Positive group-feedback phases

The next phase in the unfolding order of phases, which constitutes each Tw’s feedback cycle, is the positive group-feedback phase. The institutional (sub) goal for this phase is to provide an interactional space where the other trainees can proffer positive feedback to the Tw. This phase therefore opens up the Tw’s reflective practice to a broad range of positive feedback from other members of the group, extending the possibilities of reflection beyond those the Tw could possibly generate on their own. The positive group-feedback phase is invariably significantly longer than the preceding self-feedback phase, as there are FBTs generated by all of the Tes in the group, as opposed to just the Tw. There is therefore always ‘more to say’ in these phases than in self-feedback ones. The following short extract will be analysed in order to explicate the salient features of this phase, as well as consider some of the processes of reflective practice commonly found within this phase. The extract is taken from day 7 of the course, the trainer is Liz and the Tw is Annie.

Extract 7 – “What did you guys notice?” D7FB 69

1 L: but no:w (1.6) the:::re we::re (.) things that contributed

2 to that (.) not just your fantastic rappo:rt (.) there were

3 (0.4) lots of other things she did (0.4) that ma:de it (.)

4 possible for them (.) to (.) to !actually show us what they

5 can really do right? (0.8) >!what did< you guys notice

6 (0.6) ((L seeks gaze from Tes, B reciprocates with mutual

7 gaze))

8 B: well (.) the big one that I noted twice was er (0.3) °well

In the trainer’s extended initial turn, Liz performs the transition from the positive self- feedback phase to the positive group-feedback phase. The initial TCU of this extended turn (line 1), “but no:w”, marks a shift in activity, which is followed by a lengthy pause. During this pause the Tes orient to the trainer as the one with the interactional rights to the floor. They do so by not treating this pause as a TRP and attempting to take the floor, but rather they allow the Tr to continue to hold the floor. Liz then continues her turn, “the:::re we::re (.) things that contributed to that (.) not just your fantastic rappo:rt”. Here the Tr initially formulates her turn with a passive construction, then switches to a confirmation of the positively assessed ‘outcome’ (“fantastic rappo:rt”). The construction of this turn allows the Tr to make a distinction between the positively assessed outcome and the actions of the trainer that may have contributed to this ascribed state. The trainer’s formulation and delivery of this turn emphasise her positive assessment of the Tw’s role (“fantastic rappo:rt”) and project an expectation that the other trainees will comment on the “other things she did”. And that they will comment on how these ‘things’ allowed the students to “!actually show us what they can really do”, in lines 4-5. The strong intonational emphasis on “!actually show” emphasises the Tr’s expectation that the Te’s positive feedback topics are grounded in observations of the

noticeable and accountable actions of the students in the observed lesson. In other words, it is not just enough for the trainees to claim that something was successful or otherwise. They are also expected to describe what the Tw and the students ‘actually did’ in the lesson, in order to support their claim. In doing so, she ‘guides’ the trainees toward the kinds of contributions that are allowable within the upcoming phase of the feedback cycle, positive FBTs; and the kind of evidence the trainees are expected to provide for their ‘reflective’ observations: evidence that is ‘grounded’ in the observable actions of the Tw and students. The trainer then completes the instigation of the transition from the positive self-feedback phase to the

positive group-feedback phase with her next TCU: “>!what did< you guys notice”, a request for a FBTI from one of the Tes in the group.

In the above example the transition between phases is initiated and managed, via negotiated embodied speaker nomination by the trainer. However, within the corpus this transition from self-feedback to group-feedback phases is regularly carried out by the other trainees in the group. In approximately half of the transitions between these two phases, it is one of the Tes who initiates and carries out this action. This is in sharp contrast to the transition from HDYF

to positive self-feedback phases, which is (almost) always carried out by the trainer in this corpus. This allowance within the overall structural organisation demonstrates one of the ways in which these interactional events are locally managed. Although the OSO

demonstrates the participants’ orientation to particular aspects of the institutional goal, such as the order of phases, the interaction itself is locally managed by the participants. The fact that the Tes are often ‘allowed’ the interactional rights to carry out a transition between phases illustrates that the management of this interaction is local and that these rights are potentially negotiable on a moment-by-moment basis.

