Video-Based Feedback for Collaborative Reflection among Mentors, University Tutors and Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The proposal addresses the video based Feedback in pre-services teacher that is a highly relevant topic to improve initial education. The results are interesting to provide some guideline orientations about te use of video-base feedback in Teacher Education.

This has been a topic highly discussed, and the article does not mention all the references and literature already produced about the use of video enhaced observation. I recommend that the authors review this paper :

Batlle, J., & Miller, P. (2017). VIDEO ENHANCED OBSERVATION AND TEACHER DEVELOPMENT: TEACHERS’BELIEFS AS TECHNOLOGY USERS. In EDULEARN17 Proceedings (pp. 2352-2361). IATED.

 It would also be necessary  to clarify with more detail the influence of emotional support on feedback on the third section.

If possible, it would be interesting for the authors to provide a more comprehensive explanation of the analitical process of three independent researchers.

Another question that should be explained in more detail is about collaborative reflection in pre-service teacher. Why is considered collaborative? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Education Sciences

Video-based feedback for collaborative reflection among mentors, university tutors and students

Review

This is a well-written article which analyzes how mentors and university tutors give feedback to pre-service teachers through the Video Enhanced Observation App. The study offers a deep understanding about how this feedback is characterized. In that sense, the article is highly relevant and innovative. The study is well-located in the literature and provides detailed information about the results obtained. Although the manuscript is worthy of publication, there are some major issues that should first be addressed.

Abstract

p. 1, lines 3-4. As expressed at the beginning of the abstract, it seems that the focus of the paper will be an analysis of VEO as a technology to develop reflective practice. However, the main focus of the paper is on the characterization of mentors’ and tutors’ feedback. In that way, the information provided in the abstract should be rephrased to clearly show the main focus of the paper and to clearly relate it with the three specific aims exposed.

p. 1, lines 12-15. Results are not clearly exposed. The authors should point out the information in a more specific way. What different feedback strategies are used? Maybe the authors could say what is the most used strategies.

1. Introduction

p. 1, lines 19-20. The authors present innovative uses of VEO, but they do not add some references to the readers. In that way, we recommend the authors add the following references:

To the reader know VEO as an innovative resource:

- Seedhouse, P. (ed.) (2021). Video Enhanced Observation for Language teaching: Reflection and Professional Development. Bloomsbury.

To the reader know how VEO was implemented during COVID-19:

- Batlle, J. & González, M.V. (2021). Observar para aprender: Valoración del uso de la herramienta Video Enhanced Observation (VEO) en la formación del profesorado de español como lengua extranjera. In Satorre, R. (coord.). Redes de Investigación e Innovación en Docencia Universitaria (pp. 175-184). Institut de Ciències de l’Educació de la Universitat d’Alicant.

Regarding the reference to the reader know how VEO is used to promote second language acquisition, I do not have in mind the reference consulted by the authors, but, anyways, it should be included.

2. Using video technology to support individual and collaborative reflection in pre-service teacher education

Numbering must be rephrased. There are two sections with the number ‘2’ and two sections with number ‘3’.

p. 2, lines, 12-18. The information provided in this paragraph is unclear. [3] is referred to oral feedback, in contraposition to written feedback. The dataset for this study is composed by written feedback, although comments provided by mentors and tutors are derived from seeing a short video. In consequence, I do not understand why the authors have to allude to [3].

3. The influence of effective feedback in constructing teachers’ professional knowledge

p. 2, line 22. The authors should include some references about the studies about how “expertise show that feedback is essential to improve performance”.

p. 2, line 50. The information about the formation of teachers’ professional identities should be included in the article should be rephrased. I can understand that the authors consider meaningful the difference between mentors’ and tutors’ feedback. IN that way, differences between identities in giving feedback should be emphasized.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Context and Participants

p. 3, line 16. The sum of females and males are not 12.

p. 3, lines 17-18. What differences are between the first and the second teaching practicum? It should be explained. More information about the teaching practicum should be developed.

2.2. Data-collection instrument

p. 3, line 26. The inclusion of information about the app (how the video is uploaded and shared, what information can be included, the tag system, etc.) should be added to those who do not know how VEO works understand it.

p. 3, line 27. Can the authors specify the duration of the short clips?

3. Results

p. 4, line 20. The use of the verb ‘discusses’ is not adequate. Please, use a verb as ‘to show’.

3.1. Type of challenges that pre-service teachers identified when they analyzed their classroom intervention

p. 4, line 33. The sentence “Table 2 shows the types of challenges that each episode represents” should be rephrased, because it is not each episode, but the challenges are classified regarding the episodes are complete or incomplete.

p. 4, lines 43-46 & p. 5, lines 1-5. Table 2 lacks from a row for the total number of challenges (and the 100%). This row would clarify the information provided afterwards. Moreover, I do not know to what extent the number of cases could be in the table and the percentage could be the information in brackets (i.e., ‘14 (17,7%)’ for Learning climate and Incomplete episodes).

3.2. Identifying and characterizing mentoring episodes

3.2.2. Complementary feedback

p. 5, lines 44-46. How many cases are for each category?

3.2.3. School mentor-centered episode to facilitate comprehension and/or seek solutions

p. 6, lines 29-30. It is weird that 24% of the cases are not analyzed. Although there are different patterns for the 12 other episodes, these should be named in some kind of way.

3.3. Differences between school mentors’ and university tutors’ feedback

p. 6, lines 33-34. The categories used to analyze the data should be included in the lit review.

p. 6, line 35. the total number of emotional strategies for school mentors and university tutors should be included.

4. Discussion

p. 9, lines 8-16. These results could be discussed with the results from the following reference:

- Batlle, J., Cuesta, A. & González, M.V. (2020). El microteaching como secuencia didáctica: inicios de los procesos reflexivos en la formación de los profesores de ELE. E-AESLA, 3, 62-73.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All the suggested changes have been carried out correctly. The article has been improved significantly and is ready to be published.

Congratulations to the authors for the research. The article provides new insights in using video in pre-service teacher education.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.