Lesson Observations

Lesson observation is a useful research method that allows the complexities involved in teaching and learning to be captured. Cohen et al. (2007) argued that ‘the distinctive feature of observation as a research process is that it offers the investigator an opportunity to gather ‘live’ data from naturally occurring situations’ (p. 396). Deploying this method

114

enabled the researcher to gather authentic data in situ, with direct relevance to RQs 2.1 and 3. It is believed that collecting such authentic data, i.e. data not mediated by others (Cohen et al., 2007), contributed to ensuring that the findings of the study reliably represented the phenomena studied.

In the current study, lesson observations were used primarily to collect evidence about how teachers implemented their understanding of AfL (similar to Dixon et al., 2011). The lessons were either video or audio recorded and the transcripts enabled the researcher to document examples of classroom interactions, which was similar to the studies conducted by Gattullo (2000) and Rea-Dickins (2006). Table 3.9 below, reports studies that used lesson observation as a research method in similar contexts and/or for similar research foci.

Table 3.9: Studies which used lesson observation as a research method

Study Context of the study Focus of classroom observations

Enever, 2011

Young language

learners’ progression in L2 (mostly English, also French, Spanish) over three years: 7-11 year olds

‘linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour during FL lessons focusing on learners' attention, participation, relationship to teacher and classmates, language

comprehension, and production.’ (Nikolov & Mihaljević Djigunović, 2011, p. 99) Rea-

Dickins, 2006

Formative assessment in an EAL context in a primary school: 6-7 year olds

Formative and summative assessment and feedback evident through teacher and learner interactions during the activities.

Rea-Dickins and Gardner, 2000 Formative assessment in an EAL context of 5-7 year olds

‘To probe in depth key issues of English language assessment’ (p. 219)

Gattullo, 2000

Formative assessment in TEYL classrooms with 8-10 year olds

To record assessment events during lessons and transcribe examples of interaction during those events. Dixon,

Hawe and Parr, 2011

‘Teachers’ espoused beliefs about self- and peer- assessment and their congruence with practice’ (p. 365) in state schools in New Zealand

To collect evidence about how teachers’ beliefs were enacted in practice through teachers’ feedback practices in AfL in writing oriented Literacy lessons

Colby-Kelly and Turner, 2007

Assessment for Learning in EAP context

‘To catalogue assessment episodes’ (p. 19), including their origin, focus, duration and language skills.

115

While offering the advantages of gathering authentic empirical data, classroom observations are sensitive to the researcher as a mediator of the data (Cohen et al., 2007). This was carefully considered in the process of designing the tool (described below) and analysing the data. Field notes were made during the observed lessons. Subsequently, more detail was added when the video recordings were reviewed. This ensured the reliability of observations and enabled the researcher to observe parallel forms (events that happened simultaneously) hence addressing the issue of the selective attention of the observer (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 410).

While developing the observation protocol, particular attention was paid to ensuring that it gathered data relevant to the research questions. Having reviewed observation schedules reported in the literature, it was decided that there was not one that would satisfy the above criterion of relevance. For that reason, a lesson observation protocol was developed for the purposes of this study. The design process was informed by similar choices made by other researchers, as discussed below, and by the outcomes of the literature review (Chapter 2).

The observation schedule was divided into two parts. The first one was designed to catalogue the use of AfL techniques. This was achieved by recording duration and the brief description and, where appropriate, names of consecutive tasks in each lesson, annotating them with the language skills that they focused on and AfL techniques used. Additional detail, related to the perceived purposes for deploying each AfL technique, was added when the researcher reviewed the video and audio recordings8. Part Two of the lessons observation schedule aimed to collect data about the impact of AfL on interactions. This entailed documenting behaviours similar to those investigated in the ELLiE study (Nikolov & Mihaljević Djigunović, 2011). Hence, the design of the schedule was based on the ELLiE classroom observations schedule (Enever, 2014, personal communication). This included using similar codes to record the type of interactions as in the ELLiE schedule: T-C (teacher – whole class), L-C (learner – whole class), T-xLL (teacher – group of students, e.g. T-4LL = teacher – group of 4 learners), T-1L (teacher – individual learner), IND (individual work), L-L (Pairs), and LL (groups).

8 _{Out of the total of 28 lesson observations, 26 were video recorded. The remaining two were voice recorded due to}

116

The adopted unit for recording data during observations was a task. There have been multiple discussions of the definition of a task (e.g. Ellis, 2000; Skehan, 1996, 1998). Ellis (ibid.) provides a useful argument that a task may entail different concepts when defined either from a research or pedagogical perspective: i.e. ‘(r)esearchers, for example, may view a task in terms of a set of variables that impact on performance and language acquisition whereas teachers see it as a unit of work in an overall scheme of work’ (p. 194). Skehan (1998) lists four characteristics of a task: ‘1. meaning is primary; 2. there is a goal which needs to be worked towards; 3. the activity is outcome-evaluated; 4. there is a real world relationship’ (p. 268).

However, it should be noted that in the complex context of a classroom, these clear-cut characteristics can, at best, account only for how tasks are planned. They do not take into account individual characteristic, interests and abilities which learners bring to the process of performing the task. Furthermore, it is important to note at this point that the phrase ‘real world relationship’, which is frequently used in connection with communicative teaching, is problematic. It indicates that tasks in language lessons should attempt to somehow recreate situations, which learners can encounter in the world outside the classroom (Nunan, 1987). Thus, a classroom is not considered a real world situation. However, Walsh (2006) has convincingly argued that participating in a lesson is a real world situation for both learners and teachers. This seems even more applicable to children for whom going to school constitutes a significant part of their lives.

Adopting Walsh’s (ibid.) view of a classroom as a real world situation has implications for the current study. Specifically, it means that any task will have a relationship with the real world; for instance, controlled practice of a grammar point could be an authentic activity in a lesson. Hence, Skehan’s (1998) Criterion 4 becomes unhelpful and as such was not included in the analysis. However, the first three of Skehan’s (1998) criteria were regarded as useful and, consequently, were adopted in the definition of ‘task’ in the current study. In order to be true to the context of the study, it seemed necessary to supplement this largely context-free definition with context specific considerations. Therefore, lesson observation notes were compared with the accounts of the same lessons collected from teachers through ROWDs (3.3.2). This allowed me as the researcher to compare my judgements of what constituted as a task in the observed lessons with the

117

records made by teachers who planned and delivered the lessons. This approach ensured that systematic data were collected.

The adopted semi-structured approach ensured a clear description of the types of events to record while maintaining the flexibility to gather a rich collection of data. This contributed to ensuring internal validity of the study. For an example of a completed lesson observation schedule, please see Appendix 14.

All data collection tools described above were piloted. The next section reports on the pilot study.