Sam teaches the research lesson gingerly as he is
concerned about both the performance of his students, as well as his own teaching performance.
This is probably heightened by the face saving culture in Chinese societies. The teachers are
afraid of losing face, one of the six variations of face behaviour identified by Bond and Hwang
(1986). Another type of negative feeling is related to concerns about the dissemination of
teachers own teaching videos outside the immediate learning community and for purposes other
than the TPD. As reported in Chapter 5, Chloe is very concerned about the fact that her lesson
video might be used by people outside the learning community, and was unwilling to have her
lesson video made available to the school management for other purposes, such as appraisal of
performance.
Last, interpersonal issues could arise when the participating teachers discuss their own or their
colleagues videos, as evidenced in the following excerpts.
As we will continue to cooperate with each other [after the discussion], we need to consider our
colleagues feelings if we directly point out an aspect of their teaching that is not so good. I found
it difficult to do this. (Sam, LSIn, 46:39)
China is a nation of etiquette. When we comment on each others teaching, of course we like to
point out something good. I really think so ... Other colleagues might have this feeling too. (Chloe,
LSIn 1, 49:22)
As we see, some of the teachers do not feel at ease discussing and analysing each others videos.
This is especially true in the Hong Kong context of the present study, where the issue of face is
prevalent. Chinese people believe that openly criticising others may make them lose face, and
thus disrupt the harmony of the group. For this reason, teachers tend to give face to others
(Bond & Hwang, 1986), that is, they tend to be polite to their colleagues and tend to avoid
criticising the areas of each others teaching that are not so good. This problem is actually not
166
unique to Chinese societies. For instance, in United States, Bacevich (2010) also finds that the
culture of being nice influences the teaching features to which pre-service teachers attended to
and the depth with which they studied during video analysis. As a result, any deep reflection on
the video is inhibited and the comments and/or the discussion remain at a superficial level,
preventing teachers from discovering the weaknesses in their own teaching and, thus, learning
from each other (Walker & Dimmock, 2000).
The current TPD programme has considered these interpersonal or face issues by adopting a
two-stage process. In the first stage, the Video Workshops (VWs), teachers analysed and
discussed the teaching videos of teachers in other schools. In the second stage, the video-based
Lesson Study (LS) involved teacher analysis and discussion of their own and their peers videos.
The participating teachers found this an important feature of the TPD, as represented by Felixs
excerpt below,
To a certain extent, joining your TPD programme was like having a baptism. Each time, the
facilitator brought us into the socialisation process and let us gradually get used to the culture of
critical examination and reflection on our teaching. After watching and discussing the rather
impersonal videos in the VWs during the first term, we had begun to get warmed up and to get
used to being objective and not taking things personally. When we watched ourselves in the LS, it
became easier, since we were already used to this habit of discussing and thinking. (Felix, LSIn,
2:17:24)
Another teacher from Bright Future College (BFC), Chloe, also describes the VWs as a warm
up that enable her to learn and experience how to analyse a lesson before doing the same with
her own lesson. Hugo from the other school, Sunset Valley High School (SVHS), says that the
VWs influenced him bit by bit unconsciously (see Section 6.4.3.2). The VWs help Hugo get
used to critically and objectively analysing and discussing teaching videos, something that he
had previously found difficult. All of the teachers agree that this warm up is important for
them, as it equips them with critical lesson analysis skills and familiarises them with the norms
of discussion before they engage in analysing and discussing the videos of their peers. This
helps to lessen their concerns about the interpersonal or face issues prevalent in Chinese culture
and increase the potential of learning from one another.
Some of the challenges identified above may be resolved by modifying the design of the videomediated TPD activities, for example the arrangement of having a series of video workshops
before lesson study, or by the careful work of skilful TPD facilitators, whose roles will be
discussed in the next section.
167
8.4. The Roles of the TPD Facilitator

As the metaphor of the farmer implies (see Section 8.1.4), the participating teachers are very
appreciative of the facilitators contribution to their professional learning in the TPD
programme. They report that the facilitator helped to promote their learning in the following
ways: (i) as knowledge enhancer, (ii) as emotion booster, and (iii) as community fosterer. These
multiple roles are consistent with Felixs metaphor of the facilitator as a farmer who adjusts
various input factors to ensure a favourable cultivating environment for a good harvest.
8.4.1.
Knowledge Enhancer
In this study, the TPD facilitator manifests the role of knowledge enhancer in various ways
including: acting as a source of information and knowledge, a guide to pose questions to
stimulate teachers reflection, and a master to model the essential lesson analysis skills.
When a facilitator acts as a source of information and knowledge, he or she is like a farmer
providing water and fertiliser for growing crops. Wherever appropriate, the facilitator provides
teachers with ideas on teaching practice and educational theory. For instance, during VWs, the
facilitator introduced such ideas as setting key questions for a lesson (see Section 5.2.3.2),
suggesting assessment for learning, and promoting the infusion of nature of science into
teaching, etc. During LS, the facilitator helped teachers to refine the design of their research
lessons and suggested relevant teaching and assessment materials wherever possible. Hugo
explains below how a knowledgeable facilitator can help solve teachers problems in a speedy
manner.
We faced the problem of how to assess student learning in the research lesson I had come
across a similar set of questions in TIMSS that we could make use of to assess the students but
couldnt locate the source myself. I was happily surprised when, during the lesson planning
meeting, the facilitator provided us with that set of questions Without a scholar [the facilitator],
we might not have been able to get hold of it. Or we might have needed a much longer time to find
it. (Hugo, LSIn, 9:19)
Clearly, Hugo values the just-in-time information provided by the facilitator to help solve their
problems in a speedy manner as this is important for busy teachers.
However, there may also be times when the facilitator may not provide straightforward and
direct answers to the questions posed by the teachers but some general suggestions. For example,
in response to Bens questions about how to find out students prior knowledge in LA2 (see
Section 5.3.2.2 for details), the facilitator introduced a variety of suggestions, for example, (i)
asking students to work out answers by themselves first and then having a group discussion to
168
choose the best answer, (ii) asking students to write their answers on the blackboard, and (iii)
using concept cartoons to assess student prior knowledge, etc. Ben found these suggestions
useful and subsequently applied them in his research lesson. For Ben, the facilitator is
someone [to whom he can pose] questions that others may not be able to answer (Ben, VWIn,
1:03:16). Here the role of the facilitator is like that of a more capable peer, a knowledgeable
other (Watanabe & Wang-Iverson, 2005) who possesses more advanced professional knowledge
that can help to clarify teachers confusion and solve their problems.
Sometimes, the facilitator may not provide teachers with concrete ideas or suggestions. Instead,
he poses questions to guide teachers to reflect on areas that they may not have considered
thoroughly. For example, in the lesson planning meeting in BFC, the facilitator asked teachers
about their anticipated answers from students, the linkage between two of the teaching-learning
activities, and their thoughts on ways to assess students learning. Both Ben and Felix confessed
in the LS interviews that they had overlooked those questions when they first planned the
research lesson. However, after the facilitators prompting, they were stimulated to think about
those questions, as Felix explained.
I wouldn't have thought of everything by myself. Without stimulation from the others, it would
have been hard for me to begin If the facilitator was not there to give me something to ponder
on, I might not have been able to focus my thoughts at that point. (Felix, LSIn, 2:06:35)
For Felix, the facilitator is like a guide who gives him directions for what to focus on and
think about. This is consistent with the roles of the knowledgeable other as advocated by
Watanabe and Wang-Iverson (2005).
As discussed in Section 8.3, one of the challenges of using videos in TPD is the inability of
some participating teachers to notice important classroom events. In the current study, the
teachers desire for more guidance from the facilitator on where to focus their attention is
particularly evident when they come to review and discuss the lesson videos. This is consistent
with the literature that teachers need help to develop their ability to notice pedagogically
important events when viewing classroom videos (e.g., Eilam & Poyas, 2006; Sherin & van Es,
2005; Star & Strickland, 2008). The following remark from Victor vividly explains the situation.
All of us watched the videos ... and we found that each of the teachers in the videos had their own
style and strengths. But who was on the right track? And who was not? To answer these questions,
it is important to have the scholars opinions and guidance. Without his guidance [on how to
analyse the videos], its just like steaming a pond fish using pond water. What I mean is, you
wont see any new ideas, as they are all coming from teachers in the same school. This doesnt
lead to any great improvements or take us to a new level [of teaching] as we are bound by our
limited ideas and vision. So its quite restricting. (Victor, LSIn, 35:08)
169
Clearly, Victor is very appreciative of the guidance and opinions provided by the facilitator and
thinks that they can broaden their horizons and bring them to a new level. That is, it can help
them to move beyond the knowledge limitations they encounter when analysing their lessons
(Fernandez, 2002). These knowledge limitations may be caused by horizons of observation as
described by Little (2003), namely, the extent to which elements of a work environment are
available as a learning context (p. 917). The horizon of observation can create paradigms of
thinking that privilege certain voices and epistemologies based on preconceived notions of right,
wrong, good, or bad in schooling. In the end, this limits the solutions teachers develop to
improve their own practices or improve student learning.
The facilitator can overcome such knowledge limitations by opening teachers eyes to fresh
perspectives from the research community. Moreover, the facilitators opinions and guidance
enables teachers to recognise their status quo, their position within the broader community of
science education. Here, as Wenger (1998) says, the facilitator is engaged in brokering
activities where he tries to introduce elements of a CoP into another one. In this study, the
facilitator is engaged in brokering and bridges between the activities of two different
communities (teachers in the participating schools and the broader science education
community). He tries to promote and facilitate the translation of practices advocated by the
research community to teachers in the participating schools, and align the perspectives and
meanings in the two communities.
To achieve this goal, teachers need to learn and acquire the skills necessary for critical lesson
analysis. During the workshops, the facilitator often models the way in which the videos should
be analysed. For instance, he focuses on student learning rather than the teachers performance
and provides specific evidence from the videos to substantiate his claims (such as quoting the
line numbers of a conversation in the transcript). As Hugo reports (see Section 6.4.3.2),
continual modelling by the facilitator has made him aware of the essential skills for critical
lesson analysis. For example, because the facilitator frequently makes reference to the lesson
transcripts during the discussion, the teachers eventually also adopt this as their usual practice in
their video analysis. Sam recalls how he came to learn this skill.
From the facilitator, I learned how to analyse the teaching methods shown in the videos. I had
never thought about using a transcript before, studying every sentence and word, and discussing it
in great detail Its a totally new learning experience for me. (Sam, VWIn, 32:09)
Arguably, this signifies a great leap in teachers professional learning as research on videomediated TPD activities has consistently shown that teachers tend to rely on general
170
observations, quick judgements and evaluative comments (Eilam & Poyas, 2006; Sherin & Han,
2004), and seldom engage in deep investigation of content, pedagogy and student learning
involved in the lesson (Fernandez, et al., 2003). Modelling of the essential lesson analysis skills
helps to equip teachers with the essential skills needed for video-based lesson analysis and
enhance teacher learning.
In sum, as a knowledge enhancer, the facilitator is acting like a master who models to teachers
the lesson analysis skills through apprenticeship. Not only is he a reliable source of timely
information and knowledge to help them solve their problems. He is also a guide, who helps
them to reflect on areas that they have overlooked or not considered thoroughly.
8.4.2.
Emotion Booster
In addition to the knowledge building support provided by the facilitator, the teachers also
appreciated the moral support he gave them. It is evident in Sams case that receiving
recognition from the facilitator has helped to pull him out from the bottom of a valley to
regain his confidence in teaching and his identity as a competent science teacher (see Section
6.2.3.2). This is consistent with the findings of other researchers (Gunning & Mensah, 2011;
Zhang, Lundeberg, & Eberhardt, 2011), namely that the facilitators encouragement and support
is important in helping less confident teachers to participate fully in the learning activity. This
kind of verbal persuasion and praise from knowledgeable others on ones ability to master a task
(in this case, teaching) can change a teachers self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and motivate the
teacher to mobilise greater efforts to sustain it.
For some teachers, the mere presence and company of the facilitator already provides
encouragement and moral support, as Felix explains below.
Given his status in the field, the facilitator still comes to our school, which is quite far from the
university, and spends a lot of his time learning and struggling with us. This gives me a sense of
partnership Its like when you are upset, you don't necessarily need someone to say or do
something to cheer you up; if he just stays with you at that moment, that's already a great support.
That feeling of being accompanied, walking together, staying close to each other the feeling of
one team one goal is very important. No gain in knowledge is comparable to this [sense of
partnership]. (Felix, VWIn, 1:19:58)
The psychological support provided by the TPD facilitator (i.e., the sense of partnership,
walking together, staying close to each other, the feeling of one team one goal, etc)
seems to be at least as important as the knowledge building support. The TPD facilitator and the
teachers form a team with the same goal of improving teaching together, like an alliance
171
fighting together. Here, the facilitator is regarded by the teachers as a learning partner. He works
with rather than works on the teachers. He respects the teachers, listens to and caters for their
needs, rather than imposing his own ideas on them.
As a learning partner, the facilitator is a motivating source for the teachers to pursue their
professional learning. Hugo says that the facilitator is an impetus pushing him to learn; and
because he wants to learn from him, he needs to prepare well for the workshops before he
comes to the discussion so as not to miss opportunities to learn from the master teacher.
Similarly, Felix confesses at one point that he might not have engaged in so much reflection if
he had not participated in the TPD. He feels good to have a facilitator pushing [him] to do
regular reflection, to overcome [his] laziness, build a routine, and increase his motivation and
determination to improve. (Felix, LSIn, 1:21:46) Arguably, teachers may, to a certain extent, be
like students and need external pressure to motivate them to move forward and start something
new. This seems to be in concordance with the role of knowledgeable other in lesson study
(Watanabe & Wang-Iverson, 2005), namely, that a knowledgeable other acts as a cheerleader to
encourage teachers to persist in the learning process.
8.4.3.
Community Fosterer
The facilitator plays an important role in cultivating the discussion norms of the CoPs. This is
like a farmer preparing a suitable environment for the growing crops. Before the TPD, a
collaborative culture did not exist in the two participating schools. It was rare for teachers to
discuss their teaching with their peers in any depth, and even rarer for them to analyse and
compare their lesson videos. This was something that they felt was too intrusive. For this reason,
it was also a major challenge for the facilitator to build a CoP within which members can speak
truthfully for the advancement of their own teaching. Let us look at how the facilitator achieved
this in the present study.
First, the facilitator meets the challenge by modelling ways in which teachers can raise and
discuss issues in an objective manner with reasons and supporting evidence from the video. He
does this in a very sensitive and considerate manner by focusing on particular issues rather than
on the teacher in the video, per se. This gives teachers a sense of security, as Victor explains.
The facilitator does not raise anything that is directed against a particular teacher. He raises an
issue with reasons and supporting evidence. He is rather impartial. Moreover, he does not leave a
wound without a dressing after he has done the surgery. He guides us to find solutions. He helps
us to see that there is always a way out. When everyone is so honest, kind and considerate, a sense
of security can be easily built up. Without this safety zone, no one is willing to step in. (Victor,
LSIn, 42:52)
172
Clearly, a sense of security and the feeling of stepping into a safety zone are important
prerequisites for the creation of a community of practice. This point is echoed by Felix, who
talks about how the facilitator creates a relaxing atmosphere by taking a non-evaluative stance
on teachers performance. In his words, the facilitator does not act like a judge ... he guides us
[instead].
Very often, the facilitator guides us to come to see our own problems and shortcomings. He builds
a relaxing atmosphere for everyone, without any embarrassment He does not let any of us leave
the meeting feeling bad. This is very important. He does not act like a judge. Nor does he act like
some teachers, who, in the process of handing out report cards, intensify the comparisons of
students and aggravate unhappiness. (Felix, LSIn, 1:38:54)
Apparently, the non-evaluative stance adopted by the facilitator has successfully created a
relaxing atmosphere for teachers to air their views without any embarrassment. Victor, in the
other school, holds a similar view of the importance of the presence of a third party to help them
establish discussion norms, especially during the initial stage.
Without a scholar, the TPD is likely to fail. It must fail We would feel embarrassed and would
fail to raise any questions or voice any opinions. We need to develop a culture of discussing
teaching issues in an impersonal manner by practising it with a scholar first. (Victor, LSIn, 42:34)
As discussed in Section 8.3, research on lesson study in Hong Kong has also revealed that
teachers feel great pressure induced by peer observation and discussion of their classroom
practices (Lee, 2008). They are afraid of losing face of themselves and of their schools if they
do not perform well. Due to teachers concern of their face (Bond & Hwang, 1986), teachers
are not at ease of criticising colleagues as this may make their colleagues losing face and hence
damaging the harmony and relationships among teachers. Such worries could be even more
intensified for teachers in this study as they were from the same department and would need to
cooperate with each other after the TPD. Indeed, researchers on video-based TPD (Borko, et al.,
2008; Sherin & van Es, 2009) and lesson study (Lee, 2008) often stress the importance of
establishing a community of learners and rules for discussing video in order to build trust
among the members. They put premium on the role of the facilitator in developing the norm for
discussing video by explicit modelling of raising and discussing issues in an objective and nonevaluative manner. This helps to create a relaxing atmosphere and give teachers a sense of
security which motivates them to step into the safety zone of each other. Findings of this
study have shed light on how a facilitator helps to establish the discussion norms and a trusting
relationship among members in the CoP.
8.4.4.
Overview of the Contributory Roles of the TPD Facilitator
Consistent with the metaphor of the farmer (see Section 8.1.4), the facilitator assumes multiple
173
roles in facilitating teacher learning in the TPD context of the present study. Table 8.2 provides
a summary of the multiple roles of the TPD facilitator.
In sum, it is a demanding job for the facilitator to take on the multiple roles, shifting between
the roles of a more capable knowledgeable other (as a knowledge enhancer) and a more equal
learning partner (as an emotion booster and community fosterer) under different circumstances,
as the facilitators in action research (Goodnough, 2003). The facilitator needs to consider all
aspects of the teacher as a whole person (Hoekstra & Korthagen, 2011) in order to provide
systemic support on knowledge, emotion, and community building. Although this study places
emphasis on the importance of the role of a TPD facilitator, we do not presume that teachers are
flawed, passive recipients and consumers of the PD activities in which an outside expert imparts
knowledge and information (M. Huberman & Guskey, 1995; Richardson & Placier, 2001). On
the contrary, this study believes that teachers should take an active role in determining what and
how to learn, and are capable of improving themselves. As stated earlier, teacher learning cannot
be designed: it can only be designed for. The role of the facilitator is to support the process of
teacher learning rather than impose a learning curriculum on teachers.
Table 8.2 Summary of the Roles of a Facilitator in the TPD context
Role
Knowledge
enhancer
Emotion
booster
Community
fosterer
Description
1. As a source of information/knowledge
Provide information in a timely manner
Add fresh perspectives that broaden teachers horizons
2. As a guide to stimulate teacher reflection on issues that teachers
might have overlooked or not considered thoroughly
3. As a master to model essential lesson analysis skills
1. Provide moral support and encouragement by
Giving verbal persuasion
Attending the TPD as a learning partner
1. Model how to raise and discuss issues in an objective and nonevaluative manner so as to help
Set up rules for discussing videos
Foster a sense of security in teachers
Create a relaxing atmosphere for discussion
Status
Knowledgeable
others
Learning
partner
Learning
partner or
knowledgeable
others
Despite the TPD facilitators important and challenging role, only a few studies have
investigated in detail the role of a facilitator in TPD contexts. The current study provides
valuable information on how facilitation promotes teacher learning. It does not, however, look
into the way facilitation skills develop in the facilitator, as called by researchers (Watanabe &
Wang-Iverson, 2005; Zhang, Lundeberg, & Eberhardt, 2011). Future research may investigate
how facilitators develop their skills to facilitate TPD, especially in the context of working with
teachers in learning communities.
174
8.5. Summary of the Chapter

