Preservice Teachers’ Reflection Processes When Collaboratively Reflecting on Videotaped Classroom Teaching

Abstract

It is imperative that (preservice) teachers engage in continuous reflection on their pedagogical practice to foster their continuous professional development. Teaching videos are therefore used in teacher education programmes to stimulate reflection. The authentic presentation of teaching through videos enables (preservice) teachers to reflect on certain aspects of teaching. To enhance the reflection quality of (preservice) teachers, it is essential that they receive structured support throughout the reflection process. The following article examines the reflection processes of preservice teachers who took part in the FLECTT project (Collegial video-based reflection on teaching in Reflecting Teams) at the University of Duisburg-Essen. During their practical semester, preservice teachers had the opportunity to reflect on videotapes of their own teaching in a collegial reflection setting. As only a few studies have investigated processes of collegial video-based reflection of preservice teachers, the following study addresses this research desideratum and investigates the reflection processes by means of an explorative, qualitative study. The findings suggest that preservice teachers engage intensively with the teaching video. They reflect on their personal experiences and develop new alternative courses of action. However, it seems to be crucial that the participants are familiar with the specific setting in order to be able to participate effectively in the reflection process. In addition, the high level of engagement with the teaching video seems to have an effect on the concentration or fatigue of the preservice teachers.

1. Introduction

1.1. Reflection in Teacher Education

There is no universal definition of reflection, as different definitions consider different criteria to be important [1]. In a general perspective, reflection can be defined as a specific form of thinking which is goal-oriented [2,3]. A goal-oriented process aims to generate solutions to specific challenges or problems [4]. Thus, reflection is used to evaluate one’s own actions and to develop problem-solving strategies [5]. Reflection processes are influenced by emotions as well as personal experiences, values, and beliefs [2,6]. According to Korthagen, reflection is a mental process attempting to “structure or restructure an experience, a problem or existing knowledge or insights” [7] (p. 63). Reflection processes are situated within specific contexts that pertain to a particular content or object of reflection [8,9].

The varied and demanding daily work of teachers, for example, the interaction with students or with parents, requires them to engage with events and developments in their profession [10]. The ability to reflect is therefore seen as a fundamental competence in the teaching profession, so that the promotion of this competence is a central element of professionalisation processes [11,12] and should already be promoted in teacher training [8]. The implementation of reflective practice is becoming increasingly important not only in the context of teacher education but also in school settings. It offers (preservice) teachers the opportunity to engage in a process of reflection about their own actions in the classroom, to draw conclusions for future actions, and to share them in school networks [13,14].

In Germany, standards and requirements for German teacher training are established by the Ministers of Education (The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs in the Federal Republic of Germany). These standards state that preservice teachers should engage in reflective practice with regard to their teaching and other professional activities, in order to facilitate their professional development. Considering reflection as a central aspect of teacher education programmes is, of course, also relevant in other educational contexts [1,12,15,16,17]. The significance of reflection in the context of becoming a reflective practitioner was already articulated by Schön in the 1980s [18]. Through reflection, teachers engage in a reflexive dialogue with their pedagogical and didactical practice, enabling them to identify alternative courses of action for future situations and to further develop their professional vision and their competences [19]. Professional vision, defined as a cognitive skill, facilitates the noticing of relevant teaching scenarios and the associated knowledge-based reasoning. This process can be considered an essential element of teachers’ professional practice and should therefore be a key objective of teacher education [19]. This capacity is identified as a core training objective in both national and international teacher training programmes [10,11,18,20,21].

It is therefore of great importance that (preservice) teachers engage in continuous processes of reflection on the quality of their teaching in order to question their actions and to address the challenges and demands of their role, with a view to improving their teaching [20]. Reflection can be applied to various aspects of teaching practice, including the teacher’s actions, classroom management, or challenges such as disruptions in the classroom [9]. Reflective practice enables preservice teachers to evaluate their actions, interactions, and pedagogical approaches. This process can lead to broadening perspectives, gaining new insights and changing behaviour in future situations [16,22,23,24].

The theoretical classification of reflection demonstrates that reflection is a complex and multi-layered construct. In order to effectively address reflection processes, it is imperative to have a comprehensive understanding of the reflection process itself. In order to gain insight into the processes of reflection, a series of models have been developed with the aim of conceptualising the individual steps of reflection. One of the earliest models is the ALACT model, proposed by Korthagen et al. [20,25]. The ALACT model, as proposed by Korthagen et al., provides a clear illustration of the cyclical nature of reflection processes [25]. This representation of reflection processes is of particular importance for the evaluation and analysis of reflection processes, with a view to outlining how preservice teachers deal with the incentive to reflect. In the ALACT model, Korthagen et al. emphasise the importance of teachers clarifying the individual steps of reflection, particularly during their preparation service, in order to facilitate structured and systematic reflection. The model can be a valuable tool in teacher training, enabling the identification of techniques or interventions that can effectively stimulate reflection processes. This is achieved by analysing the individual reflection steps and formulating specific reflection questions to generate potential courses of action. The ALACT model [20,25] differentiates the individual, successive, and cyclical reflection steps that collectively constitute the reflection process. The reflection model allows (preservice) teachers to address the subject matter in a systematic manner. The ALACT model delineates the cyclical process of reflection, comprising five distinct phases [20,25]. The first phase describes the Action, including the question “What do I want to achieve?”. The second phase involves a review of the action (Looking back at the action; “What exactly happened? What did I do?”). In the third phase, an awareness of essential aspects is created (Awareness of Essential Aspects). The next phase, Creating Alternative Methods of Action, focuses on developing alternative courses of action. In the fifth phase, Trial, the alternative action is tried out, which in turn leads to new experiences. The cycle reaches its conclusion with the fifth phase and then resumes with the initial phase, thus creating a spiral model that ensures the reflection process is continuously driven forward [20,25].

