Resulting plan

Based on the results of the exploratory phase, I decided to start my intervention phase with the promotion of the second level. The first tools to be explored with the PSTs were the DJ and the GR sessions. For the first cycle in the intervention, I decided to strengthen the strategies that they were already using: sharing and stimulating reflection with someone else, observing other teachers. I also included triggering questions for them to provide more details about their practicum. Since I was not able to conduct a workshop (as I had initially planned) to introduce strategies for reflection, I included some in the form of comments or reflective questions, both in the DJs and in the GRs. Furthermore, four values were

163

emphasised in order to engage PSTs and motivate RP: dialogic and collaborative reflection (in a more systematic way), enquiry, and a non-threatening atmosphere.

 Dialogic reflection: This aimed to promote conversation between the PSTs and the researcher and to provide the PSTs with the opportunity to see how the journals could be used differently to the way they were accustomed (from the first phase). This, ideally, would be more dynamic and interesting. As for the GRs, since the PSTs had reported in the FG that they liked talking to others about their practice as novice teachers, they would be able to verbalise their teaching experiences, share their reflections and receive a response to their verbalisations. Dialogic reflection is interrelated to the next value.

 Collaborative reflection: Given that the PSTs had reported in the FG and the initial questionnaire that they preferred and found very useful sharing their reflection with others, I considered it important to maintain collaborative reflection during the intervention. This way, the PSTs had the opportunity to help each other, as well as give and obtain helpful feedback. Hence, the aim of both the DJs and the GRs was to encourage this.

 Enquiry: The main purpose was to make the PSTs offer more than ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers, or mere descriptions (as they had done in the exploratory phase). As I previously mentioned in 5.6.2, during the seminars I realised that the type of questions the teachers (usually) ask are very important in order to trigger reflection. Therefore, I constantly asked them questions such as: Why do you think so? Why did you make that decision? What were the consequences? What would you have done instead? among others. This was also in line with the guide to promote reflection (see Table 4 in 3.2.6), which includes some guiding questions to encourage higher levels of reflection. This approach is connected to the dialogue I promoted and the collaboration as it also sought to

164

create (either a written or an oral) dialogue or interaction between the researcher and the PSTs and among all the participants and the researcher.

 Non-threatening atmosphere: In order to gain the PSTs’ trust and to motivate them to see reflection as a valid, useful, and enjoyable way of sharing concerns and teaching experience, I decided upon a friendly environment. I believe that students (in this case the PSTs) are easily invited to participate and articulate their personal reflections when they are in a friendly and kind environment even though they are being challenged. Furthermore, my idea was to make them feel that they were in an empathetic atmosphere. In order to achieve this, I included positive, encouraging, and sympathetic comments, as well as an informal tone during the intervention, either for the written and the oral reflections.

165

Chapter Six: Intervention phase findings

This chapter aims to analyse the outcomes of the intervention phase of the study, which included the use of reflective tools and strategies, as well as the promotion of dialogic and collaborative reflection, an enquiry approach, and a non-threatening environment as inherent values to engage PSTs in RP. Following RQs 1 and 2 in the exploratory phase, the RQ addressed in this phase was:

 RQ3: What are the effects of the intervention on the PSTs reflections?

As previously stated, RQ3 investigates the effects of the intervention in terms of (see section 1.3 for more details):

 Focus of reflection

 Process of reflection

 Level of reflection

 Effects of values promoted

 Tools and strategies

In order to respond RQ3, I analysed five cycles of reflection, which included a DJ and a GR per cycle, as well as entries in the FB group. Each cycle is organised and presented in this chapter as follows:

1. Introduction: Consists of a brief explanation of what was planned to do, based on the outcomes of the previous cycle.

2. Findings: Includes the analysis of the main findings, organised by theme. 3. Summary of findings: Incorporates a summary of main findings, which led

166

My main goal in this analysis is to show the PSTs’ focus of reflection, the way they described their experiences, and inspect how reflection developed in each cycle. It might be worth stating that the articulations of reflection in this chapter are derived from a socio-cultural interaction between the researcher and the participants, and represent conscious reflections produced in response to specific enquiries or guidance from the researcher (see Ross 2011). The data is not presented as a transparent window to novice teachers’ internal processes. The data is always treated as a co-construction that arises out of the training context with its various goals and orientations. Similar to the exploratory phase, I categorised the PSTs’ focus of reflection into themes resulting from the coding process (explained in 4.5.2.1 and exemplified in Appendix 6). Due to space constraints, I concentrated on the themes that the PSTs focused more in each cycle. The sequence in which the themes are presented in this chapter is according to the frequency the PSTs mentioned them in each cycle, based on the NVivo count (see Appendix 8 for details). In chapter seven, I include a summary and discussion of the findings.