In relation to RQ3, this chapter reports how various TPD features of the current study have
impacted teacher learning. A metaphor of growing apples is introduced in the first section to
portray how the TPD features interact and work together to bring about teacher learning. It
reveals that the multiple PD strategies employed in the TPD have facilitated teachers to learn in
a way that is most suitable to each of their own situations. It also highlights that teacher learning
cannot be designed: it can only be designed for.
The affordances and challenges of using video in TPD are identified and discussed in Section
8.2 and 8.3 respectively. The roles of TPD facilitator are reported in details in Sections 8.4. Both
the use of video and the presence of a TPD facilitator can help promote teacher learning in the
knowledge, skill, affective and social domains. Consistent with the literature on video-based
TPD (e.g., Sherin, 2004; Wong, et al., 2006; Yung, et al., 2007; Yung, et al., 2010; Zhang,
Lundeberg, Koehler, et al., 2011), this study confirms that video increases teachers awareness
of alternative teaching strategies and classroom situations, and provides exemplary models of
teaching and proof of existence of good practices in authentic classroom situations that can
encourage teachers to try out new teaching methods, and promotes teacher reflection on their
own teaching. The fact that teachers may not be able to notice pedagogically important
classroom events (e.g., Eilam & Poyas, 2006; Sherin & van Es, 2005; Star & Strickland, 2008)
may limit their reflection and thus their learning from reviewing videos. The TPD facilitator can
help to overcome this challenge by acting as a source of information and knowledge, a guide to
stimulate teacher reflection on the areas that they have overlooked or not consider thoroughly,
and a master to model the essential lesson analysis skills.
Video also plays a role in fostering community building as it opens the teachers classrooms,
allowing them to see each others teaching, and helping to create a culture of openness and
striving for continual improvement. The findings of this study reveals that video recording ones
own lesson can also induce negative emotions in teachers (e.g., nervousness of being video
recorded and being judged by others, concerns about disclosure of their video) similar to those
reported in the literature on lesson study in the local context (Lee, 2008). Also, due to the
culture of face saving within traditional Chinese communities (Bond & Hwang, 1986),
teachers felt uneasy discussing and commenting on their own and/or colleagues teaching, as it
went against the usual accepted norms in the community.
Teachers felt that two features of the TPD were essential for overcoming these emotional and
interpersonal issues: (i) careful design of the video-mediated TPD activities, and (ii)
175
involvement of a TPD facilitator. For the former, a series of VWs (in which teachers analysed
and discussed videos of teachers in other schools) was conducted before LS (in which teachers
analysed and discussed videos of their own and colleagues). The participating teachers found
this arrangement crucial for acquiring the critical lesson analysis skills, and accepting them as
discussion norms before properly engaging in analysing and discussing peer videos. For the
latter, the facilitator helps to establish the discourse norms and to create a relaxing atmosphere
by modelling impartial discussion and analysis of teaching video with a non-evaluative stance.
Moreover, the moral support and encouragement provided by the facilitator through verbal
persuasion and physical participation in the TPD meetings motivates teachers to persist in the
learning process and strive for excellence. In sum, it is a demanding job for the facilitator to
take on multiple roles, shifting between the roles of a more capable knowledgeable other (as a
knowledge enhancer) and a more equal learning partner (as an emotion booster and community
fosterer) under different circumstances.
Overall, the findings of this study seem to suggest that simply putting teachers together to
discuss their own teaching videos may not be sufficient to equip them with the skills for critical
lesson analysis, or to establish the development of trust and collaborative culture that is of
paramount importance in any CoP. An outsider is needed in the initial stage of the TPD to
motivate teachers to learn, support their psychological needs, and model the ways in which
teachers can best utilise video as a means for TPD. When TPD is rooted in a school and when
teachers are able to establish discussion norms, the skills to analyse lessons objectively and
critically, and trust among colleagues, the need for the support of an outsider may eventually
fade as teachers are able to run the TPD themselves.
176
Chapter 9 Conclusions & Implications

This chapter briefly summarises the findings of this study with regard to the original research
questions, discusses the implications of the study, and provides suggestions for future research.
9.1. Summary of the Results and Findings

This study investigated the learning of seven teachers in a year-long school-based TPD
programme comprising use of video and lesson study. The following three research questions
guided the study:
1. What do teachers learn in the communities of practice?
2. How do teachers learn and what are the processes involved?
3. What are the factors that promote or impede teacher learning?
Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth (IMTPG) and Community of Practice

(CoP) were adopted as the theoretical frameworks to delineate the learning process of individual
teachers and to account for the changes in the communities to which the teachers belonged,
respectively. A summary of the major findings on the above questions is provided in the
following sections.
9.1.1.
What Teachers Learned in the TPD programme
Regarding the first research question, what do teachers learn, teachers reported important
learning in knowledge and skills, affects and emotions, as well as in social domain. For
knowledge and skills, some teachers arrived at a renewed understanding of the importance of
some fundamental ideas that they had overlooked in their initial teacher education (e.g., lesson
planning, assessment of/for learning, and paying more attention to students). In addition,
teachers skills in critical lesson analysis (e.g., focusing on student learning and providing
supporting evidence to substantiate their opinions) were enhanced by analysing and discussing
teaching videos with colleagues and the facilitator.
Surprisingly, more than half of the teachers considered affective learning to be their most
important learning. For example, Sam regained confidence in his teaching and his identity as a
competent IS teacher, Ben and Felix were motivated to pursue their goals of science teaching
Chloe and Victor were empowered to face their shortcomings and to strive to be better teachers.
For social learning, most of the teachers (except Stone) came to learn the importance of
cooperation and of building a trusting relationship among colleagues (e.g., feeling like a team,
177
building a trusting relationship and establishing a collaborative spirit). This social learning is
particularly important for these two groups of teachers as their relationships with each other
prior to the TPD could at best be described as contrived collegiality.
Wengers framework of CoP (2003) was used to account for the changes and development in the
learning communities of the two schools. Over a period of a year, the teachers in Bright Future
College (BFC) developed a common vision of cultivating students scientific investigation skills
(i.e., a joint enterprise), discovered how to engage in collaboration and speak truthfully (i.e.,
mutual engagement), and produced a shared repertoire (e.g., routines of lesson planning and
analysis). In short, they were on the way to becoming a more mature CoP. In contrast, the
teachers at Sunset Valley High School (SVHC) failed to form a common vision. The two new
colleagues, Sam and Stone, had just got to know each other and still had reservations in
expressing their opinions. The repertoire produced was not evenly shared and used by all
members of the community.
To summarise, the data suggests that the learning perceived by the teachers as important is more
than just the acquisition of knowledge and skills. It is also the enhancement of affect and
emotions, and the construction of a trusting relationship and collaboration with colleagues.
Previous studies on video-based TPD have widely reported teacher learning in knowledge (e.g.,
Olivero, et al., 2004; Roth, et al., 2011) and skills (e.g., Eilam & Poyas, 2006; Sherin & Han,
2004; van Es & Sherin, 2010). Only a few studies on video-based TPD have reported teacher
affective learning (e.g., Gunning & Mensah, 2011; Yoon, et al., 2006), and social learning is
even rarer. The present study deepens our understanding of teacher learning as affects and
emotions, as well as community building in the context of video-based TPD.
9.1.2.
Process of Teacher Learning
To facilitate cross case comparisons, data on the process of teacher learning was analysed using
the Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth (IMTPG) developed by Clarke and
Hollingsworth (2002). What teachers learned is described in the Personal Domain (PD) of the
IMTPG. The related events/input contributing to a particular learning are described in the
Domain of Practice (DP) (i.e., professional experimentation), the Domain of Consequence (DC)
(i.e., salient learning outcomes of students), and the External Domain (ED) (i.e., stimuli or
features of the TPD programme, such as video and facilitation).
Three characteristics of the process of teacher learning were discerned through the lens of
IMTPG. First, the process of teacher learning is highly idiosyncratic for individual teachers, in
the sense that there are no two identical learning pathways. The learning pathways are different
178
in their length, the numbers of domains involved and the corresponding content in each domain.
Second, all of the learning pathways display two or more learning iterations. In other words, the
learning process is recursive in nature. It is common for the teachers to revisit the same ideas,
concepts or issues at different times of the TPD programme. As such, the learning process can
be seen as a learning spiral, with the learning consolidated and/or more in depth each time the
same issue is revisited. There is also evidence that such recursive pattern occurs for both
cognitive and affective learning (as illustrated by the cases of Ben and Sam respectively).
Third, the learning pathways are largely influenced by the design of the TPD programme. This
is understandable as teachers are expected to learn through the TPD activities offered to them.
Two such patterns were identified. First, the interactions between ED and PD prevailed in the
early part of the teachers learning journeys whilst DP and DC appeared only in later iterations
of the learning journeys. This can be attributed to the TPD design that the VWs preceded the LS.
In the VWs, teachers mainly received input from external sources (i.e., ED). This was different
to the LS, where teachers had the chance to undertake professional experimentation (i.e., DP)
and collect data on student learning outcomes (i.e., DC) to reflect on. The second TPD-related
pattern identified is the dominance of the number of interactions between ED and PD in the
learning pathways. This is because the factors most frequently cited by teachers as having
contributed to their learning (PD) among all the various TPD features, were video, discussion
and facilitation (ED).
In sum, the above findings are in line with the those found in previous studies about the
idiosyncratic nature (e.g., Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Coenders, 2010; Zwart, et al., 2007)
and recursive nature (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Senger, 1999) of the teacher learning
process. In addition, we find that the idiosyncratic and recursive nature of the process of teacher
learning applies to both cognitive and affective learning. These are all significant findings, as
argued by Beijaard and colleagues (Beijaard, et al., 2007), understanding how teachers learn is a
pre-requisite for promoting teacher learning.
9.1.3.
Factors Affecting Teacher Learning
In response to the call for more holistic studies on teacher learning (Hoban, 2002; Knight, 2002;
Richardson & Placier, 2001; Webster-Wright, 2009), this study investigated three categories of
factors that may have a bearing on teachers learning in the context of a school-based TPD. The
three categories of factors are those that are specific to: (i) the individual teacher, (ii) the
community to which the teacher belongs, and (iii) the TPD and its design features.
179
9.1.3.1. Individual factors

Individual factors refer to those that are specific to the individual teachers. It is found that
teachers will to learn, their level of reflectivity and availability of time for undertaking TPD
were the key individual factors affecting their professional learning. In this study, teachers will
to learn was found to affect teacher engagement in learning, and subsequently, the quantity and
quality of their learning. Those teachers who were eager to learn (Felix, Victor and Hugo)
engaged more in the TPD learning activities and hence gained more in-depth insights. Teachers
who were wondering to learn (Sam and Chloe) wanted to improve their teaching but did not
know how to do so. External support from peers and the TPD facilitator helped them to
recognise the direction of their learning. However, those teachers who did not see the need to
learn (like Stone) merely did what they were asked to but did not engage in in-depth learning.
They gained only a few shallow insights, if any, even with external support. These findings
concur with the assertion of van Eekelen and colleagues (2006) that a will to learn is a necessary
prerequisite in order for teacher learning and development to occur.
In this study, the teachers level of reflectivity was also found to have impacted on the depth of
their learning. Teachers with a high level of reflectivity (such as Ben and Felix) tended to
engage themselves in core reflections (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005) such as their mission and
identity as science teachers and questions their deeply rooted assumptions (Brookfield, 1995).
They were able to scrutinise their teaching and learning experiences in a more holistic manner,
and, thus, had a greater tendency to associate their learning with their goal of science teaching
and move beyond the behavioural aspects of teaching. Teachers with a low reflectivity (like
Stone), however, tended to reflect on the behavioural aspects of teaching and seldom analysed
the teaching in the videos in depth. Hence, their learning was rather superficial and showed little
connection to their mission and identity as a science teacher.
Consistent with literature (e.g., Lee, 2008; Scribner, 1999), time was a scarce commodity for
teachers in this study and lack of time was one of the factors hindering their learning in the TPD.
However, our data also shows that although the scarcity of time available for professional
learning may limit a teacher from full participation in the TPD activities (Scribner, 1999), it will
not limit the quality and depth of teacher learning if the teacher is reflective and has a strong
will to learn (as in the cases of Felix and Victor).
9.1.3.2. Communal factors

Communal factors refer to those that are characteristic of the CoPs to which the teachers belong.
At the outset, the two CoPs were similar in terms of the support they received from the school
and the working culture within the communities. First, other than moral support from the
180
principal, no further support was given to the teachers in either school, not even in the form of a
common timeslot reserved in the timetable for the TPD meetings. Second, the working culture
of both IS departments could only be described, at best, as contrived collegiality (Hargreaves,
1992). Teachers cooperated with each other on managerial and administrative matters only, and
rarely shared their personal views on teaching and learning. In brief, the communal factors in
the two schools prior to the start of the TPD programme were far from satisfactory for creating a
favourable environment for the teachers professional learning.
Over a year, the teachers in BFC developed into a relatively more mature CoP than their
counterparts in SVHS. According to Wenger (2003), there are three characteristics of a CoP that
would impact teacher learning, namely, imagination, engagement, and the alignment of
members in the CoP. Imagination refers to the way in which members construct an image of
themselves and their communities so as to orient themselves, to reflect on their situation, and to
explore possibilities. In this study, imagination relates to how teachers see the purpose of their
participation in the TPD programme. The data confirms that a clear, shared understanding on the
purpose of joining the TPD programme had motivated teachers in BFC to participate in the
learning activities wholeheartedly and take collective responsibility for each others learning.
However, this was not the case in SVHS. Not all members were in alignment with the vision
that they were pioneers in the practice of co-lesson planning and peer observation in the school.
This difference affected the kind of learning that the two communities perceived to be valuable
or meaningful to them.
Engagement, the second characteristic that can have a bearing on teachers learning, is related to
the ways in which teachers engaged with the activities taking place in the CoP and the
relationships among members of the CoP. The open and egalitarian culture in BFC enabled the
teachers to voice their concerns or raise questions without hesitation or reservation. This opened
up more opportunities for learning to be more in-depth and more relevant to teachers own
needs. However, this type of open culture was not established in SVHS. This prevented its
members, particularly the two newcomers, from voicing their thoughts and concerns for
discussion and hence hindered their learning.
Alignment, the third characteristic that may impact teachers learning, describes how members
of a CoP coordinate and align their thinking and actions with each other. It also relates to the
ways in which teachers manage conflicting issues/perspectives within the community. When
conflicting issues arose, teachers in BFC could raise them for negotiation and arrive at a
solution agreed by everyone in the community. This kind of persuasive alignment among
teachers in BFC further motivated them to learn together. Teachers in SVHS, however,
181
submissively did what was required of them by the TPD and the community, without voicing
their opinions for negotiation. They hid their true feelings and thoughts in order to keep a
facade of harmony within the community. Such coercive alignment had a demotivating effect on
some of the teachers learning, most notably that of Stone.
In sum, the present study adds to the CoP literature in two ways. First, it has provided empirical
evidence of the ways in which imagination, engagement, and the alignment of members in a
CoP affect the learning of its members. Second, it illustrates how the relevant theories and
framework proposed by Wenger (2003) can be used to study and compare teacher learning in
CoPs with different characteristics. A more in-depth analysis of the data may have the potential
of advancing the relevant theories. This, however, is outside the scope of the present study.
9.1.3.3. Factors related to the TPD and its design features

The metaphor of growing apples (see Section 8.1) nicely depicts the ways in which the various
TPD features interacted and worked together to bring about teacher learning in this study. In
particular, the multiple strategies employed by the TPD facilitated the teachers to learn in a way
that was best for each of their unique professional situations. The arrangement of having a series
of video workshops (discussing videos of teachers in other schools) before discussing the
teachers own videos in the lesson study was also seen as crucial by the teachers, as it equipped
them with critical lesson analysis skills and familiarised them with the discussion norms
necessary for analysing and discussing peer videos. The roles of the videos and the facilitator
were also highly valued, as summarised below.
The role of video

