|dc.description.abstract||The traditional, lecture-based model of professional development is generally not effective for changing the instructional practices of educators. While previous research has demonstrated that video analysis, a method of professional development that involves watching videos of oneself teaching, may be a viable alternative, a lack of high-quality design studies and statistical analyses of the literature base limits the conclusions that can be drawn. The purpose of this research is to remediate these gaps in the literature by conducting two studies: a well-designed single-case experimental design study, including a multiple-baseline across participants and two changing criterion designs, and a meta-analytic review of the research base on video analysis.
The results of video analysis were positive for both studies. Statistical and visual analyses indicated that video analysis was effective for changing the instructional practices of educators in the first study. Generalization, maintenance, and social validity data were also positive and indicated that video analysis (a) generalized to a second behavior, (b) maintained for all but one participant, and (c) was viewed favorably by all participants. Results of effect size analyses conducted in the second study showed moderate effects for video analysis when used to change the instructional practices of educators. Both methodological quality and publication type were investigated as potential moderators and neither were statistically significant, indicating they did not impact the results. Potential moderators related to participant and instructional characteristics were also analyzed and all subgroups showed moderate to strong effects, with only role being statistically significant.
The results of this research have implications for providing professional development opportunities to educators. Both studies demonstrated moderate to strong effects, indicating that overall video analysis is a viable alternative to the traditional, lecture-based method. Several limitations are noted in both studies, including a short maintenance period and the omission of student outcome data in the first study and the inclusion of only single-case research data in the second study. Implications for future research are also addressed.||en