My exploratory teaching

The first phase of the research consisted of exploratory teaching in my teacher and teacher education classrooms. It should be noted that, although this phase came at the outset of the main study, it continued throughout the period of the main study, that is, from September 2009 until July 2010.

3.4.3.1.1 Phase 1: Exploratory teaching: My Adult ESOL classroom

The initial data collection phase began in October 2009, once my students had had the opportunity to gel as a group. This also gave me the time to establish a good working relationship with them. The aim of this phase was twofold: pedagogically, I wanted to help the students to develop their argumentation skills and prepare for their upcoming assessment. I also wanted to generate data which could be used to contribute to a research base in the field of argumentation. To do this, I consciously introduced activities around argumentation into my Adult ESOL classroom. This is the interventionist dimension of the research design. The nature of the teaching activities and topics, along with information about their dates and duration, together with a rationale for their inclusion, is set out in Table 1 below:

Topic/Activity Date/

Duration

Rationale for inclusion Number of Students Students debate a series of polemical

statements on controversial issues, each presenting on one of their choice13.

14/10/09 2.5 hours.

This activity generated a lot of debate in my exploratory teaching in Roberts et al., (2007).

6

A discussion of “If you could do one thing to make the world a better place, what would it be and why?14

18/11/09 2.5 hours.

This allowed me to prepare students for terminal examination (Trinity College, Speaking and Listening task, Level 2).

5

13

See Appendix 15 for list of statements.

14

A problem-solving activity. Students bring their own dilemmas/ problems to discussion.

9/12/09 2.5 hours.

(Trinity College, Speaking & Listening task, Level 2, and a major strand of contemporary argumentation work in education e.g. Coffin and O’Halloran, 2008).

3

Table 1: Description of topics and activities in my Adult ESOL classroom

Data from this phase of exploratory teaching forms part of the analysis in Chapters 4 and 6 of the thesis.

3.4.3.1.2 Phase 2: Exploratory teaching: My teacher education classroom

Having introduced argumentation work into my own Adult ESOL classroom, I then wanted to introduce it into the teacher education classroom, making it part of teacher development work. Thus, the aim of this phase of the research was to engage teacher-trainees in critical reflection, about the nature of argumentation itself and its pedagogy. The teacher development phase was undertaken over 3 teacher education sessions. The research site was my own teacher education classroom and permission was obtained through the use of informed consent15.

In designing these sessions, I was guided by the following general questions: 1. What do you understand by the concept of ‘argument or ‘argumentation’? 2. How do you feel about it?

3. What do you do with it in the classroom?

The first question was designed to elicit their conceptualisations of argument or argumentation. This I take to be an aspect of their positioning in argumentation, which, as the literature review has revealed, is a complex concept. The rationale behind this is two-fold: ethnography is, as we have observed, interested in the emic perspective of the participants and intervention work in classrooms is predicated to a degree upon some shared understanding of the concept of argument or argumentation (Mitchell, 2000).

Then I asked them to think about their existing pedagogical practices around argumentation i.e. how they worked with argumentation in the Adult ESOL classroom. Key questions here included: What activities do you do that aim to develop student argumentation skills? Would

15

you introduce controversial issues in your classroom? Would you disclose your opinions in argumentation? Would you become involved in argumentation when it emerged?

This was all done through small group discussion, which allowed them to explore their conceptualisations and practices. The developmental content of the session took the form of activities that were informed by current research into argumentation, including my own. These were not meant to be exhaustive but offered as a sample of the kinds of research-led teaching work current at the time. The aim here was to provide a stimulus for the next phase of the research in that it might provide ideas for their own exploratory teaching. The activities undertaken are listed in Table 2 overleaf, together with a rationale for their inclusion.16

Topic and Activity Date/

Duration

Rationale for inclusion Stude nts Teachers explored a transcript of student

argumentation using a series of questions to help them reflect upon the ways in which the argumentation was emerging and being authorised (Hepworth, in Cooke and Roberts, 2007).

12/3/10 45min

To get teachers to ‘notice’ the ways in which

argumentation was

unfolding and being authorised. To model what they might do with students.

19

Teachers had to improvise and mime a complaint situation in which argumentation was unfolding. The other teachers used the multimodal cues to reconstruct the situation and the argumentation unfolding.

22/4/10 45min

To focus upon the multimodal dimensions of argumentation (Goodwin, 2000).

18

Teachers explored the ways in which short narratives functioned in and as argumentation in a job interview (see Roberts and Campbell, 2007).

7/6/10 45 min

To focus upon the role of narrative in argumentation.

19

Table 2: Description of topics and activities in my teacher education classroom