Consistent with the literature on the role of video in facilitating teacher learning, this study
confirms that viewing videos of other teachers helps to increase teachers awareness of
alternative teaching strategies and classroom situations, provides exemplary models of teaching
and proof of existence of good practice, which, in turn, encourages teachers to try out new ideas
(e.g., Seago, 2000; Yung, et al., 2007). Video also promotes teachers reflection on their own
teaching (e.g., Rosaen, et al., 2008; Sherin, 2004; Zhang, et al., 2010). In addition, videomediated TPD activities also play a role in fostering community as they open up the teachers
classroom as well as exposing their vulnerabilities. This helps to create a culture of openness
and striving for continual improvement (J. Lieberman, 2009).
The role of the TPD facilitator

The data reveals that the facilitator has taken on multiple roles in facilitating teacher learning in
the TPD context, namely, knowledge enhancer, emotion booster, and community fosterer. As a
182
knowledge enhancer, the facilitator contributes to teacher knowledge development by acting as

a source of information and knowledge, a guide for teachers to reflect on areas that they have
overlooked or not considered thoroughly, and a master to model the essential lesson analysis
skills. As an emotion booster, the facilitator provides moral support and encouragement through
verbal persuasion and by attending the TPD activities as a learning partner with the teachers. As
a community fosterer, the facilitator helps to cultivate the discussion norms in the community by
modelling impartial discussion and analysis of lesson videos, and acting as a middleman to
balance the opinions of different teachers.
The above findings add to the literature on the important role of the facilitator in teacher
professional learning (e.g., Hoekstra & Korthagen, 2011; Watanabe & Wang-Iverson, 2005;
Zhang, Lundeberg, & Eberhardt, 2011). It is consistent with existing literature that the role of a
facilitator is not only a knowledgeable other who focuses on promoting teacher knowledge and
skill development, but also a learning partner who supports teachers to continue learning (e.g.,
Watanabe & Wang-Iverson, 2005) and to foster a supportive learning environment (e.g., Zhang,
Lundeberg, & Eberhardt, 2011). The present study illustrates that the work of a facilitator is
more complex and demanding than is expected. It requires the facilitator to pay considerable
attention to fostering teachers emotions and community building, and to make skilful shift
between the roles of a knowledgeable other and a learning partner, as called for by different
circumstances (Goodnough, 2003). The study also sheds light on the role of facilitation in
enhancing learning in the CoP framework, which has been paid little attention (Graven &
Lerman, 2003).
9.1.3.4. Towards a holistic picture of the factors affecting teacher learning

The data suggests that the three types of factors identified above did not exist in isolation from
each other, but were interconnected and interacted with each other in promoting or impeding
teacher learning. For example, a teachers will to learn may have been positively affected by the
increasing common understanding among members of the community. Coercive alignment in
one of the CoPs may have exerted a negative effect on Stones will to learn and his level of
reflectivity. It is likely, as argued by other authors, that what is now psychological was first
social (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). That is, a persons
development is not purely an individual matter that results from genetic predisposition and
individual opportunity, it is also influenced by the social context (Rogoff, 1995; Tharp, et al.,
2000; Vygotsky, 1978). Hence, understanding how individuals strategically adapt within an
environment to achieve professional learning goals may help researchers understand how
teacher-learners cognitive thoughts interact with contexts and how their reflection, motivation
and behaviour act on their authentic contexts. In this way, what takes place in their learning
183
process can then be fully observed and captured.
This study provides empirical support to a refined model of teacher learning which combines
the IMTPG and the CoP frameworks together as given in Figure 9.1. The IMTPG (i.e., the red
part) of the refined model helps to describe individual teachers learning (e.g. knowledge, skills,
affects and emotions in Personal Domain), to delineate the process of teacher learning, and to
identify the individual factors related to the teachers (i.e., reflection and will to learn) and the
factors related to the TPD activities (e.g. facilitator and videos in the External Domain). The
characteristics of the community, to which teachers belong, can be addressed by the three
dimensions of the CoP framework (i.e., the three layers in purple). The model enables the
researcher to have a more holistic picture of teacher learning.
Figure 9.1 The Refined Model of Teacher Learning
ED
ED
Teacher 2
Teacher 1
DP
PD
DP
PD
DC
DC
Engagement,
imagination,
alignment
Enactment
Reflection
In summary, by responding to the call for more holistic studies on teacher learning (Hoban,
2002; Knight, 2002; Richardson & Placier, 2001; Webster-Wright, 2009), this study set off to
study teacher learning taking into consideration three sets of factors that might account for their
learning, namely, the individual factors, communal factors and the TPD-related factors. This
represents a significant contribution to the literature as it provides some initial evidence of
interaction among the different kinds of factors in affecting a teachers learning (e.g., Stone) and
an initial model of teacher learning which may describe the content, process and factors of
184
teacher learning more holistically. It also sheds light on the feasibility and plausibility of
undertaking similar kinds of further studies in the future.
9.2. Implications and Suggestions for TPD

The findings of the present study have several important implications for teacher professional
developers in designing professional learning activities for teachers.
9.2.1.
Affective and Social Learning is as Important as Knowledge & Skills
While it is important to facilitate knowledge and skill development, it is equally important for
TPD to foster affective and social learning in teachers. As implied from the data, emotions and
cognition are inextricably interconnected and inseparable (Nias, 1996; van Veen & Lasky, 2005).
Affective learning can be fostered by creating opportunities for teachers to: (i) acquire vicarious
experience from watching videos showing exemplary teaching or good practices from
colleagues or teachers in other schools, and (ii) receive verbal persuasion and praise from peers
or knowledgeable others on their teaching. As revealed in the data, teacher learning involves
both positive and negative feelings (see Section 7.1.2). TPD developers may need to help
teachers to see negative emotions as integral parts of the change process to be managed, rather
than as aspects to be avoided or ignored (Bell & Gilbert, 1996; F. Y. Lo & Yung, 2009). If
managed well, these emotions can be a precondition for learning, as in the case of Sam.
Cultivation of a learning community with a common vision, trusting relationship, and a shared
repertoire, as in the case of BFC, is important in school-based TPD in Hong Kong. This is
because many school in Hong Kong, like the two case study schools, do not have a collaborative
culture (Lam, Yim, & Lam, 2002). Arguably, it is even more important for school-based TPD
using classroom videos of teachers as a mediating tool, which some teachers may consider
intrusive. Discussing their own teaching videos and those of their colleagues may induce
interpersonal issues. This can be especially difficult for Chinese teachers, who try to avoid
making each other losing face (Bond & Hwang, 1986). Researchers on video-based TPD have
also stressed the importance of establishing a community of learners and rules for discussing
videos in order to build trust between group members (Borko, et al., 2008; Sherin & van Es,
2009). The findings of this study suggest that the discussion of videos from teachers in other
schools in the video workshops can help familiarise teachers with the norms of critically
analysing and discussing teaching videos, and eventually help to reduce their concerns about
interpersonal issues. The findings also highlight the need of equipping teachers with appropriate
lesson analysis skills before engaging them in the analysis of their own teaching videos.
185
9.2.2.
Opportunities to Revisit Important Learning
The findings of this study point to the need for TPD to provide teachers with opportunities to
revisit what they have learned previously, be it fundamental ideas taught in initial teacher
education or ideas that they have newly learned in the TPD. This suggestion is rooted in two
findings of the present study. The first finding is that even very experienced teachers embraced
the importance of revisiting fundamental ideas such as lesson planning after teaching for more
than ten years. The second finding is the recursive nature of teacher learning process. Revisiting
ideas over several iterations helps teachers to consolidate their learning and to develop a deeper
understanding. Hence, we strongly recommend that TPD should help teachers to build a better
foundation by revisiting the fundamental ideas that teachers should have learned in teacher
education. This reminder is particularly important in an era of so many education reforms,
which may tempt many TPD developers to jump on the bandwagon of simply transforming
teachers teaching and assuming that they have a firm grip of the basics. The findings of the
present study suggest that the assumption that teachers come to TPD with a firm grasp of the
basics is largely invalid! Teachers, like students, need to revisit fundamental ideas regularly and
recursively if learning is to be useful.
9.2.3.
The Essential Roles of Facilitation
This study has unveiled the important roles of a facilitator in fostering teacher learning in the
cognitive, affective and social domains. Based on the findings, we recommend that it is essential
for TPD developers to engage facilitators who are skilful and knowledgeable, yet open and
egalitarian. As facilitators need to take on the multiple roles of knowledge enhancer, emotion
booster, and community fosterer, they need to be able to skilfully shift between these roles in
order to provide support and guidance on teacher learning in the various domains, and to
consider a teacher as a whole person in any attempt to facilitate their learning (Hoekstra &
Korthagen, 2011).
In particular, we would argue that the presence of a facilitator is imperative when video-based
TPD is first held in a school/with a group of teachers. As discussed in Sections 8.3 and 8.4,
during the initial stages of the video-based TPD, teachers may not have developed either the
skills for critical lesson analysis or a trusting relationship with each other. An external facilitator
can help to model the practice of critical lesson analysis, establish the discourse norms,
erase/relieve nervousness and worries, and build up trust among teachers. It is envisaged that
once the TPD is engrained in the school, namely, once teachers have built up the discourse
norms, the skills to analyse lesson critically and objectively, and trust among colleagues, the
facilitators support may fade out eventually.
186
9.3. Implications for Research on Teacher Learning

9.3.1.
Theoretical Frameworks for Studying Teacher Learning
This study adopted two theoretical frameworks to account for the different aspects of teacher
learning. IMTPG was used to delineate the learning process, while the CoP framework was used
to describe the changes in the community and relationship between teachers. These frameworks
complement each other to provide a more holistic picture of teacher learning.
IMTPG provides a useful and practical framework to study teacher learning. The case reports in
Chapters 5 and 6, and the discussion in Chapter 7 have clearly illustrated how IMTPG is
adopted as an analytical tool to delineate the process of teacher learning, categorising teacher
learning data into the four domains, and identifying patterns in the learning process. This turns
muddled and disorganised data into neat and systematic patterns for further analyses and
comparison.
Nevertheless, the various characteristics of the context have yet to be indicated in the graphic
representation of the model. The authors of IMTPG acknowledge that, the context in which
teachers work (the Change Environment) can have a substantial impact on their professional
growth. The school context can impinge on a teachers professional growth at every stage of the
professional development process. (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002, p. 962). Hence, Change
Environment is incorporated to remind researchers/TPD developers that change in every
domain and the effect of every mediating process are facilitated or retarded by the affordances
and constraints of the workplace context of each teacher (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002, p.
965).
To date, studies on teacher learning using IMTPG (e.g., Coenders, 2010; Grierson, 2009; Justi &
van Driel, 2005, 2006; Zwart, et al., 2007) have mainly focused on the learning of individual
teachers and rarely accounted for the effect of the context on teacher learning. To fill this gap,
the present study also uses Wengers CoP framework grounded in a situative perspective of
learning to account for the characteristics of the communities to which the teachers belonged (as
social learning in Section 7.1.3) and the communal factors affecting their learning (in Section
7.3.2). In other words, the CoP accounts for the influence of the communal factors on teacher
learning.
Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002, pp. 955-956) have discussed, in theoretical terms, the
applicability of their IMTPG model to a situative perspective of learning like that of a CoP. This
study has empirically illustrated how the IMTPG and CoP frameworks work in synergy with
187
each other to provide a more holistic picture of the learning pathways and the factors affecting
teacher learning. Indeed Grierson (2009) has also adopted a second framework (CognitiveAffective Model of Conceptual Change), in addition to IMTPG, to explain the process of
teacher learning. The current study provides an additional perspective to look at the roles and
the influence of TPD activities and the characteristics of the CoP on teacher learning. This may
shed light on the design of TPD and cultivation of a learning community conducive to teacher
learning. The current study has discussed the two frameworks in a rather separate manner, and
has not yet incorporated the different characteristics of the CoPs into the IMTPG model. More
research on the integration of the IMTPG and CoP frameworks and the use of the refined model
in studying teacher learning may provide more insightful information in the area of teacher
learning.
As argued by researchers in the field (e.g., Justi & van Driel, 2006), there is a need for a
research tool to monitor and understand teacher learning. Without the IMTPG, it may have been
possible to categorise and describe the content and the process of teacher learning (c.f. Guskey,
1986; Meirink, Meijer, & Verloop, 2007), but it may not have been possible to analyse, compare
and discuss findings in studies with different settings and circumstances. For example, Zwart
and colleagues (Zwart, et al., 2007) adopted IMTPG for the analysis and categorisation of the
teacher learning process in peer coaching. Their data resulted in two different types of patterns:
one involving ED and the other not involving ED. This is quite different from the current study,
in which all the patterns involve ED. The difference between the learning paths in the two
studies might suggest that the TPD programme (i.e., ED) in the current study exerts a relatively
great impact on teacher learning so that teachers refer to ED repeatedly. In addition, teacher
learning in the study of Zwart et al seemed to start and end in any one of the four domains (ED,
PD, DC and DP), whereas teacher learning in the current study largely started in ED and ended
in PD. Again, this reflects the differences in the design and nature of peer coaching and the TPD
programme in this study. In brief, by way of the examples discussed above, it is suggested that
IMTPG is a potential candidate for tracing, analysing and comparing teacher learning in
different studies. In sum, the present study provides an example of how the use of IMTPG can
facilitate comparison of findings from different studies. As advocated by Justi and van Driel
(2006), this will certainly facilitate the advancement of knowledge on teacher learning.
9.3.2. Adopting a Teacher Perspective to Study Teacher Learning

This study adopts a teacher perspective to investigate teacher learning in a TPD context. It is
this insider perspective that helps to provide a significant contribution to the body of literature
on teacher learning. Without the teacher perspective, the study may not have been able to
uncover many of the important findings reported above, and may only have reported how well
188
the teachers achieved the learning outcomes predetermined by the TPD developers or the
researchers. For instance, we may not have been able to unveil the importance of affective
learning to teachers and may only have developed the knowledge and skills that
researchers/teacher educators perceived to be important to teachers. Similarly, we may not have
been able to realise the importance of facilitation to teachers. It is only through studying teacher
learning from the teachers own perspective that we are able to understand more about the lived
experience of teachers professional learning and to provide suggestions to support teacher
learning. Webster-Wright (2009) terms this lived experience of continuing to learn as a
professional as authentic professional learning (PL). She contends that understanding this
authentic PL is the starting point toward an authentic PL framework for supporting professional
learning. Here, I would argue, investigating teacher learning from the perspective of teachers is
the first step to understanding teachers authentic PL.
9.4. Limitations of the Study

Due to the unique characteristics of the two schools and the small number of teachers involved,
the findings of the present study may not be generalized or applied to a different context.
However, this studys use of narrative vignettes from the teacher interviews and/or interactions
in the meetings, and thick descriptions, have an exemplarity function (Vithal, 2001) that enables
the reader to come to understand and reflect on the teacher learning reported, and to interrogate
the theory that is generated. It is believed that the detailed descriptions enable readers to
consider the extent to which the findings, themes or phenomena are applicable (generalisable) to,
or have implications for, other contexts.
Despite the fact that efforts were taken to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings and
interpretations, the study has several limitations. First, there was a conflict between data
collection and teacher workload. As the teachers were often busy with their teaching
responsibilities and other school duties, it was often hard to arrange times for the meetings.
There were occasions when teachers agreed on a common time slot for meetings but were
finally unable to attend because of student problems and/or other school duties. In such cases,
learning data was unavailable for those teachers who were absent from particular meetings.
Many teachers found it even harder to allocate time to complete the preparation and follow-up
tasks or to schedule interviews during or after their working hours. Efforts had been made to
collect as much data as possible, at the same time, to avoid creating extra workload/burdens for
teachers. Readers must therefore bear in mind the incompleteness of the data set from which
teacher learning was inferred when interpreting the findings.
Second, all teachers (except perhaps Stone) participated voluntarily in this study and showed a
189
certain level of willingness to learn and to advance their own teaching. Arguably, such a selfidentified group is more likely to report positive learning outcomes, which, indeed, could be the
case. However, the case of Stone also illustrates that teachers do not necessarily learn from
participation in TPD. It also sheds light on the ways in which professional development impacts
the learning of a teacher who does not see the need to learn but participates in a study after
being coerced by the subject department. The real challenge may lie with teachers who do not
engage in TPD. How can the non-voluntary teachers be engaged in learning? More research in
this area is needed and could provide valuable information for TPD developers on how to
cultivate a will to learn in teachers, like Stone, who do not see the need to learn.
Third, due to limited resources and also due to the fact that it was not the focus of the present
study, little data was collected on how participation in the TPD activities had impacted the
teachers daily teaching practice. The main data source on teaching practice was from the
lessons taught by the teachers for the lesson study. Other than that, no pre- or post-TPD data
was collected on the teachers daily teaching practices. Data concerning changes in their daily
teaching practice, if any, were mainly reported by the teachers themselves during interviews or
TPD meetings. While we saw no reason for the teachers to lie to us, any claims of changes in
teaching practice as a result of learning from the TPD have to be interpreted with great care
(note that the effect of the TPD on changes in teachers daily teaching practice was not a focus
of the present study).
9.5. Suggestions for Future Research