The ALACT model and the model of Hatton and Smith [2] have been integrated into the ERTO model, developed by Krieg and Kreis [26]. Similar to the ALACT model, the ERTO model also represents a cyclical process of reflection. It is also assumed that the reflection cycle commences with the situation that incites reflection. The model addresses the Event, the Reflection, the Transformation, and Option for a new action and illustrates how and in what manner reflection processes may occur (see Figure 1). In comparison to the ALACT model, the ERTO model identifies distinct levels of reflection that can be attained through reflection. The differentiation of the reflection levels in the ERTO model is also regarded as an extension of the reflection levels initially proposed by Hatton and Smith [2]. Hatton and Smith differentiate four levels of reflection [2]. At the first level, designated as ‘descriptive writing’, the situation is only described. At the ‘descriptive reflection’ level, the situation is reflected and justifications are listed but not evaluated. At the ‘dialogic reflection’ level, a ‘stepping back’ from the events is provided, which permits a reframing of the situation and the integration of alternative perspectives in the reflection. The final level, ’critical reflection’, encourages a critical examination of actions and contextualises the situation in different contexts, such as historical or socio-political. The ERTO model can be considered an amalgamation of the ALACT model and the reflection levels proposed by Hatton and Smith. In light of the aforementioned foundation, the ERTO model is employed in the research context outlined here to empirically examine the model, particularly the reflection levels, within the framework of teacher education. The ERTO model offers a valuable conceptual foundation for understanding the extent to which (preservice) teachers engage with the subject matter and at which levels of reflection they engage with it.

The levels of reflection in the ERTO model (listed below) are defined as indicators of the quality of reflection. It is possible to attain these levels as a result of the reflection process. At the fundamental level, the descriptive reflection entails the delineation of the situation to be reflected upon, accompanied by an assessment of the situation or an acknowledgement of a problematic aspect. At the explicative level, the assumptions and/or reasons for the occurrence of the situation described are stated explicitly. At the introspective level, the reflection incorporates a variety of justifications and descriptions pertaining to one’s personal experiences. At the level of integrative reflection, scientific theories are incorporated into the reflection process in order to facilitate the development of strategies for coping with the situation. At the parallel level, the process of transformative reflection is initiated through the use of targeted questions or suggestions, which serve to deepen the reflection process. The objective of transformative reflection is to identify potential courses of action that can be implemented in future scenarios [26] (Figure 1). The four levels of reflection conceptualized in the ERTO model—descriptive, explicative, introspective, and integrative—are thought to build on each other, but they can also be looked at as independent dimensions. The bidirectional arrow between the dimensions ‘Reflection’ and ‘Transformative Reflection’ in the ERTO model (Figure 1) indicates that these two dimensions are in a state of interaction and mutually influence one another. This implies that reflection can initiate transformative reflection processes, which in turn can trigger a new reflection process.

1.2. Collaborative Reflection on Teaching Videos

The integration of teaching videos is becoming increasingly important in teacher education, as they depict realistic teaching scenarios [27], facilitate the observation of classroom interactions, and provide the opportunity for repeated viewing [28]. The incorporation of teaching videos into teacher education provides preservice teachers with the opportunity to integrate their theoretical knowledge into practical contexts, a challenge they frequently encounter [29]. Furthermore, the incorporation of video-based reflection during practical terms has been demonstrated to enhance preservice teachers’ specific focus on teaching and strengthen their professional vision [30]. As a medium for reflection, videos on teaching thus facilitate the professionalisation of teachers and support the development of pedagogical professionalism and alternative courses of action [31]. In comparison to alternative reflection stimuli, videos may present teaching in its complexity, thereby facilitating a more nuanced examination of the reflection content [31]. The practice of distanced observation in the context of teaching videography permits the viewing of teaching from the observer’s perspective, with a reduced sense of pressure to act [32].

(Preservice) teachers may access external teaching videos via video portals, such as the META video portal of the University of Münster or the FOCUS video portal of the FU Berlin. Such portals offer both advantages and disadvantages when compared to the teacher’s own recordings. The viewing of external teaching videos has been demonstrated to engender a more critical and detached mode of reflection [33]. This distanced perspective can facilitate the acquisition of novel insights into pedagogical practices that extend beyond the boundaries of established routines [33]. However, the discussions may be more superficial in nature, as there are no personal points of reference [34]. The utilisation of one’s own teaching videos frequently results in a heightened sense of personal relevance, which can subsequently enhance motivation for reflection [34,35]. It is hypothesised that personal relevance facilitates the activation of previous experiences and knowledge, thereby enhancing (preservice) teachers’ capacity for empathic understanding of the situation [33,36]. Nevertheless, a (preservice) teacher who has produced a teaching video on their own teaching may adopt a defensive stance. This may be attributed to the fact that their own pedagogical conduct is subject to reflection, and, due to the personal connection, the (preservice) teacher may be examining their own pedagogical practice from an identified, and hence emotional, standpoint [33,37]. Furthermore, the creation of one’s own teaching videos requires a significant investment of effort, particularly with regard to data protection issues and the willingness of students and parents to be recorded. Reflecting on teaching videos, irrespective of whether they were produced by (preservice) teachers or procured from external sources, facilitates the integration of theoretical knowledge and practical experience, enabling (preservice) teachers to contextualise their theoretical understanding of teaching and relate it to their actual teaching practice [6,9,10]. For instance, it has been demonstrated that engagement in video-based curricula that integrate theoretical understanding with practical experience facilitates students’ capacity to analyse pedagogical scenarios in a knowledge-based manner [38].

