Classroom Observations and Field Notes

Classroom observations are strongly associated with empirical work in education, especially those using a case-study strategy (Cohen et al: 2007: 260-1), and an obvious way of obtaining detailed and rich descriptions of the interactions between teacher and learners. Robson’s (2007: 323-5) continuum for classifying the level of observer participation is widely quoted, and using his schema the ‘observer-as- participant’, also defined as the ‘passive observer’ (Gay et al: 2009) or ‘observing participant’ (Burgess: 1985), was adopted for this project. This form of observation is overt rather than covert, and involves a visible presence is the classroom, but aims to minimise the researcher’s effect on the phenomenon under review. The rationale was that by minimising the researcher’s interactions with both teacher and pupils in classroom situations it would satisfy some of the ethical considerations surrounding the observer effect, as well as maximising opportunities to collect detailed observational data. Indeed, this form of observation is usually associated with systematic and structured observations, and this was the original intention. The importance of following school protocol closely and remaining sensitive to the culture of the classroom (Cassell: 1988; Gay et al: 2009) were adhered to as carefully as possible.

The first opportunity to test observer-as-participant role was during the pilot-study. There was a brief introduction by the class teacher at the start of the first observation, and the researcher sat at the desk at the extreme left of the classroom. This afforded a good view of the front of the class where most of the teaching took place, and also a panoramic view of the whole class. The disadvantage was the researcher’s proximity to two tables of children who sometimes did try to engage in minor conversation, despite the avoidance of eye contact and reluctance to talk to them. Therefore the researcher unquestionably did alter the dynamic of the classroom. This emphasised the

81 | P a g e importance of reflexivity when making observations, especially in assessing the impact of the researcher on the observed lesson.

Detailed observations and initial categorical analysis were sought using a pro forma lesson observation sheet which underwent a long and complex iterative process before it became a useful document (Appendix A). During the pilot-study the design of the lesson observation form was soon found to be flawed. Initially twenty sections based on the elements of history identified by the literature review were created and spread out over two sides of A4 paper. Whilst each box was nominally useful as a method of analysis and categorisation, it immediately became apparent that too much time was spent deciding where comments should go, often involving alternating between pages to find the right category. For the first revision the number of categories was cut to 17, and most of these included the factual information essential for recording the basic details of the lesson. The second revision added a more extended teacher introduction section, spread out over two sides of paper. This allowed time to record detailed descriptive comments about the lesson under review. Coding and analysis, including work outcomes and using categories largely based on the elements of the NC, were then conducted either at the end, or during lulls, in lessons. The next set of changes carried out during the pilot-study were to print on both sides of the form, thus allowing a much longer narrative section, and to change the title of this from teacher introduction to lesson observation since a complete lesson observation is evidently not just about the teaching input. It was noted during the pilot-study observations that in creative and free-flowing lessons the teaching input can often take several forms, and occur during different points of the lesson. Given the speed of lessons, and considerations of noise and disturbance, handwritten comments seemed preferable to typing using a notebook computer.

The use of many sides of paper eventually allowed a running commentary to be created, and the crucial addition of two side columns, following the advice of Bogdan and Biklen (1992), included one to record who was speaking and the other to record

82 | P a g e lesson timings and duration. The sections for analysis were now fewer in number and placed at the end of the form; additionally the practice of adding memos in the margins allowed immediate analysis to take place, as advised by writers such as Gay et al (2009). By the time CS1 research began, it became almost unthinkable that detailed descriptions of pupil-teacher and pupil-pupil interactions and conversations would not be recorded, not least the importance of recording examples of teacher explanations and modelling ideas, group work and informal discussions. Thus the observational format became increasingly less structured and more a form of phenomenological research, acknowledging the complexity and dynamics of classroom situations, and seeking ‘trends and patterns over time’ (Cohen et al: 2007: 397). Following Thomas’ schema (2009: 186-7) it would probably be more accurate to describe the final version as ‘semi-structured’.

The pilot-study also revealed the importance of field notes. Burgess (1988) argued that conversations immediately preceding and following lessons can supply rich and deep data that can be a crucial component of educational case-study research. Initially notes from conversations conducted around lessons were recorded on loose paper until the significance of these conversations was recognised, and thereafter a series of field work note books were used running into many thousands of words. The importance of writing up immediately was noted by Hammersley (1984); this proved good advice in practice, and very quickly all field notes were typed up as soon as practicable, alongside early analysis and memoing.

It has been argued that good observational data can add the ‘richness, colour and depth of description’ (Bulmer: 1984b: 211) that is vital in for the authenticity of case- study work. Yet no researcher can carry out observational work without considering some of the methodological and philosophical weaknesses. Observer bias is an immediate consideration, particularly the question of researcher preference (Gillham: 2000: 47); armed with a complete and detailed model of the nature of historical learning from the literature review, it was naturally tempting for the researcher to see evidence

83 | P a g e for these elements whilst ignoring contradictory data. This is certainly a danger inherent in any form of comparative and evaluative research. The observer effect, or reactivity, when analysing the data, also has to be considered. It has to be admitted that however passive the observer’s role, there will still be some influence and change to the classroom dynamic (Shipman: 1988; Kemmis: 1980), not least changes in the attitude and performance of teachers who will understandably feel that they are being judged through the process of observation, and this effect has been acknowledged during the pilot-study.

Therefore it is important that any researcher using observational techniques adopts a form of reflexivity or the ‘critical self-awareness’ of the anthropologist (Kloos: 1988). This is a return to the ethnographic concept of the researcher as the instrument of research, actively creating and interpreting knowledge during the act of observation (Kemmis: 1980). Certainly observational work cannot be conceived as a neutral or passive act, and it is therefore incumbent on researchers to maintain high levels of reflexivity in all situations in the field, noting this effect as part of initial analysis and memoing. This was something that was attempted at all times by the use of reflexive memos in situations where assumptions or unsupportable judgements had potentially occurred. Reflexivity is also concept that does form part of critical realism, incorporating the transitive world of hermeneutical theory, particularly the interplay in the researcher’s mind between theory, prior knowledge and empirical data created via the senses (Bhaskar: 1975).

84 | P a g e