Previous to the above extract, during the self-feedback phase, the participation framework had been predominantly between the trainee and trainer, as is typical of self-feedback phases (see section 4.5.1 and 4.5.2), however this open-group nomination instigates a shift in the participation framework; opening it, not only to include and expect vocal participation from all of the other trainees in the group, but also projecting the expectation that they will initiate feedback topics. This is in counterpoint to the previous self-feedback phase, where this action was not allowable for the other trainees in the group, with only the Tw and occasionally the Tr, having the interactional rights to perform this action. Within group-feedback phases the other trainees in the group are expected to initiate FBTs, and the Tr also has the interactional ‘rights’ to initiate feedback topics (see section 5.3).

Returning now to extract 7, during the pause in line 6, that follows the open group

nomination, the trainer looks around the group seeking to obtain mutual gaze with a trainee, in order to ‘find a candidate’ to contribute the second-pair part account requested by her in the open-group nomination. Mutual gaze is established with Bob, and he takes the floor, with “well” marking his claim to the floor, and initiating his turn. He then initiates a FBT namely ‘monitoring’ during the ‘warm up’ stage of the Tw’s lesson. The packaging of this turn reveals a number of aspects about his account and ways in which assessments can be marked within FBT initiating accounts. The formulation of his utterance, “er monitoring during warm !up,”, does not, in itself, indicate whether the assessment is positive or critical. Rather, it is the mutually understood sequential position within the order of phases that indicates the type of feedback. If the same formulation had been uttered within a critical feedback phase, it could equally be treated as a initiator of a critical FBT by the participants. This in turn further supports the notion that there is mutual understanding between the participants as regarding

the normative expectations of this phase of a feedback cycle. One of those norms being that the participants will contribute appropriate assessments which match the positive or critical phase in which they are uttered, that they will not be, as one might say, ‘out of phase’, i.e. a positive FBT in a critical feedback phase. In this way the Trs are able to manage the Tw/Tes contributions so that the correct type of feedback is carried out in the correct sequential position, with regards to the order of phases.

Furthermore in line 8, previous to providing the ‘object’ of the assessment: ‘monitoring’, Bob states that this ‘point of feedback’ is the most important of several observations (“the big one”) and that he “noted” twice. As he says he has “noted it”, he is physically orienting to the observation notes he made during the lesson, which are now in his hands. He then self-repairs to “°well once°” effectively downgrading the evidence for his claim (it is interesting that he would see the need to be accurate in providing the evidence for his claim). With this turn he therefore aligns himself with the trainer’s projected expectations of multiple “things she did” and ‘grounds’ his assessment in the evidence of having made a physical note of this action during his observation of the lesson. In completing his utterance with the object “monitoring during warm !up,”, he initiates the first FBT of this phase.

To summarise, the positive group-feedback phase of the post-observation meetings in this context provides the other Tes in the group, and occasionally the Tr, with opportunities to provide positive feedback to the Tw. In this phase, it is the Tes who have the right to

introduce feedback topics relating to the practices of the Tw in the previously taught lesson. The participation framework in this phase is between all members of the group, it is common in this phase to find all members of the group initiating FBTs, which can then be discussed and developed by the participants. Furthermore, it is an expectation of this phase that all of the members of the group will initiate FBTs, if FBTs are not proffered by the Tes, the Tr will usually prompt them to contribute, with a request for an account. The institutional (sub) goal of this phase is for the rest of the group to provide positive feedback to the Tw. The multi- participant nature of this phase allows for a wider range of reflective feedback to be generated for the Tw than would be possible in other reflective practice activities such as journal writing. The group oriented feedback activities in this phase also allow the trainees who have not taught opportunities to develop their abilities in reflective practice by focussing

on another teachers’ practices. The positive group-feedback phase is followed by the critical self-feedback phase, which is the subject of the next section.