Key challenges of using video when investigating social practices in education: contextualization, magnification, and representation

International Journal of Research and Method in Education

Volumn 40, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 511-523

  Blikstad Balas, Marte ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

data; reactivity; representativeness; transcription; transparency; Video studies

Indexed keywords

EID: 84965025747     PISSN: 1743727X     EISSN: 17437288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1743727X.2016.1181162     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Aarsand, P., and L., Forsberg. 2010. “Producing Children’s Corporeal Privacy: Ethnographic Video Recording as Material-discursive Practice.” Qualitative Research 10 (2): 249–268. doi: 10.1177/1468794109356744
2. Andersson, E., and G. O., Sørvik. 2013. “Reality Lost? Re-use of Qualitative Data in Classroom Video Studies.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 14 (3): 1–25.
3. Bar-Hillel, M., 1984. “Representativeness and Fallacies of Probability Judgment.” Acta Psychologica 55 (2): 91–107. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(84)90062-3
4. Barron, B., 2007. “Video as a Tool to Advance Understanding of Learning and Development in Peer, Family, and Other Informal Learning Contexts.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by B. Barron, R. Pea, R. Goldman-Segall, and S. J. Derry, 159–187. New York: Routledge.
5. Bergem, O. K., and K., Klette. 2010. “Mathematical Tasks as Catalysts for Student Talk: Analysing Discourse in a Norwegian Mathematics Classroom.” In Mathematical Tasks in Classrooms around the World, edited by Y., Shimizu, B., Kaur, R., Huang, and D., Clarke, 35–62. Rotterdam: Sense.
6. Berger, P. L., and T., Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin.
7. Bezemer, J., and D., Mavers. 2011. “Multimodal Transcription as Academic Practice: A Social Semiotic Perspective.” Journal of Social Research Methodology 14 (3): 191–206. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2011.563616
8. Blikstad-Balas, M., 2012. “Digital Literacy in Upper Secondary School–What do Students use Their Laptops for During Teacher Instruction?” Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 7 (2): s81–96.
9. Blikstad-Balas, M., 2013. “Redefining School Literacy. Prominent Literacy Practices Across Subjects in Upper Secondary School.” Thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo.
10. Blikstad-Balas, M., and G. O., Sørvik. 2015. “Researching Literacy in Context: Using Video Analysis to Explore School Literacies.” Literacy 49: 140–148. doi: 10.1111/lit.12037
11. Brinkmann, S., and S., Kvale. 2015. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Creswell, J. W., 2013. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
13. Dalland, C. P., and K., Klette. 2014. “Work-plan Heroes: Student Strategies in lower Secondary Norwegian Classrooms.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 58 (4): 400–423. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2012.739200
14. Derry, S. J., R. D., Pea, B., Barron, R. A., Engles, F., Erickson, R., Goldman, R., Hall, et al. 2010. “Conducting Video Research in the Learning Sciences: Guidance on Selection, Analysis, Technology, and Ethics.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences 19 (1): 3–53. doi: 10.1080/10508400903452884
15. Erickson, F., 2007. “Ways of Seeing Video: Toward a Phenomenology of Viewing Minimally Edited Footage.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by B. Barron, R. Pea, R. Goldman-Segall, and S. J. Derry, 145–155. New York: Routledge.
16. Flewitt, R., R., Hampel, M., Hauck, and L., Lancaster. 2009. “What are Multimodal Data and Transcription?” In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, edited by C., Jewitt, 40–53. London, NY: Routledge.
17. Goffman, E., 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: University Press of New England.
