Field notes of observations

A further text for analysis were the notes recorded during observation of the teachers teaching GCSE English literature. Observation is ‘more than just looking’ (Marshall and Rossman, 1995); it is

systematically noting people, events, behaviours, settings, artefacts, and routines, offering the researcher the opportunity to gather ‘live’ primary data from natural occurring social situations (Cohen et al., 2011, p.456). As a consequence, it is suggested that observation as a data collection method can potentially yield more valid or authentic data than would otherwise be the case with more inferential methods (Cohen et al., 2011), something that was crucial for addressing the research questions.

In contrast to the interview which sought to gain close access to the language of subjective experience, observation provided a platform from which to reflect upon language in its natural context (Bogdevic, 1999). As such, it is consistent with the principles of interpretivism (Friberg and Ӧhlen, 2010). Observation offered the advantage of language that was not filtered through social discourse (except perhaps in conversation with the students) and was a useful strategy for gaining contextual understanding of the world within which subjective and social experience existed (Thorne, 2016). While the observations were ‘unstructured’ (Thomas, 2013), they did have an element of structure to ensure integrity and purpose. As such, I went into the observation with the initial analyses gathered from the documents and interviews in answer to the first research question (see Appendix 9). These informed the observation. Therefore, while I allowed the focus to emerge and have the potential to evolve throughout the observation, I acknowledged that I could not observe everything (Wolcott, 1992) and so I allowed the categories of ‘wider discourse’ that I had already begun to tentatively define from the policy documentation, to guide me (Willig, 2001).

Observation provided a ‘reality check’, enabling an opportunity to look at these tentative discourses afresh (Cooper and Schindler, 2001, p.374). As a teacher of GCSE English literature myself, it would have been very easy to simply rely on my own experiences of teaching the subject. Observation of

72

other teachers teaching GCSE English literature ensured that I did not take things for granted (Cooper and Schindler, 2001).

It was also important to recognise that observation is part of my role at school. As a Head of Department, I have observed the members of the English department for purposes of both

development and accountability. As a Leading Practitioner, I have observed across my colleagues for the same reasons. As a Specialist Leader of Education, I have observed English teachers in other schools across the county. As a teacher myself, my classroom practice has been observed numerous times both formally and informally. Therefore, it could be argued that I am an ‘experienced’

observer, and perhaps also, a ‘careful, systematic observer’ (Merriam, 2009, p.118). I have practised ‘learning to pay attention’, how to write descriptively, how to record field notes with discipline, and how ‘to separate detail from trivia’ (Patton, 2002, pp.22-23) in my years in practice. However, this experience was also problematic. I was observing in none of these roles, yet chose not to adopt a stance that was completely detached from this experience (Gold, 1958) accepting that it was important to use my position to understand what I was observing and to be discerning during the observation (Adler and Adler, 1998).

Thus, the observations were unstructured and I was not a participant. Observations took place during a typical timetable period of 50 minutes. They allowed me to immerse myself in the social situation in order to understand something about the teaching of literature and what was going on there (Thomas, 2013). I recorded reflective field notes to track the observations (See Field Notes from observations in Appendix 10). Field notes were highly descriptive (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992) with a focus on the actions of the teacher and the interactions between the teacher and the students, categories adapted from Yin (2011). At the level of description, the interactions of the teacher and the students were classified as direct quotations or at least the substance of the interactions, as well as any questions that the teacher asked of the students, or that the student asked of the teacher during their talk about literature (Merriam, 2009). The actions of the teacher were defined as direct quotations, or the substance of, the teacher’s whole-class interactions, while modelling at the board or facilitating discussion, for example. While it is suggested that researchers need to record the physical and contextual setting of the observation, and any critical incidents (Moyles, 2002), I chose to focus on the teachers’ interactions with literature, defined as their talk around the text they were teaching. As such, any ‘critical incidents’ such as behavioural incidents were not recorded, unless they were related to the teacher’s talk about literature, a decision made during the observation.