Although this study has identified and discussed the individual, communal, and TPD-related
factors that may have a bearing on teacher learning, it has not examined at depth the interactions
of these three kinds of factors, or how these factors are changed in the course of the TPD. Future
work may seek to look further into the dynamic and interactive nature of these factors, and is
suggested to take a holistic approach to study the content, process, and related factors in the
course of teacher learning.
This study reports the development of two newly formed CoPs over a period of one year. On
completion of the study, the two communities were still in the very early stages of their
development. Future research may investigate the sustainability of the teacher learning
community once external support is removed, and look into whether the two communities
continue to pursue their common vision or whether teachers revert to working individually;
whether new common visions emerge; the ways in which teacher engagement evolves over
time; the types of shared repertoire that are produced further; and the ways in which these
190
factors interact with each other in the course of teacher learning.
The findings of this study point to the crucial role of a facilitator in promoting teacher learning
in a CoP. Further study of the development and learning of a facilitator in his/her course of
leading a learning community would be worthwhile. Recent literature also notes that studies on
how the TPD facilitator comes to learn and acquire their facilitating skills are rare (Fransson,
Lakerveld, & Rohtma, 2008; Grierson, 2009; Watanabe & Wang-Iverson, 2005). Future work
may be carried out in the context of the learning community, addressing such questions as, What
knowledge, skills and/or dispositions are essential to an effective facilitator? How do facilitators
develop the necessary facilitation knowledge, skills and disposition?
The answers to such questions could provide valuable information for school teachers, leaders,
TPD developers or even teacher educators who are designing TPD and/or taking up facilitator
roles in their own CoPs. In studying and analysing data on the learning of facilitators, IMTPG
may be adopted to facilitate the comparison and discussion of the similarities and differences
between teacher learning and facilitator learning. Similar to the study of teacher learning, it is
essential to investigate the learning of facilitators from their own perspectives in a holistic
manner to understand the authentic professional learning of the facilitators.
To conclude, this study set off to study teacher learning from their own perspective. It
holistically reports the learning perceived to be important by teachers, the learning process they
experienced and its characteristics, and the related factors affecting their learning. This insider
perspective enables us to understand more deeply about the lived experience of teachers
learning, and helps to make a significant contribution to the literature on teacher learning. This
study calls for more research on teacher learning (and facilitator learning) from the learners
own perspective to better understand their authentic learning experiences and to build a more
holistic model of teacher learning.
191
References
References
Abou Baker El-Dib, M. (2007). Levels of reflection in action research. An overview and an
assessment tool. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(1), 24-35.
Adler, J. (1996). Secondary school teachers' knowledge of the dynamics of teaching and
learning mathematics in multilingual classrooms. Unpublished Doctoral thesis,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Bacevich, A. E. (2010). Building Curriculum for Teacher Education: A Study of Video Records
of Practice. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Michigan.
Baird, J. R. (1992). Collaborative reflection, systematice enquiry, better teaching. In T. Russell
& H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection. New York:
Falmer Press.
Bakkenes, I., De Brabander, C., & Imants, J. (1999). Teacher isolation and communication
network analysis in primary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 166202.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Beijaard, D., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Verloop, N. (2007). Understanding how teachers learn as a
prerequisite for promoting teacher learning. Teachers & Teaching, 13(2), 105-108.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher Development: A Model From Science Education. London:
Falmer Press.
Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.
Berliner, D. C. (1988). The development of expertise in pedagogy. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans,
LA.
Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: The Wonder of Exemplary Performances In J. N. Mangieri &
C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse
perspectives (pp. 161-186). Fort Worth, Tex.: Harcourt Brace College.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing Professional
Development That Works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Black, P., & Atkin, J. M. (1996). Changing the subject : innovations in science, mathematics
and technology education. London: Routledge.
Bobrowsky, W., Marx, R., & Fishman, B. (2001). The empirical base for professional
development in science education: Moving beyond volunteers. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research on Science Teaching, St. Louis,
MO.
Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond
(Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213-266). Hong Kong: Oxford
University Press.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
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.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1995). Expanding a teacher's knowledge base: a cognitive
psychology perspectivce on professional development. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman
(Eds.), Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms and Practices (pp.
269-272). New York: Teacher College Press.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),
192
References
Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan.

Bransford, J., Barron, B., Pea, R. D., Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P., Bell, P., et al. (2006). Foundations
and opportunities for an interdisciplinary science of learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The
Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 19-34). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn : brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (1st ed.). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Buaraphan, K. (2010). Metaphorical Roots of Beliefs about Teaching and Learning Science and
their Modifications in the StandardBased Science Teacher Preparation Programme.
International Journal of Science Education, 33(11), 1571-1595.
Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and
self-regulation in teachers' professional development. Teaching & Teacher Education,
20(5), 435-455.
Calderhead, J., & Shorrock, S. B. (1997). Understanding teacher education : case studies in the
professional development of beginning teachers. London: Falmer Press.
Chen, Y. P. (2007). Exploring Elementary School Teachers' Professional Growth through the
Interconnected Model in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Learning Community.
Unpublished Master Thesis, National Yunlin University of Science & Technology,
Yunlin, Taiwan, ROC.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.
Teaching & Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967.
Clausen, K. W., Aquino, A.-M., & Wideman, R. (2009). Bridging the real and ideal: A
comparison between learning community characteristics and a school-based case study.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 444-452.
Claxton, G. (1989). Being a teacher: A positive approach to change and stress. London: Cassell.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2002). Inquiry and Outcomes: Learning To Teach in the Age of
Accountability. Teacher Education and Practice, 15(4), 12-34.
Coenders, F. (2010). Teachers' professional growth during the development and class enactment
of context-based chemistry student learning material. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). State policy and classroom performance: Mathematics
reform in California. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.
Cohen, J. L. (2010). Getting recognised: Teachers negotiating professional identities as learners
through talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 473-481.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.).
London ; New York: Routledge.
Copeland, W. D., & Decker, D. L. (1996). Video cases and the development of meaning making
in preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(5), 467-481.
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology. American
Psychologist, 30(116-127).
Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves : identity, pedagogy, and teacher education. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Davis, E. A. (2006). Characterizing productive reflection among preservice elementary teachers:
Seeing what matters. Teaching & Teacher Education, 22(3), 281-301.
Davis, E. A., & Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary
193
References
science teaching. Science Education, 93(4), 745-770.

Day, C. (1999). Teachers' conditions of work: Classrooms, cultures and leadership Developing
teachers : the challenges of lifelong learning (pp. 70-91). London: Falmer.
Day, C., Stobart, G., Sammons, P., & Kington, A. (2006). Variations in the work and lives of
teachers: relative and relational effectiveness. Teachers and Teaching, 12(2), 169 - 192.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving Impact Studies of Teachers' Professional Development:
Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181199.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think : a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath and company.
Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2006). Promoting awareness of the characteristics of classrooms'
complexity: A course curriculum in teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education,
22(3), 337-351.
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 113-136.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
Erickson, F. (2003). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G.
Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155-1173). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F. B. Murray
(Ed.), The teacher educators handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparing of
teachers (pp. 63-91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Feldman, A. (2000). Decision making in the practical domain: A model of practical conceptual
change. Science Education, 84(5), 606-623.
Ferguson, E. D., & Wee, B. E. F. (2000). Motivation : a biosocial and cognitive integration of
motivation and emotion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning form Japanese approaches to professional development: the case
of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 393-405.
Fernandez, C., Cannon, J., & Chokshi, S. (2003). A US-Japan lesson study collaboration reveals
critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 19(2), 171-185.
Fischer, C. M. (2006). A high school teacher implements writing in her earth science classroom:
A case study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Virginia, United States,
Virginia.
Fishman, B. J., & Davis, E. A. (2006). Teacher learning research and the learning sciences. In R.
K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 535-550).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fransson, G., Lakerveld, J., & Rohtma, V. (2008). To Be a Facilitator of In-Service Learning:
Challenges, Roles and Professional Development. In A. Swennen & M. Klink (Eds.),
Becoming a Teacher Educator (pp. 75-88): Springer Netherlands.
Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making model: A model of
teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23,
27-45.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of Teachers: A Developmental Conceptualization. American
Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-226.
Givvin, K. B., Lemmens, M., & Santagata, S. (2007). Assessing learning in preservice and
inservice teacher education: Preliminary results of the VISTA and STELLA projects.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in
194
References
Science Teaching
Goldman, R. (2007). Video representations and the perspectivity framework: epistemology,
ethnography, evaluation, and ethics. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron & S. J. Derry
(Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 3-37). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Goodnough, K. (2003). Facilitating action research in the context of science education:
reflections of a university researcher. Educational Action Research, 11(1), 41-64.
Gravani, M. N. (2007). Unveiling professional learning: Shifting from the delivery of courses to
an understanding of the processes. Teaching & Teacher Education, 23(5), 688-704.
Gravani, M. N., & John, P. D. (2005). 'Them and us' Teachers' and tutors' experiences of a 'new'
professional development course in Greece. Compare: A Journal of Comparative
Education, 35(3), 303-319.
Graven, M. (2002). Mathematics Teacher Learning, Communities of Practice and the Centrality
of Confidence. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand,
South Africa.
Graven, M. (2004). Investigating mathematics teacher learning within an in-service community
of practice: The centrality of confidence. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(2),
177-211.
Graven, M., & Lerman, S. (2003). Book review of Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice:
Learning, meaning and identity. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(2), 185194.
Greeno, J. G. (1997). On Claims That Answer the Wrong Questions. Educational Researcher,
26(1), 5-17.
Grierson, A. L. (2009). Show me, help me, let me: supporting teachers' changing conceptions of
reading assessment and reading instruction. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Brock
University, St Catharines, Ontario.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.
New York: Teacher College Press.
Grossman, P. L. (1991). What are we talking about anyway? Subject-matter knowledge of
secondary English teachers. In J. E. Brophy (Ed.), Awareness in research on teaching:
Teachers' subject matter knowledge and classroom instruction (Vol. 2). Greenwish, CT:
JAI Press.
Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject-matter
knowledge in teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge-base for the beginning
teacher (pp. 23-36). New York: Pergamon Press and the American Association of
Colleges of Teacher Education.
Grossman, P. L., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a Theory of Teacher
Community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Gunning, A., & Mensah, F. (2011). Preservice Elementary Teachers Development of SelfEfficacy and Confidence to Teach Science: A Case Study. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 22(2), 171-185.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and process of teacher change. Educational Researcher,
15(5), 5-12.
Hargreaves, A. (1992). Cultures of teaching: A focus for change. In A. Hargreaves & M. Fullan
(Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 216-240). London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education,
195
References
14(8), 835-854.
Hindin, A., Morocco, C. C., Mott, E. A., & Aguilar, C. M. (2007). More than just a group:
teacher collaboration and learning in the workplace. Teachers and Teaching, 13(4), 349376.
Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative Introduction to
school-based research. London: Routledge.
Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change : a systems thinking approach.
Buckingham England ; Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Hodkinson, P., & Hodkinson, H. (2004). The significance of individuals' dispositions in
workplace learning: a case study of two teachers. Journal of Education & Work, 17(2),
167-182.
Hodkinson, P., Hodkinson, H., Evans, K., Kersh, N., Fuller, A., Unwin, L., et al. (2004). The
significance of individual biography in workplacelearning. Studies in the Education of
Adults, 36(1), 6-24.
Hoekstra, A., Beijaard, D., Brekelmans, M., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (2007). Experienced teachers'
informal learning from classroom teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice, 13(2), 191-208.
Hoekstra, A., & Korthagen, F. (2011). Teacher Learning in a Context of Educational Change:
Informal Learning Versus Systematically Supported Learning. Journal of Teacher
Education, 62(1), 76-92.
Huberman, M. (1989). The Professional Life Cycle of Teachers. Teachers College Record, 91(1),
31-57.
Huberman, M., & Guskey, T. R. (1995). The diversities of professional development. In T. R.
Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New
paradigms and practices (pp. 269-272). New York: Teachers College Press.
Hui, C. S. (2007). Developing Student Teachers' Conceptions of Good Science Teaching: The
Role of Video Workshops. Research Studies in Education, 5, 222-235.
Jenlink, P. M., & Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (2001). Case stories of facilitating professional
development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(6), 705-724.
Justi, R., & van Driel, J. (2005). The development of science teachers' knowledge on models
and modelling: promoting, characterizing, and understanding the process. International
Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 549-573.
Justi, R., & van Driel, J. (2006). The use of the Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional
Growth for understanding the development of science teachers' knowledge on models
and modelling. Teaching & Teacher Education, 22(4), 437-450.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Research monograph No.13: Form and substance in inservice teacher
education. National Institute for Science Education, University of Wosconsin-Madison.
Knight, P. (2002). A systemic approach to professional development: learning as practice.
Koc, M. (2011). Let's make a movie: Investigating pre-service teachers' reflections on using
video-recorded role playing cases in Turkey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1),
95-106.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2005). Practice, theory, and person in lifelong professional learning. In D.
Beijaard, P. C. Meijer, G. Morine-Dershimer & H. Tillema (Eds.), Teacher Professional
Development in Changing Conditions (pp. 79-94). Netherlands: Springer.
Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking Theory and Practice: Changing the
196
References
Pedagogy of Teacher Education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4-17.