It is important to note that the development of reflexivity is not an autonomous process, whether you are working with your own or other people’s videos. The efficacy of such introspection is contingent upon the presence of conducive structures that serve as indispensable foundations for fostering reflection and the advancement of preservice teachers’ reflective capabilities [3,39]. The utilisation of structuring aids is of paramount importance in order to provide support, facilitate systematic organisation, and oversee the management of the (preservice) teachers reflection process [40].

In order to facilitate the reflective processes of preservice teachers, the utilisation of structured aids is of significant importance. In addition to the aforementioned video reflection, other forms of reflection support include, for example, written portfolios. The findings of Weber et al. [41] suggest that there is no discernible difference in the cognitive load experienced by preservice teachers when engaging in video-based or written reflection. The study demonstrated that the cognitive load of preservice teachers was of a medium intensity regardless of the type of reflection employed, whether video-based or text-based [41]. Structured reflection settings, such as video- or text-based, facilitate the reflection processes of preservice teachers and are less cognitively demanding. Furthermore, debriefing sessions with mentors from educational institutions can also facilitate reflection. Mentoring discussions are structured and systematic, enabling preservice teachers to reflect on their teaching in a methodical manner through dialogue with their mentor [42]. The utilisation of reflection questions, also referred to as reflection prompts, serves to stimulate the reflection processes of preservice teachers. Specific reflection questions are based on predefined focal points that should be considered during the reflection process [17]. Furthermore, collegial reflection settings are conducive to the reflection processes of (preservice) teachers.

Collaborative reflection enables the contribution of different insights and specialist knowledge, which can generate new ideas and impulses for the reflected situation [43]. Collaborative reflection structures are particularly conducive to video-based teaching reflection and can positively influence reflection processes [6]. Through the collaborative examination of teaching, multi-perspective perceptions are exchanged and compared, and teaching behaviour can be perceived in a more differentiated way [38,44]. Collaborative reflection opportunities can broaden the perspectives of (preservice) teachers and stimulate an exchange about specific aspects of teaching [45,46]. Exchange in peer groups can promote openness to peer feedback and positive experiences with feedback [47]. Joint reflection on teaching not only supports the exchange of perspectives between (preservice) teachers, but also enables the discussion of a wide range of alternative courses of action with regard to teaching and teacher behaviour [40,47]. In order to promote collegial reflection on teaching in teacher training, this should be practised specifically with the help of teaching videos [3]. In the context of collegial reflection, it is essential to establish clear communication and feedback guidelines to encourage constructive, resource-oriented feedback and discourage overly critical and personalised feedback. This can be achieved through the implementation of structured approaches, such as reflective prompts [11].

A specific format of collaborative reflection may be realised through the concept of Reflecting Teams. The concept of Reflecting Teams, first developed by Andersen (in 1987) as a method for systemic counselling, was adapted to create a setting for collegial video-reflection on teaching for preservice teachers [48]. The Reflecting Teams concept divides the reflecting group into two Reflecting Teams. The first team, including an individual seeking counselling, engages in a process of reflection on an issue in question. Subsequently, the second team engages in a process of meta-reflection, articulating their perspectives in light of the preceding discussion. In the third phase, the initial team has the opportunity to discuss the second team’s reflection and relevant aspects. In light of the significance of collegial peer reflection for a multi-perspective exchange and the expansion of one’s own perspectives on teaching and teacher action, the Reflecting Teams present an opportunity for collaborative reflection. The advantage of this method is that it necessitates conscious listening to one another due to the distinct delineation of discussion phases. The process allows for reflection at a meta level and supports multi-perspective reflection, as it entails not only one’s own discussion but also that of the other team. Furthermore, in this reflective setting, all participants have the opportunity to engage in reflection, as every reflection and every perspective is deemed to be of value within this context. The specific details of the Reflecting Teams setting in the present study of this paper are described in Section 3.1 (page 7).

Despite the growing popularity of video case studies and video clubs in teacher education, few studies have systematically examined the extent to which such programmes facilitate reflection-related attitudes in collegial video-based reflection on teaching using videos on one’s own teaching and videos of peers [49,50]. In order to facilitate constructive collegial video-based reflection in teacher education, the concept of Reflecting Teams [51], which originates from systemic counselling, was adapted to create a setting for collegial video reflection for preservice teachers [48]. Former studies confirm, through a before and after survey, that both preservice teachers in the intervention group and preservice teachers in the control group attach a high degree of relevance to the topic of classroom reflection and feedback. Preservice teachers in the intervention groups showed high levels of appreciation and low levels of concern about video-based classroom reflection. A positive change in attitude, in the sense of a decrease in concern about video-based teaching reflection and a significant increase in positive evaluation of peer feedback after the intervention, was observed, particularly in the two preservice teachers who reflected on their own teaching videos [49,52].

A first exploratory study with the same concept, in-depth qualitative analysis of Reflecting Teams, shows that preservice teachers engage intensively with the teaching video. They perceive both giving and receiving feedback in the context of reflection as very positive. It indicates that preservice teachers need to become familiar with the reflection concept of the Reflecting Teams and their structure [46]. The results demonstrate that in this specific reflection setting, preservice teachers engage intensively with the teaching video and reach deep levels of reflection [26]. In the analysed reflection process, preservice teachers name different explanations for the reflected events, consider different perspectives, link observations from different levels, and generate new questions that deepen the reflection. In the further course of the reflection process, preservice teachers not only described the teaching situation, but also showed increased engagement by developing deeper questions and different approaches for future teaching situations [53].

2. Research Question

Based on this theoretical and empirical background, the aim of this study is to examine the reflective processes of preservice teachers engaged in the collegial video-based reflection setting Reflecting Teams. The paper addresses the following research questions:

➢

What content do preservice teachers discuss in the collegial video-based reflection process in Reflecting Teams?