The reflective component to the field notes captured my commentary as observer under the title ‘Thoughts and Questions’. Here I recorded feelings, reactions, hunches, initial interpretations,

73

speculations, and questions as I observed, as well as possible lines of further enquiries (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992). These comments move beyond the factual description of the teacher’s interactions and raise questions about what is observed, a form of preliminary data analysis (Merriam, 2009).

In order to reduce bias and lack of representativeness, observations were made of all participants and the data compared before any conclusions were reached. In order to address the issue of reflexivity in observation (Cohen et al. et al. 2011), it was important to acknowledge the unknown impact that a presence in the classroom had on the activity in that classroom. Furthermore, it was also important to consider that the participants knew, to a certain extent, what my study was about. There were no issues regarding deception or subterfuge in this research, something that was

considered (BERA, 2011, para. 14). The participants were fully aware of the purpose of the research and the research design. In that the research sought the perceptions and understandings of teachers of GCSE English literature, the consideration was made to keep the specific focus of the study away from the participants out of concern for the potential for reactivity in which the teachers modified an aspect of their behaviour in response to their awareness of being observed (Oliver, 2003), or even said what they thought I wanted to hear and see, when being interviewed and observed. However, it was ultimately decided that the benefits of participants feeling that there was an open and authentic relationship with the research were more persuasive. This also enabled them to reflect on their participation and thus contribute with a more informed confidence.

As a potential obverse to the Hawthorne effect, my expectations may have had an influence, either consciously or unconsciously on the participants that resulted in them conforming to a perceived expectation. Thus I had to be particularly careful not to lead the participants in any way with any expectations for the observation (Thomas, 2013) and strive to balance ‘involvement with

detachment, closeness with distance, familiarity with strangeness’ (Cohen et al., 2011, p.457). Such detachment was difficult but it was also important to accept that this was unavoidable and so I sought to identify the effects of observer bias and present them in a favourable manner (Merriam, 2009). As such, in suggesting that it is useful for the researcher to ‘observe themselves observing’ (Patton, 2002), I found that the teachers that I observed did not change ‘custom and practice built up over years’ (Frankenberg, 1982, p.51), an anecdotal reflection based on my previous observations of them, and that instead what I was watching was comparable to other observations that I had done.

Observations took place in the natural setting of the teacher’s classroom. Teachers were invited to teach a GCSE English literature lesson, but the content would be of their choosing. In considering workload, it was suggested that I would be happy to observe the teacher’s ‘regular’ lesson, although if they wanted to teach something different, then this would also be observed. Ultimately the

74

content of the lesson was irrelevant (as long as GCSE English literature was being taught); I was interested in the discursive construction of literature.

Because of the practicalities of the school timetable, it was more appropriate for the GCSE English literature classes observed to be Year 10, rather than Year 11 who would be preparing for their exams and thus more likely to be independently revising in May, when exams were taking place. Equally, the priority of teachers of Year 11 GCSE English literature was not my research study. Furthermore, the choice of Year 10 classes represented the third year that participants had taught the reformed GCSE English literature qualification (the current Year 11 cohort would be the first group to sit the reformed exams in 2017), and so potentially teachers of literature would be more comfortable or perhaps more aware of what they were teaching due to that experience.

Observations were recorded through field notes (see Appendix 10) rather than any form of audio- video device due to practicalities of capturing teacher-pupil interaction as with a whole class this would have been too difficult to do meaningfully. Furthermore, I normally record observations through field notes and so this was a process with which I felt comfortable and, more importantly, the colleagues I was observing felt comfortable. Field notes were made throughout the observations with full, detailed notes typed as soon after the observation as possible (Bogdan and Biklen, 2007). They were ‘highly descriptive’ (Merriam, 2009) and included reflective comments and thoughts that I had, and questions that I asked. As such, the field notes contained direct quotations or at least the substance of what the teacher was saying, descriptions of the setting, the people and the activities, and my reflective comments, as guided by Miles and Huberman (1994).