Korthagen, F. A. J., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for
teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8),
1020-1041.
Korthagen, F. A. J., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: core reflection as a means to
enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching, 11(1), 47 - 71.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives:
The classification of educational goals: Handbook II: Affective domain (1st ed.).
London: Longman.
Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers' participation in professional learning activities.
Kwan, T., & Lopez-Real, F. (2010). Identity formation of teacher-mentors: An analysis of
contrasting experiences using a Wengerian matrix framework. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26(3), 722-731.
Lam, S. F., Yim, P. S., & Lam, T. W. H. (2002). Transforming school culture: can true
collaboration be initiated? Educational Research, 44(2), 181-195.
Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics : investigations of real
practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and
professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21(8), 899-916.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Le Fevre, D. M., & Richardson, V. (2002). Staff development in early reading intervention
programs: the facilitator. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(4), 483-500.
Lee, J. F. K. (2008). A Hong Kong case of lesson study--Benefits and concerns. Teaching and
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational
Psychology in the Schools, 78, 75-95.
Lewis, C. (2005). How do teachers learn during lesson study? In P. Wang-Iverson & M. Yoshida
(Eds.), Building our understanding of lesson study (pp. 77-84). Philadelphia, Pa.:
Research for Better Schools.
Lewis, C. (2009). What is the nature of knowledge development in lesson study? Educational
Action Research, 17(1), 95-110.
Lieberman, A. (1996). Practices that support teacher development: transforming conceptions of
professional learning. In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher Learning:
New Policies, New Practices (pp. 185-201). New York: Teachers College Press.
Lieberman, J. (2009). Reinventing teacher professional norms and identities: the role of lesson
study and learning communities. Professional Development in Education, 35(1), 83-99.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Pubns.
Little, J. W. (2003). Inside Teacher Community: Representations of Classroom Practice.
Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913-945.
Lo, F. Y., & Yung, B. H. W. (2009). Teachers' Affective Learning in Teacher Development
Activities Using Classroom Videos as the Mediating Artifact. Paper presented at the
European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Istanbul, Turkey.
Lo, M. L., Chik, P., & Pang, M. F. (2006). Patterns of variation in teaching the colour of light to
Primary 3 students. Instructional Science, 34(1), 1-19.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S. E., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing
197
References
professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Lundeberg, M. A., Koehler, M. J., Zhang, M., Karunaratne, S., McConnell, T. J., & Eberhardt, J.
(2008). "It's like a mirror in my face": Using video-analysis in learning communities of
science teachers to foster reflection on teaching dilemmas. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association.
Marble, S. (2007). Inquiring into Teaching: Lesson Study in Elementary Science Methods.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(6), 935-953.
Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research. Harvard
Educational Review, 62(3), 279-300.
McConnell, T. J., Lundeberg, M. A., Koehler, M. J., Urban-Lurain, M., Zhang, T., Mikeska, J.,
et al. (2008). Video-based teacher reflection - what is the real effect on reflections of
inservice teachers? Paper presented at the 2008 International Conference of the
Association of Science Teacher Educators.
Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2007). A closer look at teachers' individual learning
in collaborative settings. Teachers & Teaching, 13(2), 145-164.
Melville, W., & Yaxley, B. (2009). Contextual Opportunities for Teacher Professional Learning:
The Experience of One Science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &
Technology Education, 5(4), 357-368.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised
and Expanded from "Case Study Research in Education." (2 ed.). San Francisco, Calif. :
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers' knowledge and how it develops. In V.
Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877-904). Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Nias, J. (1996). Thinking about feeling: the emotions in teaching. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 26(3), 293-306.
Norman, M., & Hyland, T. (2003). The Role of Confidence in Lifelong Learning. Educational
Studies, 29(2), 261-272.
Nyabanyaba, T. (2002). Examining Examinations: A Critical Analysis of Recent Trends in the
Ordinary Level Mathematics Examinations in Lesotho and the Impact of the Trends on
Basotho Students' Epistemological Access to the Mathematics Examinations.
Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South
Africa.
Olivero, F., John, P., & Sutherland, R. (2004). Seeing is believing: Using videopapers to
transform teachers' professional knowledge and practice. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 34(2), 179-191.
Peterson, P. L. (1988). Teachers' and students' cognitional knowledge for classroom teaching
and learning. Educational Researcher, 17(5), 5-14.
Ponte, P. (2002). How teachers become action researchers and how teacher educators become
their facilitators. Educational Action Research, 10(3), 399-422.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In
B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers
and teaching (pp. 1223-1296). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What Do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking Have To
Say about Research on Teacher Learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905-947). Washington, DC: American Educational
198
References
Research Association.
Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking.
Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity in three planes: participatory appropriation,
guided participation and apprenticeship Sociocultural Studies of Mind (pp. 139-164).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing
Noticing: How Does Investigation of Video Records Change How Teachers Reflect on
Their Experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347-360.
Rosaen, C. L., & Schram, P. (1997). Professional development for beginning teachers through
practical inquiry. Educational Action Research, 5(2), 255 - 281.
Roth, K. J., & Chen, C. (2007). Teacher learning from videocases of science teaching: A
conceptual framework. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
Roth, K. J., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. I. Z. (2011).
Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 117-148.
Sabers, D. S., Cushing, K. S., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Differences among teachers in a task
characterized by simultaneity, multidimensionality, and immediacy. American
Educational Research Journal, 28, 63-88.
Santagata, R. (2009). Designing Video-Based Professional Development for Mathematics
Teachers in Low-Performing Schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 38-51.
Schn, D. A. (1979). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In
A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 137-163). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schn, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
Scott, C., & Sutton, R. E. (2009). Emotions and Change During Professional Development for
Teachers. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 151-171.
Scribner, J. P. (1999). Professional Development: Untangling the Influence of Work Context on
Teacher Learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 238-266.
Seago, N. (2000). Using video of classroom practice as a tool to study and improve teaching
Mathematics Education in the Middle Grades: Teaching to Meet the Needs of Middle
Grades Learners and to Maintain High Expectations. Proceedings of a National
Convocation and Action Conferences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Seago, N. (2004). Using video as an object of inquiry for mathematics teaching and learning. In
J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 259-286). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Seidel, T., Strmer, 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(2), 259-267.
Senger, S. E. (1999). Reflective Reform in Mathematics: The Recursive Nature of Teacher
Change. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(3), 199-221.
Shapiro, S. (2010). Revisiting the teachers' lounge: Reflections on emotional experience and
teacher identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 616-621.
Sherin, M. G. (2004). New perspectives on the role of video on teacher education. In J. Brophy
(Ed.), Using Video in Teacher Education (pp. 1-27). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
199
References
Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching &
Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using Video to Support Teachers' Ability to Notice
Classroom Interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475-491.
Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of Video Club Participation on Teachers'
Professional Vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20-37.
Shulman, L. S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A
contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching
(3rd ed., pp. 3-36). New York: Macmillan.
Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15, 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and
Interaction. London: Sage.
So, W. W. M., & Watkins, D. A. (2005). From beginning teacher education to professional
teaching: A study of the thinking of Hong Kong primary science teachers. Teaching and
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.
Strickland, J. F., Jr., & Doty, K. (1997). Use of videotapes of exemplary mathematics teaching
for teacher preparation. Education, 118(2), 259-261.
Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers' Emotions and Teaching: A Review of the
Literature and Directions for Future Research. Educational Psychology Review, 15(4),
327-358.
Tabachnick, B. R. (1989). Needed for Teacher Education: Naturalistic Research that Is
Culturally Responsive. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(2), 155-163.
Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (2000). Teaching transformed :
achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching : case studies of second language
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A. B. M., Edwards, G., Lopez-Real, F. J., & Kwan, T. (2009). Learning in schooluniversity partnership : sociocultural perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Van Eekelen, I. M., Vermunt, J. D., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2006). Exploring teachers' will to
learn. Teaching & Teacher Education, 22(4), 408-423.
van Es, E. A. (2004). Learning to notice: The development of professional vision for reform
pedagogy. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to Notice: Scaffolding New Teachers'
Interpretations of Classroom Interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher, 10(4),
571-596.
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2010). The influence of video clubs on teachers thinking and
practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(2), 155-176.
van Manen, M. (1977). Linking Ways of Knowing with Ways of Being Practical. Curriculum
Inquiry, 6(3), 205-228.
van Veen, K., & Lasky, S. (2005). Emotions as a lens to explore teacher identity and change:
Different theoretical approaches. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 895-898.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional
200
References
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 80-91.
Vithal, R. (2001). Crucial descriptions: Connecting research, theory and practice in mathematics
education Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the Southern African
Association for Research in Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 80-89). Maputo,
South Africa: Universidade Eduardo Mondlane.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Mass.: Havard University Press.
Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. (2000). One Size Fits All? Teacher Appraisal in a Chinese Culture.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(2), 155-178.
Watanabe, T., & Wang-Iverson, P. (2005). The role of knowledgeable others. In P. Wang-Iverson
& M. Yoshida (Eds.), Building Our Understanding of Lesson Study (pp. 85-91).
Philadelphia, Pa.: Research for Better Schools.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing Professional Development Through Understanding
Authentic Professional Learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2003). Communities of practice and social learning systems. In D. Nicolini, S.
Gherardi & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations : a practice-based approach.
Armonk, N.Y. ; London: M.E. Sharpe.
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning
to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of
Educational Research, 68(2), 130-178.
Wilson, E., & Demetriou, H. (2007). New teacher learning: substantive knowledge and
contextual factors. Curriculum Journal, 18(3), 213-229.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: an examination of research on contemporary professional development.
Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.
Wong, A. S. L., Yung, B. H. W., Cheng, M. W., Lam, K. L., & Hodson, D. (2006). Setting the
Stage for Developing Pre-service Teachers' Conceptions of Good Science Teaching: The
role of classroom videos. International Journal of Science Education, 28(1), 1 - 24.
Yoon, S., Pedretti, E., Pedretti, L., Hewitt, J., Perris, K., & Van Oostveen, R. (2006). Exploring
the Use of Cases and Case Methods in Influencing Elementary Preservice Science
Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(1), 15-35.
Yung, B. H. W. (2001). Examiner, Policeman or Students' Companion: teachers' perceptions of
their role in an assessment reform. Educational Review, 53(3), 251-260.
Yung, B. H. W., Wong, A. S. L., Cheng, M. W., Hui, C. S., & Hodson, D. (2007). Tracking Preservice Teachers Changing Conceptions of Good Science Teaching: The Role of
Progressive Reflection with the Same Video. Research in Science Education, 37(3),
239-259.
Yung, B. H. W., Yip, V. W. Y., Lai, C., & Lo, F. Y. (2010). Towards a Model of Effective Use of
Video for Teacher Professional Development. Paper presented at the International
Research and Development Seminar on Continuing Professional Development for
Science Teachers.
Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, J. M. (1990). Teacher socialization. New York: Macmillan.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard
Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Are the Effects of University Teacher Education
'Washed Out' by School Experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7-11.
201
References
Zembylas, M. (2004). Emotion metaphors and emotional labor in science teaching. Science
Education, 88(3), 301-324.
Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., & Eberhardt, J. (2011). Strategic Facilitation of Problem-Based
Discussion for Teacher Professional Development. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
20(3), 342-394.
Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. (2011). Understanding affordances
and challenges of three types of video for teacher professional development. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 27(2), 454-462.
Zhang, M., Passalacqua, S., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M., Eberhardt, J., Parker, J., et al. (2010).
Science Talks in Kindergarten Classrooms: Improving Classroom Practice Through
Collaborative Action Research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 161-179.
Zwart, R. C., Wubbels, T., Bergen, T. C. M., & Bolhuis, S. (2007). Experienced teacher learning
within the context of reciprocal peer coaching. Teachers & Teaching: theory and
practice, 13(2), 165-187.
202
Appendix I
Appendix I Details of the Video-based TPD Programme

1. Video Workshop 1 Lesson Planning
As all the practicing teachers had already had teaching experience, VW1 was not to repeat the
theories about lesson planning. Instead, through discussion and analysis of an exemplary
teaching video, it was hoped that, after VW1, the teachers should be able to:
become more reflective of the role of lesson planning in good science teaching;
be aware of the various factors that need to be taken into consideration in lesson planning;
and
develop lesson observation and analysis skills, in particular, those associated with
identifying the structure of a lesson (lesson planning).
1.1 Video
The video was a lesson (on finding out the densities of liquids) taught to a class of 40
secondary 1 students by an experienced teacher, Mr. Mark. It was shown in VW1. It was a
lesson with much thought given to it by the teacher in the planning stage. The teacher did not
simply carry out the lesson as prescribed by the textbook (to find out the densities of several
liquids by measuring their mass and volume using simple laboratory equipment). A variety of
teaching-learning activities were employed including student practical work, reading, writing,
class discussion, use of analogies, storytelling. To ensure that students knew how to do the
experiment, Mr. Mark questioned students every detail of the experimental procedure in the prelab discussion, e.g.,which of the cells in the result table shown in the textbook require taking
measurements, the precautions and sources of experiment errors, etc. Moreover, the experiment
was conducted in form of a competition to motivate students to participate in it. Most
importantly, the different parts of the lesson and the various teaching-learning activities
employed were so nicely interwoven into each other in a seamless and logical manner resulting
in attainment of the learning objectives in the most accessible and enjoyable manner from the
student perspective.
1.2 Arrangements and activities
1.2.1 Preparation task before the workshop
This was given to the teachers one month before the workshop. It consisted of two tasks. Task 1
asked the teachers to imagine themselves as Mr. Mark and to plan a 40-minute lesson for the
same class of students on the same topic. The relevant pages of the textbook used by Mr. Mark
were also given to the teachers. Teachers were encouraged to make the lesson as engaging as
possible. They were required to include in the lesson plan, amongst other things, the objective(s)
of the lesson, the teaching-learning activities, their timing and the key questions that they would
like to discuss with students. Task 2 required teachers to reflect on the lesson planning process
including problems that they encountered and issues they would like to raise for discussion in
the workshop.
Teachers were asked to submit the completed preparatory tasks to the author one week before
VW1. The same arrangement applied to subsequent VWs and LS meetings. The aim was to
allow time for the author and the facilitator to study teachers work and prepare for the
workshop.
203
Appendix I
1.2.2 During the workshop

The workshop lasted for more than two hours and comprised four main parts:
(1) Pre-viewing task Before watching the video, teachers were asked to share their own lesson
plans, identify the strengths and suggest ways of improvement as well as to share the
problems they encountered in drawing up their lesson plans.
(2) Video viewing This part aimed to perturb teachers prior conceptions related to lesson
planning by exposing them to the video of Mr. Marks lesson. During the video playback,
teachers were asked: (1) to pay attention to the structure of the lesson as it unfolded during
the playback, (2) to note down any features of the lesson that were of their interests, in
particular, those related to lesson planning. A verbatim transcript of the video was delivered
to teachers before the playback so that teachers could jot down their notes on the margin of
the transcript.
(3) Individual reflection In this part, teachers were asked to reflect individually on the notes
they had jotted down while watching the video. Guiding questions were given to help them
focus their reflection on aspects related to lesson planning: What are the main differences
between your plan and that of Mr. Mark? What are the intended learning objectives? What
are planned? What are not/cannot be planned? What have you learned in terms of planning
for a science lesson?
(4) Group discussion The teachers shared and discussed their reflection on the aspects of
above guiding questions. Although teachers were invited to chair the discussion, no teacher
took up the role. Eventually the discussion was led by the facilitator. Discussion in other
meetings was also chaired by the facilitator. In the discussion, the facilitator often asked
teachers to provide supporting evidence of their opinions by referring to the verbatim
transcript. At appropriate points, often after teachers had expressed their views, the
facilitator also shared his views on Mr. Marks lesson plan by analyzing the key questions
set in the lesson plan, the activities arranged and the responses of students in the video.
1.2.3 Follow-up task after the workshop
After the workshop, all the materials used in the workshop (including the video, the transcript,
the powerpoint presentation file, etc) and a follow-up reflection task were given to teachers.
Teachers were encouraged to submit the reflection task within two weeks. The follow-up task
asked teachers to reflect on questions like: What are the most impressive things from the video
workshop? What are the new insights they gained from the video workshop? If there is any
things they can apply to their teaching?
[Note: The arrangements of follow-up task in the subsequent video workshops were similar and
will not be repeated afterwards.]
2. Video Workshop 2 Assessment for Learning
This workshop focused on assessment for learning. It was hoped that teachers should be
able to:
become more reflective of the role of assessment for learning in good science teaching;
understand the importance of creating opportunities for assessing students learning which
has an implication on lesson planning the focus of VW1;
understand the role of teacher and students in the assessment processes; and
develop various lesson observation and analysis skills, in particular, becoming more
sensitive to classroom practices that are related to assessment for learning while the lesson
is in progress
204
Appendix I
2.1 Video
Three videos were used in this workshop. Two of them, The lesson on water rocket and
Demonstration of the Magdeburg hemispheres, were given to the teachers in a CD for them to
view at home as a preparatory task. The third video Assessing students understanding of the
demonstration on Magdeburg hemispheres was shown on the spot during VW2.
2.1.1 The lesson on water rocket
In this video, Mr. Luke, the teacher-in-video, took his Secondary 1 students to the playground
and let them play with the water rocket. It was hoped that students understanding of the concept
of energy converter could be consolidated through this activity. The video showed both the
activity taken place in the playground and the follow-up discussion taken place inside the
classroom on the next day.
In the video, Mr. Luke made use of different kinds of assessment strategies. In particular,
throughout the lesson, he frequently asked questions to assess his students understanding on the
working principle of the water rocket. He also talked with a particular group of students to
assess their understanding and guided them to organize their ideas on the topic. Finally, three
students were invited to present their ideas on the board. The teacher then made use of students
writings on the board to guide the whole class to understand the importance of communicating
ideas in writing step by step. In the main, the video can remind teachers of the importance of
using different kinds of strategies for assessment, in particular, questioning can serve the
purpose for formative assessment during the lessons.
2.1.2 Demonstration of the Magdeburg hemispheres
In this video, the teacher, Mr. Mark, was about to carry out the captioned demonstration to his
students. As a SET for the lesson, knowing that the students had no idea of what Magdeburg
hemispheres were, Mr. Mark asked them to read the relevant part of the textbook for one minute.
Students were fully engaged in reading the textbook. After the reading, the teacher allowed time
for students to raise questions with him. Students were active in raise questions like: How did
the scientist in the ancient time extracted air from the hemispheres? When there was no more
questions from the students, the teacher tried to assess students understanding of the content
therein through close-ended questioning.
This video aims to provoke teachers to reflect on the usefulness of different types of questions
(closed versus open-ended questions) in assessment for learning. In addition, the teachers should
come to notice that assessment for learning does not imply only listening carefully to what
students say in their answers but also the questions they raise with the teacher. Often from the
questions raised by students, much can be implied regarding their understanding of the topic.
2.1.3 Assessing students understanding of the demonstration on Magdeburg hemispheres
This video was broadcasted on the spot during the video workshop. The aim was to introduce
some assessment strategies that were novel to or seldom considered by teachers.
Mr. Mark had just completed the demonstration on Magdeburg hemisphere. He asked his
students to draw a diagram to explain the observed phenomenon using the particle theory and
submitted this as a homework assignment. In the video, he first asked the students to carry out
peer assessment of each others homework during the lesson. He then collected the students
marked scripts for further marking by himself. In sum, this video shows how peer assessment
can be used for assessment for learning. In addition, the teacher can also assess students
205
Appendix I
understanding of the topic by examining how students mark and correct their peers homework.
2.2.1 Preparation task before the video workshop
This was given to teachers one month before the workshop together with a CD of the relevant
videos. There were three tasks, the first two of which consisted of guiding questions which
asked teachers to determine if students in the relevant videos (the first two videos described
above) were learning well (or not) during the lessons. Please refer to Appendix III for the
guiding questions.
With the help of the guiding questions, it was hoped that through viewing the videos, teachers
could be stimulated to think about: When and how opportunities could be created for assessing
student learning during the lesson? This should remind them to be more sensitive to classroom
practices that are related to assessment for learning while the lesson is in progress. Moreover,
teachers were also encouraged to think of issues pertaining to assessment that they would like to
bring up for discussion during the workshop. It is hoped that they could connect the concepts on
assessment to lesson planning which had been discussed in VW1 and hence realizing that
assessment for learning was one of the important factors to be considered in lesson planning.
The third task was associated with the third video (described in 2.1 of Appendix I) which was
not included in the preparatory task. Instead, background information about the lesson was
provided and teachers were asked to suggest some assessment activities for the lesson. The aim
was to have teachers to think of their own ways of assessing student learning and then compare
with the novel ways of assessment (shown in the video) that they might not have thought of. In
doing so, this hopefully can broaden teachers awareness of the range of assessment strategies
available and the important role of assessment in good science teaching.
For the two videos that teachers had viewed at home, the discussion were structured around the
guiding questions provided in the preparatory task. Teachers first shared and discussed their
own ideas and each others perspectives. For the video that was playback on-the-spot, the
arrangement was slightly different. First, teachers shared with their colleagues what sorts of
assessment they would carry out and why. Then they were shown the videos which uncovered
how the assessment activities were actually carried out in the authentic classroom settings.
Teachers then reflected on what they saw, compared and contrasted with what they suggested.
Throughout the meeting, the facilitator emphasized a lot on the importance of creating
opportunities to assess students in the lesson, using various assessment strategies to assess
students learning, e.g.,peer assessment, questioning, and writing, etc.
3. Video Workshop 3 Lab Management and Teaching of NOS

VW3 aimed to show teachers how nature of science (NOS) concepts were infused in daily
teaching, and the importance of good laboratory management in science teaching. After this
workshop, teachers should be more aware of:
their own reactions to real-life laboratory scenarios and alternative instructional strategies;
the skills/strategies required for creating a safe, cooperative and conducive laboratory
learning environment for students; and
the opportunities of infusing NOS teaching during laboratory teaching.
206
Appendix I
3.1 Video
This video comprised vignettes of the first laboratory session of Mr. Lukes Secondary 1
students at the beginning of their secondary education. The students were so noisy and
misbehaving which required the teacher to take immediate actions on five occasions. At
appropriate points, the playback paused and the following questions appeared on the screen to
prompt the teachers to reflect on what they would do if they were the teacher-in-video:
(1) How am I going to organize students to works in groups?
(2) Should I quiet down the students?
(3) How should I deal with students conflict on the issue of grouping?
(4) How should I deal with this incident where a student has broken a measuring cylinder?
(5) What should I discuss with the students during the post-lab discussion?
With respect to Questions 4 and 5, two video excerpts from Mr. Marks lessons were also shown
to alert teachers of alternative ways of dealing the same issues. For example, on dealing with a
student breaking a measuring cylinder, Mr. Mark asked the student concerned to clean up the
mess according to a set of predetermined procedure including registering in a record of
laboratory accidents. In another excerpt where students did not obey the rule, Mr. Mark
explained to students that scientists follow rules and regulation strictly. In brief, Mr. Mark was
able to grasp every opportunities to teach and infuse NOS in his daily teaching. Besides, he
emphasized cultivating students interest in and appreciation of science. He praised scientists for
their perseverance and creativity in front of students and showed his enthusiasm in science
teaching.
No preparation task was needed for this video workshop.
During the workshop, every teacher had to respond with minimal reflection to the five
problematic classroom scenarios faced by Mr. Luke by jotting how they would deal with the
cases in a worksheet individually. Then teachers discussed the strengths and weaknesses of their
individual responses and wrote down responses after group discussion. After that, teachers
watched the video again to find out how Mr. Luke actually dealt with the problems. They then
constructed new responses to replace the quick responses they made at the beginning. They had
to put down the reasons why they changed or did not change their mind.
The alternative approaches employed by another teacher, Mr. Mark, on two specific situations (1) how to deal with the incident where a student has broken a measuring the cylinder and (2)
the discipline problems arising from students moving to-and-fro between the classroom and the
laboratory were also shown. Teachers had to compare and contrast the different strategies
employed by the two teachers and discuss their preferences to the strategies and the reasons
behind. Moreover, they had to determine whether Mr. Mark had exerted any effort in conveying
ideas about nature of science to his students.
Through reflection on and comparison of their responses before and after the group discussion,
as well as after watching how the two teachers-in-video actually dealt with the problems, it is
hoped that teachers would be aware of their own beliefs and rationales underlying the responses
they made.
207
Appendix I
4. Video Workshop 4 Learning to learn & dealing with students misconceptions