➢

What levels of reflection do preservice teachers display in the collegial video-based reflection process in Reflecting Teams?

3. Method

3.1. Design

The FLECTT-project (Collegial video-based reflection on teaching in Reflecting Teams) The FLECTT project was as a part of the ProViel project, which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, funding code: KZ 01JA1910) and has adapted the collaborative reflection approach of the Reflecting Teams [48] to video-based reflection on teaching in order to provide preservice teachers with a structured framework for their reflection. The Reflecting Teams approach is resource-oriented, focusing on the strengths of the person seeking advice with their own video. To this end, preservice teachers were introduced to the concept of Reflecting Teams and given the opportunity to reflect on their own or another preservice teacher’s teaching video during their practical term. The aim of the project was to promote the exchange of ideas and the generation of new perspectives for action through a multi-stage reflection process, which is achieved through joint reflection on the teachers’ teaching and actions [40,52]. In order to stimulate video-based reflection, the preservice teachers were shown three different lesson videos of a preservice teacher’s own lesson. In each video excerpt of their teaching, the preservice teachers focused on a different aspect of reflection (classroom climate, motivation, classroom management). These lesson videos were only seen by the participants in this study. In order to ensure that preservice teachers are adequately prepared for the Reflective Teams on the topic of appreciative feedback, units on this topic were held during the university seminar in advance of the practical semester, which preservice teachers are required to complete as part of their Master’s degree. The objective was to prepare students to provide constructive feedback during the reflection process within the context of the Reflecting Teams.

The concept of Reflecting Teams involves two teams: the video-team and the meta-team (Figure 2). The video-team consists of the person seeking advice with his/her own classroom video and an interviewer who is supposed to stimulate in-depth reflection with questions that support reflection. The meta-team consists of peers who form a support system to intensify the discussion of the content of the reflection. The discussion of the video scenes is divided into different phases, with the teams taking turns in the discussion. The discussion takes place only within the teams. In the first phase, the video-team reflects on its own teaching video, presented by the person seeking advice. In the second phase, the meta-team contributes new ideas and discusses the previous reflection of the video-team in order to carry out a meta-reflection and to broaden the perspectives of the video-team. In the final and third phase, the video-team reflects on which aspects of the meta-reflection contribute to solving the problem of the person seeking advice and which new aspects have been discussed. The change between the second and third phase can take place repeatedly until the person seeking advice has reflected on all relevant aspects. Both teams are supported in their reflection by impulse questions, so-called reflective prompts.

The collaborative reflection was supported by reflective prompts [48,53], which are based on the idea of a the three-step process of describing, interpreting, and generating alternative actions [54]. The focus of the reflective prompts further addressed specific dimensions of teaching quality, namely classroom management, motivation, and classroom climate [55]. The dimensions were selected by the preservice teachers. Based on the relevance of these topics for (preservice) teachers in relation to their teaching and classroom behaviour, these foci were used for the reflective prompts.

Effective classroom management is fundamental to successful teaching [56,57]. The goal of effective classroom management is to create a learning environment in the classroom that is conducive to both teaching and learning while minimising disruptions [58,59,60]. Teachers’ actions are crucial to the success of teaching [27,56,57]. Other factors, such as classroom climate and student motivation, are also crucial for promoting learning and ensuring the quality of teaching [58,59]. A positive classroom climate is defined by respectful and appreciative communication between teachers and learners. Additionally, it is characterised by an environment in which students are provided with specific support and encouragement to learn, and in which there is a mutual trust between teacher and learner, as well as a positive attitude towards learning and performance [55,59,60]. Moreover, the teacher’s attitude towards the subject matter and the educational process can exert a direct influence on the motivation of the learners [55,57]. The reflective prompts served to facilitate the reflection process for the preservice teachers. Nevertheless, the preservice teachers were permitted to engage in reflection on additional themes, for example cognitive activation. For this reason, this focus was also included in the coding scheme but not addressed in the reflective prompts. Cognitive activation can be defined as the active engagement of learners with the subject matter of the learning task. In order to stimulate cognitive activation, the teacher should promote this by, for example, linking the new learning to the previous knowledge of the learners and taking into account the different requirements of the learners [55]. Both teams were given separate reflective prompts. Below are examples of reflective prompts for the focus classroom climate and motivation (see

Table 1. Exemplary reflective prompts for the focus ‘classroom climate’ and ‘motivation’.

Video-Team	Meta-Team
Describing: Classroom climate: How can the classroom climate be described, e.g., concerning the treatment of mistakes? Motivation: How can the motivational quality in the classroom be described, e.g., concerning the clarification of goals and expectations?	Describing: Classroom climate/motivation: Would you add something to the description of the situation? Would you describe the situation in a different way?
Interpreting: Classroom climate: Why is the teacher acting this way with regard to the classroom climate? How might a student perceive the climate? Motivation: What effect do you think the clarification of performance goals and expectations has on students? What are/might be the underlying assumptions of the teacher?	Interpreting: Classroom climate/motivation: Which aspects that were discussed in the video team would you interpret/evaluate differently?
Generating action alternatives: Classroom climate: Which actions on classroom climate are well implemented? What other actions would you suggest concerning the fostering of a good classroom climate? Motivation: Which actions on motivation are well implemented? What other actions would you suggest concerning the fostering of motivation?	Generating action alternatives: Classroom climate/motivation: What alternative courses of action regarding the classroom climate have been already discussed by the video? Which well-implemented aspects would you further describe? Which alternative courses of action would you further propose?

).

3.2. Sample

The sample of the present exploratory study consists of a group of five preservice teachers of the Master of Education study program at the University of Duisburg-Essen (2 male, 3 female). The preservice teachers are between 23 and 27 years old.

