Differences in feedback processes

lack of contribution to her self-assessment seems unusual, and, perhaps, even unwelcome.

Moreover, Maryam responded to critical questions by apologizing. However, it is significant that this apology was delivered quietly, and vague reasons were given for the lack of contribution to the discussion: ‘I am unable to think. I do not know what happened’. This seems to undermine, to some extent, her sincerity and also signals Maryam’s nervousness (Copland, 2010).

Although the trainees already have tension from self-assessment (see section 6.2 in the early stage), one possible explanation for Maryam’s rejection of her self-assessment is the attendance of teachers who had not been there before. The trainees might appear uncomfortable with the participation of the teachers (diary, 3). Supporting this explanation, Olla wrote in her RJ in the third week:

This week, two teachers in the school joined with us in Maryam’s lesson; they mentioned useful points. I wish they could attend my lesson to know their views about it, and at the same time, I pray they do not, because I will be so confused and nervous.

However, that does not mean that the trainees did not find the participation of teachers useful. As Olla indicated, they made helpful points, and she hoped that they could attend her lesson, as well. But, being assessed by expert eyes seems to be an uncomfortable situation, even if in the observation does not influence the trainees’ evaluation; as Olla said,

‘I pray they do not, because I will be so confused and nervous’.

The point I have been making in this section is that the aim of engaging the trainees with teachers to have the opportunity to build a sense of belonging and commitment to being teachers and to teaching education seems to have a les positive effect than it should be.

Alternatively, it apparent that the trainees still feel like visitors more than like a part of the school.

6.3.1.2. Differences in feedback processes

In the discussion stage after observing the lesson, it seems there are some differences in the ways of providing feedback that my trainees and I did, compared to what the teachers did. These differences take various forms, which are described in the next sections.

6.3.1.2.1. Lists of feedback

Through the orientation stage, I thought I put more emphasis on explaining the way that the feedback processes should be conducted in our RPC, including the phases, participatory

149

structures and discourse practices which trainees, teachers and I engage in and perform during feedback (see orientation stage in Chapter Four). I considered how that process will be different from what we are familiar with. Thus, through practicing our discussions, my trainees and I tried as much as we could to keep ourselves in the general framework that could be applied in day-to-day negotiation, exchanging ideas, linking the actions with reasons and supporting the suggestions with evidence (Copland, 2008). However, I do not claim that our ways of dealing with feedback in reflective dialogues were ideal, but it was different than the way that was teachers dealing with feedback.

Teachers tended to give the trainees who taught the lesson feedback in the form of a list of suggested points, without any attempt to give the trainees a chance to think about the lesson or to encourage them to discover by themselves (diary, 4, 5). For example, in the fourth FG, we discussed Majd’s lesson:

Adiba (the teacher): Today, you started your day with a smile.

Majd: Yes, the students were so nice.

Adiba: No, your mood was much better that before. Your introduction was good, and your explanation also good, but I would prefer more emphasis on the meaning of the grammatical role, because your lesson is the first one in this unit. You should repeat the meaning to be sure all the students understand it; also, you should provide students with other examples because the Quran text in the textbook is so difficult for the students to understand.

Ruida: She showed other examples.

Adiba: Even then, it is not enough. You should emphasis the main idea of your lesson, and also, it would be better to explain why we have to delete the letter at the end of the word. And, it would be better to divide the words into what works and what does not.

The above excerpt shows a general judgment of ‘good’ from teachers on some points in Majd’s teaching. Also, there is a list of direct suggestions that the teachers provide the trainees with that absolutely does not support the trainees’ reflection. For example: direct instructions such as ‘put more emphasis on the meaning of the grammatical role’, ‘repeat the meaning to be sure all the students understand it’, ‘provide students with other examples’, ‘explain why we have to delete the letter at the end of the word’, ‘divide the words into what works and what does not’.

150

These instructions do not give the trainees the opportunities to practise their reflection. But rather it seems to contribute more to the passivity of the trainees toward their learning and increase their demand for ‘tell me what to do’.

Moreover, while the teacher follows some of her suggestions, such as ‘because your lesson is the first one in this unit’ and ‘you should repeat the meaning to be sure all the students understand it’, ‘repeat the meaning’ seems to be supporting the traditional role of teachers in Saudi as ‘subject experts’ rather than ‘facilitators of learning’, which does not fit with our RPC (Stephens & Samuel, 2000).

Therefore, after I observed the teachers in our discussion, where they presented their suggestions as a list, I contacted the teachers to explain, again, the idea of our RP, which was to provide the trainees with opportunities to question their ideas and practices of teaching (Talvitie et al, 2010) rather than to tell the trainees what to do. The teachers mistakenly think that their views about the trainees’ teaching do not hinder their reflections but rather makes them more aware in their next plan. Also, the teachers believe that the trainees will never know these practical views by themselves, so providing them with the suggestions keeps them from wasting their time engaging in reflections (Diary 4).

With regard to the lack of a clear definition of ‘reflection’ in the literature review of teaching (Zeichner, 2008), Liu argues that there is ‘a gap between the understandings of prospective teachers and teacher educators [about their understanding of reflection]: teacher educators show a more sophisticated understanding … while prospective teachers’

understanding is very general’ (2015, p. 136). However, while Liu seems to describe what I thought after my short conversation with teachers, there are still important questions about the competence of teachers to enhance trainees’ reflection in our RPC.