It is hoped that, after this workshop, teachers should be able to understand:
there are plenty of opportunities in a science lesson (planned or created in a lesson) that a
teacher can develop in students various kinds of skills which are useful for them to learn
how to learn;
lesson planning is important for dealing with students misconceptions in a lesson which
further emphasizes the implication of lesson planning in good science teaching.
4.1 Video
Two video clips accompanying the preparatory task were given to the teachers.
4.1.1 The lesson on explaining why the container collapsed
In this video, Mr. Mark started the lesson on pressure by briefly recalling the demonstration
done in the last lesson. He then raised a discussion question why the containers collapsed in
the demonstration. First, he asked students to write down the answers in complete sentences
individually (Generic skills that could be developed include writing skill, analytical skill,
organization skill, etc). Then students were asked to discuss in groups to select the best answer
and write down on a piece of paper (Skills/ attitude that could be developed, e.g., presentation
skill, critical thinking, the attitude to share knowledge, etc). After that, Mr. Mark presented ideas
from individual groups and sought comments from the students. A misconception was revealed
in students answers, which he then clarified through discussion with the students.
4.1.2 An overview of what have been learned about gas pressure
In this video, Mr. Mark recalled with students on what they did in the last lesson through
drawing a mind map of gas pressure on the blackboard. He then introduced the objective of the
lesson - asking the question of why - i.e., Why is there air pressure? Instead of referring students
directly to the textbook for the answer (e.g., critical thinking skill could be developed), Mr.
Mark asked students to discuss in groups and then followed by a class discussion (skills that
could be developed, e.g., presentation and organization skills). Finally, Mr. Mark entertained
students request to carry out an experiment on the effect of air pressure on a balloon in order to
test their hypothesis (skills that could be developed, e.g., inquiry mind, hypothesis setting skill).
In sum, the two videos were used to illustrate that teachers need to create opportunities for
students to learn how to learn on their own and to express their ideas. The latter affords teachers
more opportunities to reveal misconceptions held by students. So, teachers should consider how
to create these opportunities during their lesson planning.
A month before the workshop, the videos and the corresponding transcripts were given to
teachers as the preparatory task. It asked teachers to find out the opportunities Mr. Mark had
created/missed for his students to learn some generic skills for learning, and to explain to them
the importance of developing those skill(s). Teachers were also asked to determine, with
supporting evidence, whether Mr. Mark had planned the lesson with due attention to students
common misconceptions on the topics.
208
Appendix I

In the workshop, the discussion was structured around the guiding questions in the preparatory
task. It focused on (1) whether Mr. Mark had created/missed opportunities for students to learn
some generic skills for learning, (2) whether he had planned the lesson with due attention to
students common misconceptions.
5. Lesson Planning Meeting

Lesson planning meeting was held to refine the lesson plan developed by teachers. It aimed to
have teachers consider every detail of the research lesson and to resolve problems and
difficulties teachers encountered during their own lesson planning.
5.1.1 Preparation task before the meeting
Teachers first selected a topic for their research lesson and collaboratively designed a lesson
plan. They were asked to send the drafted lesson plan to the author and the facilitator one week
before the meeting for their preparation for the meeting.
5.1.2 During the meeting
The facilitator first invited teachers to explain the objectives and the rationales of their lesson
plan. For example, why did they choose a certain topic? Did they consider students
misconceptions? Then the teachers and the facilitator discussed the details of their plan, for
example, the flow of the lesson, key questions, arrangements of activities and assessment. In the
process, teachers were often asked to think about the anticipated responses from students. The
facilitator also provided teachers some inputs on the lesson, e.g., assessment questions.
5.1.3 Follow-up task
After the meeting, teachers revised their lesson plan based on the discussion in the meeting and
sent the finalized lesson plan to the author. In addition to the revision of the lesson plan,
teachers completed a follow-up reflection task as what they did for the video workshops.
5.2 The two research lessons
5.2.1 The research lesson of Bright Future College
The research lesson was conducted in two S1 classes and was the density of matter. Through a
series of teacher demonstration, students hands on practices, group and whole class discussions,
the teachers would like students to learn the determining factor affecting the buoyancy of a
substance, the definition of density and the way to find out the density of a solid substance.
Major teaching and learning activities included:
Using a teacher demonstration on the buoyancy of fruit as a set, students were asked to
observe, guess, and then discuss within groups and with the whole class on the factors that
affecting buoyancy of fruit. A list of factors that might affect the buoyancy of fruits was
identified.
Students were asked to design an experiment with fair tests to find out whether the factors
they identified previously (e.g. volume, mass, and the matter of a substance) affected the
buoyancy of a substance. The teachers would like to give students the opportunities to
apply the methods of scientific investigation, in particular, how to design a fair test, which
were learned eight months ago.
209
Appendix I
Teachers introduced the concept of density and the way to find out density of solids.
Students were then asked to conduct hands on practice to find out the densities of
substances with two methods (using rulers and using displacement tanks to find out the
volumes of substances) and then to compare the two methods in the post-lab discussion
with the teacher.
At the end of the lesson, students were asked to complete a worksheet about the story of
Aristotle finding the density of a crown as an immediate assessment of their learning in the
lesson.
The finalized lesson plan is given below:

Lesson on Densities of Solid Cubes
Date:
Duration of the lesson: 80 min
Venue: I.S. laboratory
Class (no. of students): F. 1 (42)
Learning Objectives/ Intended Learning Outcomes

At the end of the lesson, students should be able to:
1) identify the determining factor that affects the buoyancy of a
substance
2) know the definition of density
3) find out the density of a substance
Prior knowledge: Techniques of measuring mass and dimensions

Time
Teacher Activities
Students Activities
Remarks
Obj
check
Teacher demonstration: Observe, guess and answer KQ1: What are the fruits that
1
5 The buoyancy of fruit questions
float on the water? And
mins Invite students to
what are the fruits that
guess the buoyancy of
sink into the water?
fruits and the reason
KQ1: What is the determining
factor that affects the
Encourage students to
buoyancy of a fruit?
answer questions
voluntarily by raising
up their hands
Individual Guess &
10 Group Discussion
mins Activity 6(l) - Factor
affects the buoyancy of
a substance
Guess the buoyancy of the KQ1:

Among
the
four
four substances individually
substances A, B, C and D,
Guess the factor that affects
which one will float? And
the buoyancy of the
which one will sink?
substances. Write down the
reason in complete
KQ2: What is the factor that
sentences
why
they
make
affects the buoyancy of a
Deliver the following
such a guess on a piece of
substance? Mass, volume,
four substances to each
paper
the
matter
of
the
group:
Group discussion and report
substance, or something
A. Small wood piece
their ideas in complete
else?
B. Small plastics piece
sentences
C. Big wood piece
D. Big plastics piece
20 Design and conduct an To identify the control

KQ1: When you do a fair test,
mins experiment: Activity 6(l)
variable in the following fair
what are the things that
Ask students what
test:
you need to pay attention
they need to pay
(1) Whether volume
to?
attention in a fair test
affects the buoyancy of KQ2: When you test whether
Ask students about the
a substance;
volume
affects
the
control variables in a
(2) Whether mass affects
buoyancy of a substance,
fair test
the buoyancy of a
what is the control
substance;
variable?
210
Appendix I
answer questions
voluntarily by raising
up their hands
(3)
Whether the matter of a KQ3: When you test whether

substance affects the
mass affects the buoyancy
buoyancy of it
of a substance, what is the
control variable?
answer questions voluntarily KQ4: When you test whether
by raising up their hands
the matter of a substance
Carry out the fair tests in
affects its buoyancy,
group
what is the control
variable?
10 Guide students to
Students answer
mins
think about the
individually by raising up
heaviness of a
their hands
substance. Then
introduce the
definition of density.
Revise the concept of
volume
Revise the concept of
mass
KQ1: Any students have heard

about the term density?
KQ2: What situations will the
term density usually
appear in?
KQ3: Can any students explain
the meaning of density?
KQ4: How can we measure the
volume of a substance?
KQ4: How can we measure the
mass of a substance?
20 Group
experiment: Carry out the experiment as a KQ1: When we calculate the
mins Activity 6.13 Find out competition in the following
density, which method is
better for finding the
the densities of some two formats:
Four groups use
volume of substances?
solids
Find out the densities
displacement tank to
of different substances
measure volume of the
Consolidate students
substances
concept on density
The other four groups
measure the dimensions of
the substances and then
calculate the volume
15 Immediate assessment Students complete TIMSS
mins of learning:
worksheet
Deliver each student Group discussion and
TIMSS 2003 Released
presentation
Items Chinese
version
5.2.2 The research lesson of Sunset Valley High School

Similar to BFC, the research lesson was a S1 lesson about the density of solid cubes. In addition
to the objectives of learning the concept of density and way to find out density, the teachers
would also like the students to acquire knowledge of scientific inquiry and ideas about science,
in particular how scientists come to an agreed definition of density.
Instead of introducing the concept of density and then having students to do practical
experiments (similar to the way BFC teachers did), the teachers in this school conducted the
lesson in the other way round, as follows:
After the set, students were given four different kinds of solid cubes and asked to measure
their mass and volume, record the results and calculate the values of two quantities ((i) mass
over volume and (ii) volume over mass).
Upon completion of the practical task, the teacher would hold a whole class discussion with
students and discussed what the definition of density should be (as stated in the lesson plan
below). In doing so, the teachers wanted to challenge students with questions such as: Why
211
Appendix I
is density equal to mass over volume and not the other way round? How did scientists come
to an agreed definition of density?, rather than simply memorise the formula of density.
After the discussion, students were asked to complete the worksheet about the story of
Aristotle finding the density of a crown (as what BFC students did) as an assessment of
their learning in the lesson.
To sum up, the teachers wanted their students to take on the role of scientists, to experience the
process of defining the concept of density, so as to arouse their interest in learning science (and
to enhance their understanding and memory of the definition of density, which was often
confusing for students). The finalized lesson plan is given as follows:
Lesson on the Densities of Solid Cubes
Date: 5/2007
Learning Objectives/ Intended Learning Outcomes:
1. To understand the concepts and skills of scientific inquiry
Duration of the lesson: 70 mins
2. To compare the masses of objects with the same volume
Venue: IS Laboratory
3. To measure and calculate the density of solid
Class (no. of students): 1A(20),
4. To acquire knowledge about density
1B(20), 1C(35), 1D(35), 1E(40)
Prior knowledge: To measure the mass and volume of solids
Set
Time
(mins)
Teacher Activities
Students Activities
Remarks
Obj
(e.g. key & guiding questions, AV aids, check
physical setting, etc.)
0:00 The teacher shows
Observe the two
KQ1: What are the similarities between 2
students two cylinders
cylinders
these two cylinders? (The shape and
/
with equal volume but Listen to and answer the volume)
made of different
0:05
teachers questions. LQ1: What are the differences between
materials
them? (Students find out the answers
Read Experiment
by reading Experiment 6.12.)
6.12 (p.140)
Development
0:05 Pre-lab discussion
Listen to and answer KQ2: What are the similarities among 1 & 2
How to measure
teachers questions. the clay, the iron cube and the copper
/
weight/mass of solids
cube? (The shape and the volume).
with appropriate
KQ3: What apparatus do we use to
10:00
apparatus and
measure weight/mass? (A balance)
techniques (fair test)
KQ4: Is the object on the pan at a
higher position with a higher mass or a
lower mass?
Instruct students to adjust the pointer
until the pans of the balance are level
before doing the fair test.
10:00 Experiment 1
Do Experiment 6.12
/
20:00
20:00 Post-lab discussion
Listen to and answer
/
Compare the masses of
teachers questions.
30:00
substances with equal
volume
1& 2
KQ5: Which one has a higher mass, 1& 2

clay or iron? (Iron)
KQ6: Which one has a higher mass,
iron or copper? (Iron)
KQ7: Which one has a higher mass,
copper or clay? (Copper)
KQ8: Among the three substances
212
Appendix I
used, what substance has the highest

mass? (Copper)
KQ9: Among the three substances
used, what substance has the smallest
mass? (Clay)
Concept learning: Matters with equal
volume may have different masses.
30:00 Pre-lab discussion
Listen to and answer KQ10: What quantities are we going to
/
Distribute the
teachers questions. measure? (weight/mass)
45:00
experiment worksheet Read the experiment What apparatus should we use? (An
electronic balance)
How to use an
worksheet
electronic balance
KQ11: What procedure should be done
before measuring the mass of an
object? (Set the reading of the balance
to zero gram, i.e., set zero)
KQ12How do we record the reading

of the electronic balance? (To record
the reading when it stops changing.)
Introduce the
experiment as a
competition
Use a competition to arouse students

interest in doing the experiment.
Rules of the competition:
1.
The universally accepted values
of densities are used as the
standard answers for the
competition.
2.
The group with a value closest to
the standard answer wins the
competition.
How to report results
45:00 Experiment 2
/
60:00
60:00 Post-lab discussion
/
What is density?
70:00
When reporting their results, students

should:
1.
Correct their answers to 2
decimal places
2.
Complete the experiment and
write their answers on the
blackboard within 15 min
3.
Send only one representative
from a group to write the answers
on the blackboard
Do the experiment
Listen to and answer KQ13: Which quantity, column A

teachers questions. (mass over volume) or column B
(volume over mass) is a better way of
representing density of metals? Why?
(Mass over volume. It is because given
equal volume, the higher the mass is
the larger ratio is.)
Concept learning: Density of a matter

is its mass per unit volume. The higher
the mass of a matter in a unit volume,
the higher its density is. (Using particle
213
Appendix I
theory: particles pack more closely to

each other.)
Its SI unit is g/cm3 or kg/m3.
LQ2: The crown weighted the same as
the gold, but why was the king not yet
satisfied? (The jeweler mixed other
cheaper metals into the crown.)
LQ3: If two substances are with equal
density, are they the same matter? (Yes)
LQ4: As a scientist, how could you
satisfy the king? (To compare the
densities of the crown and gold.)
Knowledge about
density:
Aristotle and the
Kings Crown
Distribute post-lab
worksheet
Follow-up work/Assignment
Exercise 5 in textbook and post-lab worksheet (TIMSS questions)
Material & References
Two cylinders
Materials for Experiment 6.12: a balance, an iron cube, a copper cube, and a clay cube
Materials for Experiment 2:an electronic balance, an iron cube, a copper cube and an alumni cube
6. The Two Lesson Analysis Meetings (LA1 & LA2)