The preservice teachers had their own teaching experiences in the course of their practical term. They were supported by the FLECTT-project team to record their own teaching. The videography of their teaching was realised with the consent of the parents of the students in the class. The confidentiality agreement with the preservice teachers precludes data privacy concerning the teaching video on the grounds of data protection. Consequently, only the reflection processes undertaken by the Reflecting Teams could be subjected to analysis.

3.3. Qualitative Material and Analysis

The total duration of the video material of the preservice teachers’ reflection processes in Reflecting Teams was approximately 90 min. This material was transcribed according to Dresing and Pehl [61] and then subjected to a qualitative content analysis according to the methodology proposed by Kuckartz [62]. The participants were anonymised during transcription. The transcript of the video reflection session was subjected to qualitative data analysis using MAXQDA software (2024). The qualitative content analysis was chosen in order to summarize the content of the material, to enable an adequate description and in-depth interpretation of the data, and to provide a meaningful answer to the research questions [62,63]. The content analysis concentrated on the content of the reflection, the depth of the reflection, and the perception of the reflection setting.

A coding scheme was developed using the following procedure: First, categories were deductively developed, which were derived from the theoretical framework, research questions, and reflection questions outlined above. In addition, the categories were further developed and differentiated according to the material; so the subcategories were formed inductively. The coding scheme for the qualitative content analysis was structured according to the theoretical background and research question. It distinguishes between the ‘surface structure of the reflection process’, ‘depth structure of the reflection process’, ‘perception of the reflection setting’, and the ’reflection content’, with the subcategories ‘surface structure of teaching’ and ‘deep structure of teaching’ (

Table 2. Categories for the analysis of the reflection process.

Categories	Description	κ
Total (All Categories)		0.94
Surface structure of the reflection	The data are divided into three phases, which are based on the three videos to be reflected on and relate to compliance with the Reflecting Teams method.	Total: 0.93
Subcategories		Subcategories
➢ phases of the reflection		1.0
➢ adherence to the rules in the reflection process		0.85
Deep structure of the reflection process	The category differentiates the levels and depths of reflection.	Total: 0.91
Subcategories		Subcategories
➢ descriptive reflection		0.87
➢ explicit and introspective level		0.84
➢ integrative reflection		Incalculable
➢ transformative reflection		0.96
Perception of the reflection setting	The category lists the preservice teachers’ perception of the reflection setting.	Total: 1.00
Subcategories		Subcategories
➢ perceived positive added value		1.00
➢ perceived difficulties		1.00
➢ changes in perception in the course of the reflection phases		Incalculable
Surface structure of teaching	The category deals with the surface structure of teaching.	Total: 0.94
Subcategories		Subcategories
➢ teaching method and the social form		0.95
➢ teaching phase		0.93
Deep structure of teaching	The deep structure of teaching focuses on the content of the reflection processes.	Total: 0.94
Subcategories		Subcategories
➢ classroom climate and motivation		0.92
➢ classroom management and dealing with classroom disruptions		0.98
➢ cognitive activation		0.85

). Considering the idea of surface and deep structures of teaching, different aspects of teaching may be observable to varying degrees [64]. ‘Surface structures of teaching’, such as the social form, are more readily discernible. In contrast, ‘deep structures of teaching’, like aspects of classroom management and classroom climate, need more interpretation from the raters [65]. Accordingly, the coding scheme differentiates between the ‘surface structure’ and ‘deep structure’ of teaching. As previously outlined, the reflective prompts differentiated between classroom climate and motivation (see Table 1). The dimensions were differentiated in the reflective prompts in such a way that classroom climate addressed issues related to the classroom atmosphere in general while motivation focused on specific aspects of teacher and student motivation. The creation of a learning-supportive climate has been demonstrated to enhance the motivation of learners and to foster a learning environment that positively influences both learning and motivation [55,57,66]. In the context of the coding process, these reflection foci were grouped together on the grounds that they are content-related and mutually influential. For purposes of clarification, a coding example of the category ‘classroom climate and motivation’ is provided: ‘Basically, I think it’s [the teaching] very, very successful and yes, as I said, with the blackboard, they’re still very, very calm afterwards. And they’re still motivated. Now you can see that wonderfully, that the students are still looking at the blackboard with concentration. They’re not talking to each other, yes’.

The ‘deep structure of the reflection process’ was based on two theoretical perspectives of reflection, the ERTO model by Krieg and Kreis [26] (Figure 1) and the reflection model by Sherin and Van Es [54], in order to code and analyse the depth of the preservice teachers’ reflection. The levels of reflection of Krieg and Kreis [26] and Sherin and van Es [54] were summarized. In the coding scheme, a final differentiation was made between the following four levels of reflection: descriptive reflection, explicit and introspective level, integrative reflection, and transformative reflection. The categories, definitions, and kappa values are presented below (Table 2). The coding was realized independently by two trained coders, with all categories exhibiting almost perfect intercoder reliability [67] (kappa coefficient; Table 2).

4. Results

In response to the research questions, the following tables provide a visual and quantitative representation of the frequency with which individual categories were coded and further the overlap of selected categories.

In terms of the content of the reflections,

Table 3. Content of the Reflection.