18. Goldman, S., and R., McDermott. 2007. “Staying the Course with Video Analysis.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by B. Barron, R. Pea, R. Goldman-Segall, and S. J. Derry, 101–113. New York: Routledge.
19. Grossman, P., S., Loeb, J., Cohen, K., Hammerness, J., Wyckoff, D., Boyd, and H., Lankford. 2010. “Measure for Measure: The Relationship between Measures of Instructional Practice in Middle School English Language Arts and Teachers” Value-added Scores.” NBER Working Paper No. 16015 Issued in May 2010. Accessed http://www.nber.org/papers/w16015.
20. Hammersley, M., 2008. Questioning Qualitative Inquiry Critical Essays. Los Angeles: Sage.
21. Hammersley, M., 2010. “Reproducing or Constructing? Some Questions about Transcription in Social Research.” Qualitative Research 10 (5): 553–569. doi: 10.1177/1468794110375230
22. Haug, B. S., and M., Ødegaard. 2014. “From Words to Concepts: Focusing on Word Knowledge When Teaching for Conceptual Understanding Within an Inquiry-based Science Setting.” Research in Science Education 44 (5): 777–800. doi: 10.1007/s11165-014-9402-5
23. Haw, K., and M., Hadfield. 2011. Video in Social Science Research Functions and Forms. London: Routledge.
24. Heath, C., J., Hindmarsh, and P., Luff. 2010. Video in Qualitative Research: Analysing Social Interaction in Everyday Life. Los Angeles: Sage.
25. Jewitt, C., 2008. “Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms.” Review of Research in Education 32 (1): 241–267. doi: 10.3102/0091732X07310586
26. Jewitt, C., 2012. “An Introduction to using Video for Research.” NCRM Working Paper. National Center for Research Methods. Accessed July 3, 2015. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2259/
27. Klette, K., 2009. “Challenges in Strategies for Complexity Reduction in Video Studies. Experiences from PISA+ Study: A Video Study of Teaching and Learning in Norway.” In The Power of Video Studies in Investigating Teaching and Learning in the Classroom, edited by T., Janic and T., Seidel, 61–82. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
28. Klette, K., S., Lie, M., Ødegaard, Ø., Anmarkrud, O. K., Bergem, N. E., Arnesen, and A., Roe. 2008. PISA+: Lærings-og undervisningsstrategier i skolen [PISA+: Learning and teaching strategies in school]. Oslo: Norwegian Research Council.
29. Knoblauch, H., and B., Schnettler. 2012. “Videography: Analysing Video Data as a “Focused” Ethnographic and Hermeneutical Exercise.” Qualitative Research 12 (3): 334–356. doi: 10.1177/1468794111436147
30. Knoblauch, H., B., Schnettler, J., Raab, and H-G., Soeffner, eds. 2006. Video Analysis. Methodology and Methods. Qualitative Audiovisual Data Analysis in Sociology. 3rd ed. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
31. Kucirkova, N., D., Messer, K., Sheehy, and R., Flewitt. 2013. “Sharing Personalised Stories on IPads: A Close look at one Parent–Child Interaction.” Literacy 47 (3): 115–122. doi: 10.1111/lit.12003
32. Kvale, S., 1994. “Ten Standard Objections to Qualitative Research Interviews.” Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 25 (2): 147–173. doi: 10.1163/156916294X00016
33. Lahlou, S., 2011. “How can we Capture the Subject’s Perspective? An Evidence-Based Approach for the Social Scientist.” Social Science Information 50 (3–4): 607–655. doi: 10.1177/0539018411411033
34. Laurier, E., and C., Philo. 2006. “Natural Problems of Naturalistic Video Data.” In Video Analysis: Methodology and Methods, edited by H., Knoblauch, J., Raab, H-G., Soeffner, and B., Schnettler, 181–190. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
35. Lemke, J., 2007. “Video Epistemology in-and-Outside the box: Traversing Attentional Spaces.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by B. Barron, R. Pea, R. Goldman-Segall, and S. J. Derry, 39–51. New York: Routledge.