The formats and arrangement of activities for LA1 & LA2 were similar. Thus, they will be
described together in this section. Both LA1 & LA2 aimed to provide teachers with experiences
in (1) critically analysis of their own lesson videos by providing evidence to support their
opinions, and (2) discussing and sharing the classroom teaching of each other. LA1 focused on
addressing and resolving teachers concerns or problems encountered when they conducted the
research lesson as a whole. LA2 focused on the analysis of students learning in selected
episodes of the research lesson. In both LA1 & LA2, teachers were reminded that they should
look at the lesson from the perspective of students learning instead of evaluating teachers
performance.
6.1.1 Preparation task before the meeting
For LA1, after the research lesson, the teachers who taught the lesson were asked to individually
reflect on their own lesson by reviewing the lesson video and the students assignments. A
reflection task with guiding questions was given to teachers. Questions included, for example,
how they found the lesson, things they liked and disliked, and things they learned from
conducting and reflecting on the research lesson. Teachers were also asked to identify the video
episodes and samples of students assignment they would like to discuss and share with their
colleagues. Teachers who did not conduct the research lesson did not need to answer the guiding
questions. Instead, they had to review the videos before the meeting, for a more efficient
discussion.
For LA2, selected episodes from all the teachers who had conducted the research lesson were
edited and compiled for further selection by the facilitator who would take into consideration of
the potential discussion points and the richness of students learning evidence revealed in a
particular episode. The selected episodes with the relevant verbatim transcripts and a reflection
task were given to all teachers a month before the meeting. There were two types of questions in
the reflection task. The first type required teachers to determine, according to the objectives set
214
Appendix I
in the lesson plan, whether students were learning well in the selected episodes of each teacher,
to provide supporting evidence, and to identify opportunities that the teacher might have missed
to ascertain students learning. The second type asked teachers about their learning in reflecting
and comparing the videos of each other, and their views on reviewing and commenting the
lesson videos of each other. It aimed to probe teachers views on using videos for TPD and to
relieve their concerns and worries arisen from analysis of videos of their own and their
colleagues.
The discussion in both LA1 & LA2 was structured around the guiding questions in the
preparatory task. In LA1, each teacher who conducted the research lesson raised their concerns
or questions in the meeting. Episodes identified by the teachers were playback if necessary.
Students assignments were referred to facilitate the discussion.
For LA2, emphases were put on students learning revealed in the selected episodes. As all the
teachers had reviewed the selected episodes and completed the preparation task, each teacher
shared and discussed their opinions in turn before the facilitator offered his perspectives.
6.1.3 Follow-up task
For the post-meeting reflection task, in addition to reflecting on the most impressive things and
new insights gained from the meeting, teachers were asked about their opinions on the use of
videos for TPD, e.g., whether they liked or learned more from analysis of their own videos or
videos from other schools, whether there were differences in their views on being reviewed and
commented by colleagues.
6.2 The videos used in LA2
6.2.1 The lesson videos of Bright Future College
The following episodes from the lesson of Ben and Chloe were edited and used in LA2:
The lesson video of Ben was a 41-minute episode. The episode showed the teacher
demonstration of fruits buoyancy. During which, Ben asked students to write the possible
factors on the blackboard and discussed with students the possible factors that affected
buoyancy of fruit.
A list of possible factors was identified and students were asked to design an experiment to
find out the determining factor (mass, the material, volume) that might affect buoyancy and
to present their work to the whole class. In the presentation, some groups used fruit with
varied sizes and masses (e.g. strawberry and Chinese watermelon) as the materials of the
fair test, and failed to identify the control variables, dependent variables and independent
variables.
The lesson video of Chloe lasted for 44 minutes. In the beginning of the episode, the fruit
demonstration was shown in which students shout out density as the factor that affected
buoyancy of fruit. The teacher did not address the issue and moved on to ask students to do
an experiment showing that the matter of a substance affected its buoyancy. In the post-lab
discussion, students compared two factors at a time, which showed that they did not grasp
the concept of fair test well.
215
Appendix I
After that, the teacher introduced the definition and formula of density and asked students to
do an experiment to find out the densities of several solid cubes using two methods (by ruler
and by displacement tank). In the post lab discussion, the teacher discussed with students
the results, and the pros and cons of the two methods used.
Finally, the teacher consolidated students learning by restating the definition and formula of
density, and referring to particle theory in explaining the idea underlying density.
6.2.2 The videos of Sunset Valley High School
The following episodes from the lessons of Sam, Hugo and Stone were edited and used in LA2:
The lesson video of Sam was a 19-minute episode in which students did the experiment and
the post-lab discussion. The students were very noisy and seemed not paying attention to the
teacher. However, in the post-lab discussion the next day after the experiment session, the
students were able to recall the experimental results. In the discussion on the definition of
density, the teacher patiently probed students for the reasons of their choice. About half of
the students were able to choose mass over volume as the definition of density. However, a
student often went against the teacher. The teacher patiently guided him back on the right
track.
The lesson video of Hugo consisted of 11-minute episode. It showed three parts of the lesson,
the set, the pre-lab discussion and the post-lab discussion. In the pre-lab discussion, the
teacher discussed the pre-caution of the experiment, in particular, the function of set zero of
the electronic balance and how to record the reading of the electronic balance.
In the post-lab discussion, the teacher discussed with students the experimental results and
the definition of density. In particular, he asked students to choose a definition of density
with explanation of their choices.
The lesson vide of Stone was a 14-minute episode. It showed the experiment session in
which students found the densities of solid cubes and the post-lab discussion. Before the
experiment, the teacher reminded students how to use the electronic balance correctly.
However, students still did it wrong by putting the measuring cylinder with water on the
electronic balance.
In the post-lab discussion afterward, a group of students were asked to write their result on
the blackboard. However, the results were wrong and the teacher erased the answers without
any explanation. The students said disappointedly, we are failed. The teacher asked
another group of students to write their result on the blackboard and continued the
discussion by directly introducing the concepts and the definition of density without any
discussion of the quantities of column A and column B.
216
Appendix II
Appendix II Questions to Probe into School Context

in Planning Meeting
1. Is there a school policy on staff development? What is it?
2. What kinds of TPD activities are usually provided by the school?
3. Are there any opportunities for collaboration among teachers in the same subject and/ or
between different subjects? If yes, what are they?
4. Have the school ever participated in this school-university collaboration project? If yes,
what are they?
5. What kinds of TPD activities the teachers usually join? Why?
6. Were there any similar TPD activities offered to the teachers in the previous years? If yes,
what were the activities? Did the teachers participate in it? Why or why not?
7. What are the expectations of teachers for joining this TPD project?
Have you shared among yourself the results of the individual reports? Why and why not?
Have you studied the Individual Report? How do you find it? Is it useful? Why?
8. Do participating teachers receive any supports from the schools? If yes, what are the
supports?
9. Do they have any special arrangement for participating in the TPD project? Such as a
common free lesson.
10. Are there other teachers who will be interested to join certain activities of the TPD project,
e.g., a certain video workshop?
11. Will there be any dissemination/sharing sessions on the outcome of this project e.g., during
the staff development day? Why or why not?
12. Are there any concerns/worries about participating in this project?
13. Pre-TPD CoGST questionnaire survey: classes, teachers (mandatory for new, optional for
old), date (must be before VWs)
14. Video workshops: number, duration, frequency, date, venue, foci, preparation tasks,
portfolio with reflection (accessible to us before individual interview)
15. Lesson study meeting: number, duration, frequency, date, venue, topic, portfolio with
reflection and lesson plan (accessible to us before individual interview)
16. Post-TPD CoGST questionnaire survey: classes, teachers, date (any time after the lesson
study)
217
Appendix III
Appendix III Preparation Task for a Video Workshop

Video Workshop 2 on Assessment for Learning
Study the videos carefully and complete the guiding questions before attending video workshop
2.
Task 1 The lesson on water rocket
Watch the video Water Rocket carefully to find out if students are learning well or not. Below
is some background information about the lesson.
The teacher and students in the video are those in the video of the boiling point of water
lesson. Before this lesson, students have learned that there are different forms of energy,
energy can be changed from one form to another, and that an energy converter is needed
to carry out the energy conversion. They have also been taught concepts about scientific
investigation and problem solving skills.
In the first lesson videotaped (0:00-2:04 minutes of the video), the teacher, Mr. Lo, took
students down to the playground and let them play with the water rocket. The objective
was to consolidate students understanding of the concept of energy converter through the
activity. At the end of this lesson, he spent about 5 minutes to talk about why the water
rocket could be flown to the sky due to energy conversion of one form to another and tried
to initiate students thinking on the working principle of the water rocket as well as on
some of the observations they made during the activity.
The video shows both the activity taken place in the playground and the follow-up discussion
taken place inside the classroom on the next day. Please refer to the video and reflect on the
following questions. Try to support your answers with evidence from the video. For your
convenience, a transcript of the lesson is attached as Appendix I so that you can cite the relevant
line number(s) as your supporting evidence.
IMPORTANT NOTES:
1. Complete the tasks individually and do not discuss with your colleagues even after you
have completed the tasks. You will have a lot of opportunities to do so during the
workshop.
2. Produce sufficient copies of your completed tasks for distribution on the spot to your
colleagues (and 2 copies for the HKU team) during the workshop.
218
Appendix III
School Name:__________________________ Name of Teacher:_______________________

Video Workshop 2 Task 1
Reflection on the Video Water Rocket
The following guiding questions are provided to facilitate your reflection on the video Water
Rocket. To save your time, you can just jot down the main ideas in point form, but be prepared
to elaborate during the workshop.
1. What were the evidences there that the students were learning well?
2. What were the evidences there that the students were NOT learning well?
3. In each of the cases identified above, do you think the teacher had acted on/ followed up
with students responses appropriately?
4. Were there any cases that you cannot be sure whether students were learning well or not?
In case, there were, what other opportunities could have been created by Mr. Lo so as to
allow him to ascertain if students were learning well or not?
5. Are there any other issues pertaining to assessment that you want to bring up for
discussion?
6. What are the other areas of concerns or problems (other than assessment) that you would
like to bring up for discussion?
7. What have you learned from watching and reflecting on this video?
219
Appendix III
Task 2 Introducing the demonstration on Magdeburg hemispheres

Study the video Magdeburg Hemispheres carefully to find out if students are learning well or
not. Below is some background information about the lesson.
The teacher and students in the video are those in the density lesson video. Before this
lesson, students have learned the states of matter, the particle theory of matter and the
particle models for the three states of matter. They are now into topic Gas Pressure and
have seen demonstrations of Activity 20.1 (see Appendix II).
In the lesson videotaped, Mr. Mak was about to carry out the demonstration of
Magdeburg hemispheres to his students. As a SET for the lesson, knowing that the
students had no idea of what Magdeburg hemispheres were, he asked them to read the
first paragraph on p.139 of the textbook (see Appendix III) for one minute. Afterwards, he
tried to assess students understanding of the content therein.
Watch the video and reflect on the questions listed on the next page. Substantiate your answers
with evidences from the video. For your convenience, a transcript of the lesson is attached as
Appendix IV so that you can cite the relevant line number(s) as your supporting evidence.
IMPORTANT NOTES:
1. Complete the tasks individually and do not discuss with your colleagues even after you
have completed the tasks. You will have a lot of opportunities to do so during the
workshop.
2. Produce sufficient copies of your completed tasks for distribution on the spot to your
colleagues (and 2 copies for the HKU team) during the workshop.
220
Appendix III

Reflection on the Video Demonstration on Magdeburg Hemispheres
The following guiding questions are provided to facilitate your reflection on the video
Magdeburg Hemispheres. To save your time, you can just jot down the main ideas in point
form, but be prepared to elaborate during the workshop
1.
What were the evidences there that the students were learning well?
2.
What were the evidences there that the students were NOT learning well?
3.
In each of the cases identified above, do you think the teacher had acted on/ followed up
4.
Were there any cases that you cannot be sure whether students were learning well or not?
In case, there were, what other opportunities could have been created by Mr. Lo so as to
allow him to ascertain if students were learning well or not?
5.
Are there any other issues pertaining to assessment that you want to bring up for
discussion?
6.
What are the other areas of concerns or problems (other than assessment) that you would
like to bring up for discussion?
7.
What have you learned from watching and reflecting on this video?
221
Appendix III

Assessing students understanding of the demonstration on Magdeburg hemispheres
Imagine that you are Mr. Mak and that you have completed the demonstration on Magdeburg
hemisphere and finished discussion of the questions on p.138 of the textbook. Now, you want
students to apply the particle theory to explain why the hemispheres cannot be separated after
the air inside the hemispheres is removed by the vacuum pump. (Actually, the answer can be
found on p.142 of the textbook.) (See appendix V) What kind of task would you set for the
students?
1. Briefly describe the task that you would set for the students?
2. Briefly describe how you would provide feedback to the students upon receiving their
completed tasks.
To facilitate sharing of ideas, please make sufficient copies of your lesson plan and this
completed task sheet for your colleagues and the two HKU staff.
222
Appendix IV
Appendix IV Follow-up Task for a Video Workshop

Video Workshop 2 Follow-up Activity
Reflect on your experience associated with video workshop 2. To facilitate your reflection, some
guiding questions are listed below. But feel free to reflect on any other areas you think important.
To save your time, you may wish to just jot down the reflections in point form that suffices to
recall your memories when the HKU research team asks you to elaborate on them when they
interview you 2-3 months later.
Keep a copy of this reflection for yourself. Give a copy to the HKU research team in the next
video workshop or email it to us.
1. What are the most impressive things from this video workshop? And why?
2. Concerning assessment for learning, are there any new insights you have gained from this
video workshop? If yes, what are they? What are their implications/impacts on you and
your teaching? And how?
3. Other than assessment for learning, what have you learned from this video workshop? If
yes, what are they? What are their implications/impacts on you and your teaching? And
how?
4. In response to the insights and learning you gained from this video workshop, can they be
applied to your daily teaching? Why? Or why not?
5. Is there anything that is not mentioned above and you would like to share?
223
Appendix V
Appendix V Video Workshop Questionnaire

1.
a. To what extent do you think each of the video workshops is useful in bringing about your
professional learning? (6 as very useful and 0 as not useful)
b. Please also rank the order of effectiveness of the video workshops in bringing about your
professional learning. (1 as the most useful and 4 as the least useful.)
Rank
Video Workshops
(1-4)
1. Lesson Planning
2. Assessment for Learning
3. Lab Management & Teaching of NOS
4. Learning to learn & Dealing
Misconceptions
2.
Not
Useful
with
Ss
Very
Useful
Useful
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
a. To what extent do you think is the usefulness of each of the following components of video
workshops in bringing about your professional learning? (6 as very useful and 0 as not useful)
b. Please also rank the order of effectiveness of the components of video workshop in bringing about
your professional learning. (1 as the most useful and 6 as the least useful.)
Rank
(1-6)
Components
Preparation task
Videos
Transcript of the lesson
Discussion in video workshop
Follow-up task
The facilitator, i.e., Dr. Yung
Not
Useful
0
0
0
0
0
0
Very
Useful
Useful
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
3.
How far do you think each video workshop has contributed to your professional learning in the
following aspects? Please tick the appropriate space to indicate your view. More than 1 tick is
allowed.
Video Workshop (VW)*
Aspects
VW 1 VW 2 VW 3 VW 4
1.
Awareness of alternatives of teaching strategies that are not

previously known to myself
Awareness of different classroom situations that are not previously
known to myself
Provision of exemplary models of teaching of which I may try out in
my own teaching
Proof of existence of good practices that, in turn, will encourage
myself to try out the same practices in my own teaching
Promoting and facilitating reflection on my own teaching
2.
3.
4.
5.
* Please refer to question 1 for more information on the focus of each video workshop.
Your Information
Your gender: male
female
Your age:
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45 and above
Your qualification:
PhD
Master
Bachelor Teacher Certificate
Major subject at university/postsecondary level: ___________________
Teaching experience (years): __________
School type:
Girls
Co-educational
Boys
Band of school: 1
2
3
-Thank you very much for your valuable opinions-
224
Appendix VI
Appendix VI Video Workshop Interview Protocol

Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. Your opinion is very important for us to improve this
school-based staff development project in its second round. Please be assured that your views
expressed here will not be divulged to any other persons in your school including your panel
head.
Contextual Factors (expected time: 20 min)
1. How long have you been teaching in this school?
2. What is your teaching workload? How many classes do you teach? Which subject(s)?
Which form(s)? How many lessons a week in total?
3. What other duties have you got in the school? How much time you have to spend on those
duties?
4. When do you normally arrive at school and when do you leave?
5.
I want to know something about the working relationship among members of the IS panel.
Is there any cooperation among members in the panel? What is the nature of cooperation?
Do you find this kind of cooperation useful? If yes, in what sense? (Say, How many
meetings do you usually have a month with members in the IS panel? What are the topics
of the meetings? How long does each meeting last?)
6.
7.
Did you teach in other school(s) before joining this school? Describe.
Did you hold any other jobs before teaching? Describe.
Teachers Experience in Video Workshops (expected time: 70 min)

1. Briefly describe how did you prepare for the video workshops? (Say, did you watch the
video first or you study the questions on the preparatory tasks first?)
2. Did you refer to the lesson transcripts? When? And Why? In what ways have you found the
transcripts useful in helping you to analyze the lesson videos?
3. Overall, how much time did you spend on each of the preparatory tasks? Do you think the
time was worthy spending or not? And why?
Would you have spent more time on it if you were to re-do it again? Why or why not?
4. How much time did you spend on each of the follow-up tasks? Do you think the time was
worthy spending or not? Any why?
When do you write up the follow-up tasks? Why do you choose to write a particular
learning in the follow-up tasks?
5. Have you reviewed the materials in the CDs (e.g., the powerpoint, the videos) given to
you after the video workshops? Why or why not?
6. Of all the video workshops, i.e., lesson planning, assessment for learning, lab management
and NOS, learning to learn and dealing with Ss misconceptions, which one did you like
most? Why?
225
Appendix VI
7. Of all the video workshops, which one did you learn most? What is that learning about?
And why did you learn it so well? How would this learning have been different if any of the
following was not there? Why?
a. Preparation task
b. Videos
c. Videos of different teachers
d. Transcripts
e. Discussion in the video workshop
f. The facilitator i.e., Dr. Yung
g. Follow-up task
8. What could have been done to further enhance your learning in this area? (give examples
only if respondent cannot think of any e.g., more videos, more preparation time, more
discussion time, talking to the teacher-in-video)
9. How would you list the components of the video workshops mentioned above in the order
of their effectiveness in bringing about your professional learning? Why?
10. Of the 4 video workshops, i.e., lesson planning, assessment for learning, lab management
and NOS, learning to learn and dealing with Ss misconceptions, you mentioned that XXX
was the one from which you learned most, what about the others? Did you learn anything
from those workshops? If yes, what was/were the learning? If not, why not?
11. How far do you think each of the video workshops has contributed to your professional
learning in the following aspects? Give example(s) to substantiate/illustrate your point.
a. Awareness of alternatives of teaching strategies that are not previously known to
myself
b. Awareness of different classroom situations that are not previously known to myself
c. Provision of exemplary models of teaching of which I may try out in my own teaching
d. Proof of existence of good practices that, in turn, will encourage myself to try out the
same practices in my own teaching
e. Promoting and facilitating reflection on my own teaching
12. How far has your learning from the video workshops impacted on your day-to-day teaching,
if any? Give examples to illustrate your point. If not? Why not?
13. I understand that, like all other teachers, you are very busy. If there is insufficient time,
which of the workshop(s) do you think can be removed or cut short? Why?
14. What other ways do you think the video workshops can be improved so as to cope with the
very busy schedules of teachers on the one hand and on the other hand these changes would
not compromise its quality for teachers professional learning?
15. Would you recommend this project to your friends in other schools, in its present format or
in a refined format? Why or why not? What are necessary conditions for this project to be
successful?
226
Appendix VI
Lastly, I want to understand a bit more about your educational belief and thinking
Teachers beliefs on teaching and learning
1. Describe what it is about teaching that you really like.
2. Describe what it is about teaching that you really dont like.
3. Describe for me the ideal teacher of junior secondary level teaching science.
4. Have you changed your ideas about what constitutes good science teaching over the years?
If so, how? What do you think caused the change?
5. Describe for me the ideal student for science at the junior secondary level.
6. Have you changed your ideas about how students learned best over the years? If so, how?
What do you think caused the change?
7. Are there any constraints, or external factors within the school, beyond your control, which
limit the way you would like to be teaching science at the junior secondary level?
8. What are some examples of ways in which you feel you do a good job in science teaching at
the junior secondary level?
227
Appendix VII
Appendix VII Follow-up Task for Lesson Planning Meeting