Content of the Reflection	Frequency of Codes	Exemplary Quotes
Surface structure of teaching ➢ teaching method and social form	27	‘And anyway, what we haven’t discuss is that you mentioned at the beginning that a kind of partner interview should be conducted. Isn’t that right?’
➢ teaching phase	19	‘As I said, you can see the start here.’
In total (surface structure)	46
Deep structure of teaching
➢ classroom climate and motivation	49	‘That the learning atmosphere is very, very positive, so it’s also very calm.’
➢ classroom management/dealing with disruptions	57	‘But somehow that didn’t totally disrupt the lesson. So you could still carry on and I generally found it positive that you lead the class.’
➢ cognitive activation	18	‘That I could give them coloured notes or something like that. I could imagine that could be very motivating. And that you can really see, so I have to write on the piece of paper ‘What is really private’ and then write it on the board. And then maybe I can say something about it. Maybe I could have involved more students.’
In total (deep structure)	124

shows the frequency of the surface structure and deep structure of the teaching in the preservice teachers’ reflection processes. The deep structure of teaching was explicitly addressed in the reflection prompts throughout the reflection process. As a result, the preservice teachers reflected more frequently on the deep structure than on the surface structure, as shown in Table 3. Nevertheless, the surface structure was also addressed in the reflections, often in connection with the content of the deep structure of teaching. In particular, the preservice teachers reflected on the teaching method and the social form as well as the teaching phase. A closer look at the subcategories related to the in-depth structure shows that preservice teachers most frequently addressed the topics of ‘classroom climate and motivation’ and ‘classroom management and dealing with disruptions’ in their reflections. The code ‘cognitive activation’ was reflected upon least frequently. However, this code was not one of the topics addressed in the preservice teachers’ reflection prompts.

Table 4. Quality of reflection.

Quality of Reflection	Frequency of Codes	Exemplary Quotes
Descriptive reflection	42	‘Ehm and the boy sitting in the middle, for example, he is sitting there all alone now.’
Explicative and introspective reflection	57	‘Ehm, you said at the beginning that you thought the atmosphere was more than okay. Well, I have to say that it’s definitely a very quiet class, I think it’s a very pleasant atmosphere compared to my school.’
Integrative reflection	0	/
Transformative reflection	70	‘Of course you can’t do that, Ehm, but I would have been interested to know what would have happened if she hadn’t given that now, for example? Or would there have been an alternative? Or what would have happened then?’

presents the results of the surface and deep structure of teaching. With regard to the quality of reflection, the preservice teachers demonstrate the extent of their engagement with the teaching video (Table 4). The teaching video is least reflected on at the descriptive level, with 42 codes. Consequently, preservice teachers engage in a more profound reflection, going beyond the descriptive level to delve into the teaching material with depth, integrating their personal experiences and evaluating the reflective process itself (level of explicative and introspective reflection; 57 codes). The level of transformative reflection was realised with the greatest frequency by the preservice teachers, with 70 codes. At this level, the preservice teachers engage in a reflective process, incorporating both descriptive and evaluative elements. Furthermore, they pose thought-provoking questions and propose alternative courses of action for the teaching scenario presented. The level of integrative reflection, which refers to the inclusion of scientific theories in the reflection, was not included in the coding framework and was not included by the preservice teachers in their reflection [26].

Table 5. Content of the reflection in different reflection phases.

	Phase 1: Video 1—Classroom Climate	Phase 2: Video 2— Motivation	Phase 3: Video 3— Classroom Disruption
Surface structure of the reflection ➢ Adherence to the rules in the reflection process	3	1	0
Deep structure of teaching ➢ Classroom climate and motivation	11	15	0
➢ Classroom management/dealing with disruption	9	7	13
➢ Cognitive activation	0	9	0
In total	23	32	13

presents the Quality of Reflection. As the reflection process and the three reflection phases unfolded, it became evident that the preservice teachers required fewer agreements regarding the adherence to the methodological rules (Table 5). In the initial phase of the reflection process, three codes emerged pertaining to the clarification of compliance with the established rules (exemplary quote: ‘I was wondering if we are allowed to ask questions? Yes or no?—U1: I think only between us. Yes, we’re not actually allowed to talk to you’). In phase 2, the rules are only discussed on one further occasion, and in the final phase, no agreement is reached regarding the rules. A closer examination of the content-related connections between the deepening structure of teaching and the reflection phases reveals that the reflection content was most frequently reflected upon in the second reflection phase, with 32 identified passages, compared to 23 codes in phase 1 and 13 in phase 3 (Table 5). This outcome aligns with the focal themes of the individual reflection phases. In phase 1, which concentrated on the classroom climate, and phase 2, which concentrated on motivation, the most frequently identified coding units were ’classroom climate and motivation’ (exemplary quote: ‘Yes, as I said basically I think it’s very successful and yes, as I said, with the blackboard, they’re still very calm afterwards. And they’re still motivated. So they don’t seem distracted. Now you can see that the students are still looking at the board with concentration’). In phase 3, which was concerned with classroom disruption, the theme of ’classroom management/dealing with disruption’ was identified as the most frequently occurring theme (exemplary quotes: ‘I thought the body language, you could kind of feel the surprise, but you could tell that she was totally professional about it. There was no sweating and panic and here and I don’t know what to do. Instead, I think she handled the situation very professionally’). As previously stated, the subject of cognitive activation was not included among the topics addressed in the reflection questions. A more detailed examination of the data reveals that the topic of cognitive activation was addressed in the second phase of the reflection process in conjunction with the primary theme of motivation (exemplary quote: ‘That I might give them coloured notes or something. I could imagine that something like that would be quite motivating. So I have to write on the piece of paper, ‘What is really private?’’).

Table 6. Quality of reflection in different reflection phases.

	Phase 1: Video 1— Classroom Climate	Phase 2: Video 2— Motivation	Phase 3: Video 3— Classroom Disruption	In total
Descriptive reflection	10	9	3	22
Explicative and introspective reflection	11	8	9	28
Transformative reflection	6	17	12	35

illustrates the phases of reflection in which the preservice teachers engage with the video and the level of reflection at which this occurs. In general, the highest frequency of reflection is observed at the transformative level in the second phase. A more detailed examination of the data reveals a notable enhancement in the depth of reflection between the first and third phases. In phase 1, the preservice teachers’ reflections were predominantly descriptive, explicative, and introspective in nature. In the second phase, the preservice teachers engage in transformative reflection through the use of questions that facilitate a more comprehensive analysis and present alternative perspectives on the subject matter. In comparison to the initial two phases, it is evident that the preservice teachers’ engagement with the video in the third phase is less descriptive.