36. Luff, P., and C., Heath. 2012. “Some “Technical Challenges” of Video Analysis: Social Actions, Objects, Material Realities and the Problems of Perspective.” Qualitative Research 12 (3): 255–279. doi: 10.1177/1468794112436655
37. Luff, P., and C., Heath. 2015. “Trancribing Embodied Action.” In The Handbook of Discourse Ananlysis, edited by D. Tannen, H. Hamilton and D. Schiffrin. 2nd ed, 367–389. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
38. Maltese, A. V., J. A., Danish, R. M., Bouldin, J. A., Harsh, and B., Bryan. 2016. “What are Students Doing During Lecture? Evidence from new Technologies to Capture Student Activity.” International Journal of Research & Method in Education 39 (2): 208–226. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2015.1041492
39. Mavers, D., 2012. “Trancribing Video.” National Centre for Research methods Working Paper 05/12.
40. Maxwell, J. A., 2013. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. Miller, K., and X., Zhou. 2007. “Learning from Classroom Video: What Makes It Compelling and What Makes It Hard.” In Video Research in the Learning Sciences, edited by B. Barron, R. Pea, R. Goldman-Segall, and S. J. Derry, 321–334. New York: Routledge.
42. Mjøset, L., 2009. “The Contextualist Approach to Social Science Methodology.” In The Sage Handbook of Case-based Methods, edited by D., Byrne, and C. C., Ragin, 39–69. London: Sage.
43. Mondada, L., 2012. “Video Analysis and the Temporality of Inscriptions within Social Interaction: The Case of Architects at Work.” Qualitative Research 12 (3): 304–333. doi: 10.1177/1468794112438149
44. Noyes, A., 2004. “Video Diary: A Method for Exploring Learning Dispositions.” Cambridge Journal of Education 34 (2): 193–209. doi: 10.1080/03057640410001700561
45. Ødegaard, M., B., Haug, S. M., Mork, and G. O., Sørvik. 2014. “Challenges and Support When Teaching Science through an Integrated Inquiry and Literacy Approach.” International Journal of Science Education 36 (18): 2997–3020. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.942719
46. Rusk, F., M., Pörn, F., Sahlström, and A., Slotte-Lüttge. 2012. “Everything, Everywhere, All the Time: Advantages and Challenges in the use of Extensive Video Recordings of Children.” In Responsible Research. Papers from the Fourth Qualitative Research Conference, edited by P., Salo, 67–78. Vaasa: Åbo Akademi University, Faculty of Educational Sciences.
47. Rusk, F., M., Pörn, F., Sahlström, and A., Slotte-Lüttge. 2015. “Perspectives on using Video Recordings in Conversation Analytical Studies on Learning in Interaction.” International Journal of Research & Method in Education 38 (1): 39–55. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2014.903918
48. Silseth, K., 2012. “The Multivoicedness of Game Play: Exploring the Unfolding of a Student’s Learning Trajectory in a Gaming Context at School.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 7 (1): 63–84. doi: 10.1007/s11412-011-9132-x
49. Simpson, A., M., Walsh, and J., Rowsell. 2013. “The Digital Reading Path: Researching Modes and Multidirectionality with IPads.” Literacy 47 (3): 123–130. doi: 10.1111/lit.12009
50. Snell, J., 2011. “Interrogating Video Data: Systematic Quantitative Analysis versus Micro-ethnographic Analysis.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 14 (3): 253–258. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2011.563624
51. Sørvik, G. O.,; M., Blikstad-Balas, and M., Ødegaard. 2015. “‘Do Books Like these Have Authors?” New Roles for Text and New Demands on Students in Integrated Science-literacy Instruction.” Science Education. 99 (1): s 39–69. doi: 10.1002/sce.21143
52. Stigler, J. W., and J., Hiebert. 1999. The Teaching Gap. New York: Free Press.
53. Svenkerud, S., C. P., Dalland, and K., Klette. 2013. “Social Positioning in Boys” and Girls” Oral Presentations.” Education Inquiry 4 (4): 715–733. doi: 10.3402/edui.v4i4.23218
54. Tversky, A., and D., Kahneman.1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185 (4157): 1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124