Interestingly, some of my trainees agree with the above teacher’s views about the advantage of a ‘points list’. For example, Maha indicated the teacher listed suggestions as a positive point in her interview: ‘I benefit from teachers’ participation, especially Adiba, because her comments were very focused, and she did not does like us, i.e., 'running around the issue’. Also, Olla admitted, ’When the teachers attended my lesson, she listed fundamental points as 1, 2, 3, which is very useful’.

However, the trainees’ satisfaction with the teacher’s listing direct suggestions is hardly unexpected. The trainees tend to do what is familiar (Slater, 2008), which in our case, means being provided with direct suggestions. Their comments about ‘running around the

151

issue’ and ‘fundamental points as 1, 2, 3’ suggests that the trainees were unfamiliar with having to reflect on their teaching to identify their weaknesses and strengths. However, if this was the case, it would suggest that directive styles of teaching that both teachers and students practise in the Saudi educational system may serve as a direct challenge to RP (see Chapter Eight).

6.3.1.2.2. Practical advice

Another feature of the teacher’s feedback is their near-exclusive focus on practical advice about the classroom situation. The quotes earlier also demonstrate that most of Adiba’s suggestions seem examples of pedagogical teaching advice. For example: ‘provide students with other examples’, seems as general teaching advice to make sure the students understand the point. However, in this context is a practical advice. The examples provided in the school book seem too difficult for students understanding, because they are taken from the Quran text. Thus, the teacher suggests providing students with other examples out of the Quran text to facilitate learning.

The teacher’s tendency to provide practical advice is not unexpected. Some research indicates that the role cooperating teachers usually take in practicum focuses almost exclusively on actual classroom activities, whereas university supervisors are actively involved in both the classroom and academic settings (Guillaume & Rudney, 1993;

McNamara, 1995).

teacher’s practical advice, or what Shulman (2004) calls the ‘wisdom of practice’, is a brief of what the teacher needs to know in order to teach well, which seems fundamental for the trainees. However, this wisdom comes through continuous practice of teaching to understand critical educational activities and to solve problems creatively (Shulman, 2004).

Therefore, giving practical advice to the trainees, rather than engaging them or helping them to discover by themselves, may not encourage reflection or development of the trainees’ capacities to continue to steer their own developments as teachers (Korthagen, 2001). Moreover, this capacity is not only important for the trainees themselves but also for changing educational practice when educational reforms are introduced (Griffiths, 2000).

6.3.1.2.3. Preoccupation with student tests

The following dialogue took place in the fifth week during our discussion of Maha’s lesson:

152

Badria (one of the teachers): You should clearly explain the statement of linking pronouns with the noun in each example.

Maha: I did.

Badria: That was not enough. You should spend more time explaining it because we usually ask them [students] in the exam which nouns can be linked with pronouns?

Also, in the sixth week, we discussed Olla’s lesson:

Adiba: It would be better if you tidy the board; make a section for the meaning of words and another for the ideas, and give the students time to write it in their notebook.

Olla: I wish, but writing on the board takes me a long time. I prefer to spend it on explanation.

Majd: Yes, spatially you present the text by the data shown. Your explanation was very clear; I like you when you use your body language to explain the meaning [laughing].

Adiba: Even though it was clear, the main thing for me was that the students must have something written with them in order to refer to it at exam time. Yes, they may understand what you say now, but they absolutely forget it after. They must have some written material with them.

Given the increasing prevalence of considering the student test marks as a standard to assess their learning, it is not surprising that the teachers were concerned about the test marks of their students (Ward et al, 2004). In Adiba’s quotation, the teacher suggested writing on the board and having the students write up to their notebooks, not because the meaning is unclear, but so that the students have the information ‘to refer to it at exam time’. van den Bergh et al (2015, p.143) claim that ‘In the workplace, however, teachers' goals are usually more focused on the achievement and well-being of their students than on their own learning’.

Considering test scores as standards for students’ learning and outcome assessments seems to obscure the value of reflection (Ward et al, 2004). Limiting the measure of teaching mastery on students’ tests scores may make the teachers unable to reflect or

153

improve their teaching and to focus only on improving student test scores. In the above quotes, the teachers suggest some modifications: more emphasis on the meaning that will appear in the exam, and writing on the board for the students to copy and use during the exam time. These modifications do not seem to improve the students’ learning in the sense of trying to ensure and check for maximum understanding but rather to achieve better scores in their exams (diary, 6).

However, the emphasis on student learning related to their exam scores does not always have a negative impact on teacher reflections; rather, it can be an excellent vehicle for reflection. That only will happen when teachers’ examinations of student learning become

‘the very fabric of reflection, rather than the barrier that precludes it’ (Ward et al, 2004, pp.

244-245). 'The good news' is that the trainees can be expected to relate their teaching activities to student learning rather than to their own performances. That means that they are better able to link their teaching practice to students’ learning in the reflection process (Ward et al, 2004).

6.3.1.3. Teacher Reflection