Table 7. Quality and content of reflection.

	Classroom Climate and Motivation	Classroom Management/ Dealing with Disruption	Cognitive Activation	Deep Structure of Teaching (In Total)
Descriptive reflection	9	5	4	18
Explicative and introspective reflection	11	19	3	33
Transformative reflection	9	11	7	27

presents a more detailed examination of the interrelationships between the content of the reflection and the quality of the reflection. It becomes evident that the preservice teachers demonstrate comprehensive engagement with the subcategories of the in-depth teaching structure. The subcategories of the in-depth teaching structure address the quality dimensions of the individual reflection phases [26] (Section 1.1) and are complemented by additional thematic focal points (illustrated in Table 7). It should be noted that the order of the subcategories presented here does not correspond to the order of the reflection phases presented in Table 6. As previously indicated in Table 6, the preservice teachers demonstrated a high level of reflection, engaging with the video at the explicative and introspective and transformative levels with the greatest frequency. This is evidenced by the subcategories ‘classroom climate and motivation’ and ’classroom management/dealing with disruptions’ in Table 7. The reflection content ’classroom management/dealing with disruptions’ was the subject of the greatest number of reflections at the explicative and introspective levels in comparison to the other reflection content. It became evident that the subject matter held a personal significance for the preservice teachers, largely due to their direct experiences during the practical term (exemplary quote: ‘But apparently it didn’t have any effect on the classroom atmosphere. Ehm, if I compare that with my own experiences, I would say that a disruption to teaching, in the sense of someone arriving late, would have had quite a big impact’). In addition to drawing on their own experiences at the explicative and introspective levels, the preservice teachers engage in a discourse at the transformative level about possible courses of action in the area of ‘classroom management/dealing with disruptions’. One student remarks ‘That you could have simply intervened briefly and said: ‘That’s not possible now. That trivialises the whole thing’’. The discussion of the topic ‘Class climate and motivation’ is characterised by a high degree of homogeneity at all levels of analysis. The various levels of reflection are achieved with comparable frequency throughout the reflection process (Table 7). The lowest level of reflection was devoted to the topic of ‘cognitive activation’. However, this result is not unexpected, as this topic area, as already mentioned, was not explicitly emphasised in the reflective prompts. ‘Cognitive activation’ was mainly reflected at the level of transformative reflection (see Table 7).

5. Discussion

The objective of this study was to examine the reflective processes of preservice teachers with regard to the quality and content of their reflection with educational videos within the collaborative reflective context of Reflecting Teams. The findings demonstrate that the preservice teachers engaged with the video at a high level of reflection, reflecting on the focal points addressed in the reflective prompts, as well as on content beyond this. Furthermore, it can be observed that during the three reflection phases, a training effect emerged among the preservice teachers. Prior to engaging in in-depth reflection, it was evident that they initially had to become acquainted with the reflection setting. The structuring and support measures had a significant impact on the preservice teachers’ reflection processes. Nevertheless, the high level of reflection with the video during the reflection process appears to put a strain on the preservice teachers’ concentration, as can be seen from the significantly reduced level of reflection with the video in the final reflection phase. Prior research on reflection processes in reflection teams has demonstrated that preservice teachers incorporate their personal experiences and explanations into the reflection process, consider diverse perspectives, pose questions that promote reflection, and develop alternative courses of action [53]. These findings are corroborated by the results of the present study. In their reflections, the preservice teachers demonstrated the least engagement in the descriptive aspects of the teaching video [26]. The results indicate a preference for the introspective and explicative and transformative levels of reflection. In the reflection processes, the preservice teachers engage with their own experiences and also work with the teaching video in a transformative manner, developing alternative courses of action [26] (Table 3). This is consistent with the findings of previous studies, which demonstrate that preservice teachers in peer coaching settings with teaching videos were able to adapt and implement the alternative actions discussed during the reflection in their teaching practice [68].

Similarly, Bharuthram’s study [69] employed structured reflection tasks, with the objective of prompting preservice teachers to challenge their assumptions regarding their pedagogical practice and to expand their perspectives and potential courses of action [69]. The present study also focused on reflection as a process of self-observation and transformation, whereby alternative courses of action are generated for future situations within the context of school life. Although the reflection setting of Bharuthram’s study differs from that of the Reflecting Teams described in this study, comparable challenges with regard to the theory–practice relationship in reflection become evident. Bharuthram’s study indicates that preservice teachers reported greater ease in completing reflection tasks that focused on personal experience than those that required a review of theoretical knowledge. This finding is in accordance with the results of the present study, as illustrated in Table 4. The preservice teachers in the Reflecting Teams also encountered difficulties in integrating scientific or theoretical reasoning into their reflection. A crucial aspect of robust reflective competence is the ability to integrate theoretical and empirical arguments [2]. The utilisation of teaching videos in teacher education may facilitate the integration of theoretical knowledge and practice [33]. The absence of theoretical models in preservice teachers’ reflections at the integrative level indicates that their capacity to combine theoretical and practical knowledge requires further enhancement and augmented support [53].