Lesson Planning Meeting - Follow-up Task
After this meeting, you may have gained some new insights on (1) the topic that you have
chosen to teach, (2) lesson planning or (3) teaching in general. To facilitate your reflection,
some guiding questions are listed below. Please feel free to reflect on any other areas you think
important. To save your time, you may wish to just jot down the reflections in point form that
suffices to recall your memories when you are interviewed in 2-3 months.
Keep a copy of this reflection for yourself. Give a copy to the HKU research team within one
week after the meeting.
1. What are the most impressive things in this meeting? And why?
2. What are the new insights gained from this meeting? What are their implications/impacts on
you and your teaching? And how?
a. Lesson planning
b. Teaching of the selected topic
c. Teaching in general
3. Do you find this meeting useful to your teaching? If yes, in what way do you find this
meeting useful to your teaching?
4. Besides the modifications/refinements agreed during the meeting, are there any other
modifications/refinements that you want to make in the lesson plan? Why? Or why not?
5. How is the lesson plan finalized in this meeting (including further refinements after this
meeting) different from the one you used in previous years? Which one do you like more?
And why?
228
Appendix VIII
Appendix VIII Preparation Task for Lesson Analysis 1

Meeting
Lesson Analysis 1 Meeting Preparation Task
After teaching the lesson that was collaboratively planned together with your colleagues, reflect
on the lesson by reviewing the videotape of the lesson and the assignments from students. To
facilitate your reflection, some guiding questions are listed below. Please feel free to reflect on
any other areas you think important. To save your time, you may wish to just jot down the
reflections in point form that suffices to recall your memories when you are interviewed in 2-3
months.
Keep a copy of this reflection for yourself. Please send a copy to the HKU research team by
email or by fax.
1. How do you find this lesson? Do you like this lesson? Why? Or why not?
2. What are the things that you like in this lesson? And why? What are the things that you
dislike in this lesson? And why?
3. Is there any difference between the final lesson plan and the way you taught in this lesson?
What is/are the difference(s)? Why did the actual lesson deviate from the final lesson plan?
4. a. What are the new insights gained from reviewing and reflecting on the videotape of the
lesson? What are their implications/impacts on you and your teaching? And how?
b. Are there any episodes from the video of the lesson that you would like to bring up for
discussion in the coming meeting? Any why? Please specify the time-counter of the
episodes.
5. a. What are the new insights gained from reviewing and reflecting on the assignments from
the students? What are their implications/impacts on you and your teaching? And how?
b. Are there any assignments from your students that you would like to bring up for discussion
in the coming meeting? Any why? Please specify the mind map(s).
229
Appendix IX
Appendix IX Follow-up Task for Lesson Analysis 1 Meeting

Lesson Analysis 1 Meeting - Follow-up Task
After this meeting, you may have gained some new insights on (1) the lesson plan or (2)
teaching and learning in the videotape of the lesson(s). To facilitate your reflection, some
guiding questions are listed below. Please feel free to reflect on any other areas you think
email or by fax.
1. What are the most impressive things in this meeting? And why? What are their
implications/impacts on you and your teaching? And how?
2. (For the teachers who have watched the video before this meeting.) Compared with your
viewing before the meeting, have you gained any additional insights regarding the
following aspects? What are the implications/impacts of these new insights on you and your
teaching?
a. Focusing on the teacher
b. Focusing on the students
c. Focusing on the lesson plan
d. Any other aspects
3. a. Are there any differences between watching and discussing the videos of teachers in other
school (e.g., Mr. Mak/Mr.Lo) and those of you/your colleagues?
b. Which one do you like more? And why?
c. Which one do you learn more? Any why? In what way do you learn more?
4. Is there anything not mentioned above but you would like to share?
230
Appendix X
Appendix X Preparation Task for Lesson Analysis 2 Meeting

Lesson Analysis Meeting 2 Task 1
Chloes Lesson
Study and reflect on the lesson video. Some guiding questions are provided below to keep you
focused on student learning. However, feel free to reflect on any other aspects you like.
1. Do you think the lesson objectives have been achieved in this lesson?
2. What were the things that students learned well? What were the supporting evidences?
3. What were the things that students did not learn well? What were the supporting evidences?
4. In each of the cases identified in 3 above, do you think the teacher had acted on/ followed up
5. What were the cases where you are not sure whether students were learning well or not? What
other teaching/learning opportunities could have been created by the teacher so as to allow
him/her to ascertain if the students are learning well or not?
7. Any other aspects that you want to share with your colleagues
231
Appendix X

Bens Lesson
Study and reflect on the lesson video. Some guiding questions are provided below to keep you
focused on student learning. However, feel free to reflect on any other aspects you like.
1. Do you think the lesson objectives have been achieved in this lesson?
2. What were the things that students learned well? What were the supporting evidences?
3. What were the things that students did not learn well? What were the supporting
evidences?
4. In each of the cases identified in 3 above, do you think the teacher had acted on/ followed
up with students responses appropriately?
5. What were the cases where you are not sure whether students were learning well or not?
What other teaching/learning opportunities could have been created by the teacher so as to
allow him/her to ascertain if the students are learning well or not?
7. Any other aspects that you want to share with your colleagues
232
Appendix X

Comparing the Two Lessons
1.
In addition to watching and reflecting on the two videos separately, what have you
learned by reflecting on and comparing the two videos?
2.
What do you feel about watching and commenting on colleagues lesson videos?
3.
What do you feel your lesson video being watched and commented by colleagues?
233
Appendix XI
Appendix XI Follow-up Task for Lesson Analysis 2 Meeting

Lesson Analysis Meeting 2- Follow-up Task
After this meeting, you may have gained some new insights on (1) the lesson plan or (2)
teaching and learning in the videotape of the lesson(s). To facilitate your reflection, some
guiding questions are listed below. Please feel free to reflect on any other areas you think
email or by fax.
1. What are the most impressive things in this meeting? And why? What are their
implications/impacts on you and your teaching? And how?
2. Compared with your viewing before the meeting, have you gained any additional insights
regarding the following aspects? What are the implications/impacts of these new insights on
you and your teaching?
a. Focusing on the teacher
b. Focusing on the students
c. Focusing on the lesson plan
d. Any other aspects
3. a. Are there any differences between watching and discussing the videos of teachers in other
school (e.g., Mr. Mak/Mr.Lo) and those of you/your colleagues?
b. Which one do you like more? And why?
c. Which one do you learn more? Any why? In what way do you learn more?
4. Are there any differences between your views on the following aspects before and after this
meeting? What are the implications/ impacts on your professional learning?
a. Your view on watching and commenting on colleagues lesson videos
b. Your view on being watched and commented by colleagues
5. Is there anything not mentioned above but you would like to share?
234
Appendix XII
Appendix XII Lesson Study Questionnaire

1. a. To what extent do you think each of the meetings is useful in bringing about your
professional learning? (6 as very useful and 0 as not useful)
b. Please also rank the order of effectiveness of the meetings in bringing about your
professional learning. (1 as the most useful and 4 as the least useful.)
Rank
Not
Lesson Study Activities
(1-4
Useful
1. Collaborative Lesson Planning
0
2. Conducting the research lesson
0
3. Lesson Analysis 1- Discussing and
reflecting on the whole videos of your
0
own
4. Lesson Analysis 2- Discussing and
reflecting on selected episodes of your
0
and your colleagues videos in-depth
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Very
Useful
6
6
Useful
2. a. To what extent do you think is the usefulness of each of the following features of Lesson
Study in bringing about your professional learning? (6 as very useful and 0 as not
useful)
b. Please also rank the order of effectiveness of the features of Lesson Study in bringing
about your professional learning. (1 as the most useful and 7 as the least useful.)
Rank
(1-7)
Features
Preparation task
Videos of your own
Videos of your colleagues
Transcripts of the lesson
Discussion in Lesson Study
meetings
Follow-up task
The facilitator, i.e., Dr. Yung
Not
Usef
ul
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
Usef
ul
Your Information
Your Name: ____________________
Your School: _______________________________________
235
Very
Useful
Appendix XIII
Appendix XIII Lesson Study Interview Protocol

Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. Your opinion is very important for us to improve this
school-based staff development project in its second round. Please be assured that your views
expressed here will not be divulged to any other persons in your school including your panel
head.
Maybe in the rest of the interviews you start with a preamble as follows:
I understand that you must have a lot to share with me about your views on participating in our
project. Because of the limited time available, I want first of all to focus on the following areas.
So, forgive me if I interrupt you at points if I find our discussion has diverged from these foci. Is
it okay?
1. The nature/content of your professional learning: knowledge, skills, attitude (educational
philosophy)?
2. The process of arriving at these learning
3. The factors affecting/contributing these learning (these can include factors not related to our
TPD programme)
4. The impact, if any, of these learning on your practice
Discussion the follow-up task of the teachers and ask these questions after each follow-up task
accordingly (expected time: 30 mins)
A. Collaborative Lesson Planning
1. How did you find collaborative lesson planning useful to your professional learning?
What are the things that you find it useful to your professional learning? What did
you learn in collaborative lesson planning? How did it promote your professional
learning?
(Then refer to the follow-up tasks for the learning of the teachers)
2.
3.
Do you have collaborative lesson planning in your school? Comparing with the
collaborative lesson planning in this TPD programme,
a. Which one do you like more? And why?
b. Which one do you learn more? Any why? What is that learning?
If they mentioned the facilitator in Q3. How did the facilitator promote/facilitate your
learning in lesson planning? What if there is no facilitator in collaborative lesson planning,
will your learning be the same? Why? Or why not? Please give examples.
B. Lesson Analysis 1 & 2 Discussing and reflecting on the lesson videos

1. How did you find lesson analysis meeting useful to your professional learning? What
have you learned in the lesson analysis meetings? And how did you learn in the
meetings?
(Refer to the follow-up tasks for the learning of the teachers)
2.
Comparing with peer observation, there are lesson videos in lesson analysis meetings.
How would your learning be different with or without video? Please give examples.
236
Appendix XIII
3.
There are two lesson analysis meetings. The first one is to discuss and reflect on the whole
lesson videos from you. The second one is to discuss and reflect on selected episodes of
videos from you and your colleagues.
a. Do you learn differently in these two meeting? If no, why? If yes, what are the
differences? What make the differences? Give examples if possible.
b. Which one do you like more? Why? (the whole video VS selected videos) Give
examples if possible.
c. Which one do you learn more? Why? (the whole video VS selected videos) Give
examples if possible.
Notes: In case, the teacher cannot provide example, you can provide clues to hem by
referring to relevant parts of their follow-up task.
C. Teachers Experience in Lesson Study as a whole (expected time: 45 min)

1. How did you find the useful of the following activities to your own professional learning?
Please give examples
a. Collaborative lesson planning meeting
b. Conducting the research lesson
c. Lesson analysis 1 discussing and reflecting on the whole lessons
d. Lesson analysis 2 discussing and reflecting on selected episodes of the lesson videos
2. Which one do you like the most? Why? Please give examples.
3. Which one do you learn the most? Why did you learn so well? What is that learning about?
What would your learning have been different if any of the following was not there? And
why? Please give examples.
a. Collaborative lesson planning
b. Opportunities to teach the research lesson or to apply the learning gained in video
workshops
c. Watching videos of your own
d. Watching videos of your colleagues
e. Commenting on colleagues videos
f. Being commented by colleagues
g. Preparation task
h. Follow-up task
i. The facilitator, i.e., Dr. Yung
j. The transcript
k. Others?
4. How would you list the above features of Lesson Study in the order of their effectiveness
in bringing about your professional learning? Why?
5.
How far has your learning from Lesson Study impacted on your day-to-day teaching,
if any? Give examples to illustrate your point. If not? Why not?
6.
What other ways do you think the Lesson Study meetings can be improved?
D. The whole TPD programme

1. Could you summarize what you have learned in the whole TPD programme?
Among those learning you mentioned before, which one the most important learning
to you? Why? Which one has the greatest impact to you? Why?
237
Appendix XIII
2.
Could you describe the process of learning in this programme?
3.
How do you perceive your role in this learning community?
4.
We have 4 video workshops before the lesson study.

a. Which one has more impact to your daily teaching, video workshops or lesson study?
Why?
b. Which one do you learn more? Why? What constitute to the difference? (e.g., the
format of the activities, more input from you, more collaboration among colleagues,
more time from you, etc)
Do you think it is necessary to have both video workshop and lesson study? Why? Why
not?
Do you think the sequence of video workshops and the lesson study is properly arranged?
Why?(i.e., to have video workshop before lesson study, or after lesson study, or alternately)
5.
6.
7.
What could have been done to further enhance your learning in this TPD programme?
(give examples only if respondent cannot think of any e.g., more videos, more preparation
time, more discussion time, talking to the teacher-in-video, more lesson study cycles, etc)
8.
Besides the learning you written in the follow-up task, do you have anything to share?
Do you gain any insights/learning in other aspects? (e.g., collaboration with
colleagues, interpersonal skills, leadership etc)
9.
Would you recommend this project to your friends in other schools, in its present format or
in a refined format? Why or why not? What are necessary conditions for this project to be
successful?
E. Contextual factors (expected time: 15 min)

1. In the last interview, you told me that you teach _____ classes and ______lessons a cycle.
Do you have any change in your teaching workload in the 2nd school term? No change,
more or less?
2. You have got _______ duties in the school. Any changes? Any new duties? Did you spend
more time on those duties?
3. When do you normally arrive at school and when do you leave?
4.
Besides this TPD programme, what other TPD activities in and/or outside school have you
participated this year (e.g., EMB seminar, MEd courses, other research, etc)? Why? What
are they about? How long do they last?
5.
I would like to know more about the working relationship among IS panel. What
cooperation among members in IS panel in this school year? What is the nature of
cooperation? Do you find this kind of cooperation useful? If yes, in what sense? (e.g., How
many meetings did you have this year? What were the topics of the meetings? How long
did each meeting last?)
238
Appendix XIII
Lastly, I want to understand a bit more about your educational belief and thinking (Omit if the
teacher was asked before.)
Teachers beliefs on teaching and learning
1. Describe what it is about teaching that you really like.
2. Describe what it is about teaching that you really dont like.
3. Describe for me the ideal teacher of junior secondary level teaching science.
4. Have you changed your ideas about what constitutes good science teaching over the years?
If so, how? What do you think caused the change?
5. Describe for me the ideal student for science at the junior secondary level.
6. Have you changed your ideas about how students learned best over the years? If so, how?
What do you think caused the change?
7. Are there any constraints, or external factors within the school, beyond your control, which
limit the way you would like to be teaching science at the junior secondary level?
8. What are some examples of ways in which you feel you do a good job in science teaching at
the junior secondary level?
239

FullText PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FullText PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title

Teacher learning in communities of practice: improving teaching

The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent rights)

Teacher Learning in Communities of Practice:

The University of Hong Kong

Abstract of thesis entitled

Teacher Learning in Communities of Practice:

Teacher Learning in Communities of Practice:

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

Teacher Learning as a Research Issue ................................................................... 1

Gaps in the Research on Teacher Learning ........................................................... 1

Context of the Study.............................................................................................. 2

Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 3

The Interpretative Frameworks ..................................................................................... 3

Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth (IMTPG) ........................ 3

Community of Practice (CoP) ............................................................................... 5

Outline of the Subsequent Chapters .............................................................................. 7

Literature Review ............................................................................................. 9

Research on Teacher Learning ...................................................................................... 9

Research on the Content of Teacher Learning....................................................... 9

2.1.1.1. Teacher learning as gaining knowledge and skills ................................ 9

Research on Factors Affecting Teacher Learning................................................ 17

2.1.3.1. Prior knowledge and beliefs ................................................................ 17

The Need for Two Interpretive Frameworks ....................................................... 25

IMTPG for Analysing the Path of Teacher Learning .......................................... 26

2.2.2.1. The four domains ................................................................................ 26

The Video-based TPD Programme ............................................................... 35

Rationale for the TPD Design ..................................................................................... 35

Professional Development through Examining Ones Own Practices ................ 35

Professional Development through the Use of Exemplary Cases ....................... 35

Professional Development through the Use of Videos ........................................ 36

An Overview of the TPD Programme ......................................................................... 37

- Research Methodology ................................................................................... 39

Research Approach ...................................................................................................... 39

Overview of the Research Activities ................................................................... 41

Sources of Data and Research Instruments ......................................................... 42

4.3.2.1. Questionnaires ..................................................................................... 42

Treatment and Analysis of Data .................................................................................. 48

Reporting of Data and Findings .................................................................................. 49

Validity, Reliability and Ethics .................................................................................... 50

Ethical Issues ....................................................................................................... 52

Generalisability, Generativity and Exemplarity of Findings ....................................... 52

Teacher Learning in Bright Future College ................................................. 54

Background Information of the School ....................................................................... 54

The School and the Students ............................................................................... 54

Department of Integrated Science ....................................................................... 54

Background Information ..................................................................................... 55

Most Important Learning .................................................................................... 55

A Recursive Journey on Lesson Planning and Assessing Students ..................... 55

5.2.3.1 Prior beliefs and practices .................................................................... 55

Most Important Learning .................................................................................... 67

A Learning Journey in Search of Self-Actualisation ........................................... 68

5.3.3.1 Prior beliefs and practice ...................................................................... 68

Background Information ..................................................................................... 73

Most Important Learning .................................................................................... 74

A Reliant/Reactive Journey on Listening to Students Voices............................. 74

5.4.3.1 Prior beliefs and practice ...................................................................... 74

Summary of the Most Important Learning to Teachers in BFC .................................. 81

A CoP with a High Level of Learning Energy ............................................................ 82

A Joint Enterprise ................................................................................................ 82

Mutual Engagement ............................................................................................ 85

A Shared Repertoire ............................................................................................ 88