A comprehensive analysis of the data reveals that the preservice teachers directed their reflection processes towards the focal points delineated in the reflection prompts, with a particular emphasis on the themes of ‘classroom climate’, ‘motivation’ and ‘classroom disruptions’ (Table 4). However, it can also be observed that the preservice teachers reflected on other aspects of teaching quality beyond the specified focal points, namely the ‘surface structure of teaching’ and ‘cognitive activation’ (Table 4). The focus on cognitive activation was particularly evident in the second reflection phase (Video 2—Motivation) (Table 5). It would appear that the preservice teachers established a thematic connection between the concepts of ‘motivation’ and ‘cognitive activation’ during the course of their reflection processes (Table 5).

As the reflection phases progressed, the level of reflection also increased (see Table 6). At the outset, the reflective process was primarily descriptive, explicative, and introspective. In the initial reflection phase, a markedly lower number of alternative courses of action were identified (Table 6). It can be inferred that familiarity with the setting is associated with the quality of reflection, as in the subsequent phases, the preservice teachers predominantly considered alternative courses of action, allowing their own experiences to inform their reflections across all phases. This can be attributed to the thematic proximity of their experiences to the focal points addressed in the reflection prompts (Table 6). The highest intensity of reflection was reached in the second reflection phase, when reflecting on a teaching video for a second time. It seems that the preservice teachers needed to familiarise themselves with the reflection setting during the first phase before being encouraged to engage in deeper reflection. It is plausible that a training effect may have occurred over the course of the three reflection phases. The level of engagement with the teaching video declined markedly in the third phase in comparison to the second phase. This may be attributed to a potential reduction in concentration resulting from the complexity of the reflection process (Table 5). The reason for this result may be seen in the fact that the third focus of reflection (classroom management) might be perceived as less relevant or less interesting for the preservice teachers compared to the first two focuses of reflection. Furthermore, it is plausible that the students became tired in the course of the reflection process, which may have resulted in a reduction in their ability to concentrate.

It is imperative to foster a culture of constructive feedback to guarantee that all participants receive constructive feedback, are treated with respect, and that preservice teachers have a positive perception of reflection. One preservice teacher in this study expressed positive sentiments regarding the comprehensive and constructive feedback, noting that he/she was gratified to have the chance to reflect on numerous laudable aspects of his/her pedagogical performance. The provision of feedback that is appreciative and resource-oriented, with a focus on the strengths and abilities of the individual seeking advice, has been demonstrated to be beneficial [70,71]. This approach can facilitate the development of a constructive attitude towards video-based reflection on teaching practice [52]. In order to facilitate the practical implementation of video-based, collaborative reflection, it is essential to cultivate an environment that fosters constructive feedback and provides preservice teachers with a supportive space to engage in open reflection on their own or other teachers’ actions.

The use of teaching videos has the potential to promote the development of reflective competence in preservice teachers, enabling them to focus on relevant aspects of teaching and improve their professional perception of teaching practice [72]. The use of the structured reflection setting Reflecting Teams was found to be beneficial in this regard, as it allowed for extensive reflection and intensive, collegial engagement with issues relevant to the teaching profession. This is consistent with previous research on the quality of reflection, which shows that preservice teachers achieve higher levels of reflection when supported by highly structured reflection methods [70,71]. Notwithstanding the lack of academic references in the reflection processes, the Reflection Teams appear to encourage extensive reflection on the teaching video. The opportunity to reflect on certain aspects of teaching and teacher behaviour proved to be beneficial for the development of preservice teachers’ professional practice. The results of this study support the statement that the use of structured, collegial, and video-based reflection in conjunction with targeted reflection questions is a key element for the effective support, organisation, and monitoring of reflection processes [40,49]. A collegial environment has been shown to improve the quality of reflection and promote the development of a challenging reflection process [71]. Additionally, the majority of preservice teachers in Brouwer’s study [68] indicated that peer coaching was a significant factor in the advancement of their pedagogical practices. These findings were corroborated by the results of this study. The preservice teachers were supported by the collegial structures of the Reflecting Teams in their reflection processes.

It is important to note that this study is exploratory in nature and that the sample size of five preservice teachers is therefore relatively limited. It is essential to exercise caution when interpreting the results and to draw conclusions with due care and attention. The analysis is confined to an examination of the subjective reflective ability of the selected preservice teachers and their attitudes towards the setting. It should be noted that the present study was unable to take into account the preservice teachers’ previous pedagogical experiences, which may have influenced their reflective process and the quality of their statements. In order to facilitate the preservice teachers’ ability to connect with academic theories during the reflection process, it would have been advantageous to incorporate more references to Helmke’s [55] dimensions of effective teaching in the provided reflection suggestions and to address these in the formulated reflection questions. Moreover, the 90 min reflection phase appeared to be unduly lengthy. The diminished engagement with the teaching video in the concluding phase suggests that the preservice teachers’ concentration may have waned over time. It may therefore be advisable to impose a time limit of 60 min and to reduce the number of reflection phases to two, in order to ensure that preservice teachers remain focused throughout the reflection process.

In light of the aforementioned points, further research is required, utilising a larger sample size and encompassing additional stages of teacher education or professional practice. Further studies could provide greater insight into how the quality of collaborative video-based teaching reflection can be enhanced and how the professional development of preservice teachers can be more effectively supported. With regards to better understanding the effectiveness of the intervention as perceived by preservice teachers, participating preservice teachers should be invited to engage in interviews. This would allow for the ascertainment of their perceptions of the reflection experience as a source of support or the identification of aspects of the process that they might have found less helpful. The utilisation of teaching videos and the structured reflective setting of Reflecting Teams appears to be a helpful approach to facilitate the development of preservice teachers’ reflective competence. It would therefore be advisable to integrate structured reflection techniques on a consistent basis throughout the processes of teacher education and professional practice. This would enable preservice teachers to enhance their reflective competence and professional development over time and make collaborative reflection experiences, and hence views on teaching, from multiple perspectives available.