The Stages of the Experiential Learning Cycle in Interaction

In order to outline the stages of the experiential learning cycle, as they are oriented to by the participants in this corpus, an extract that illustrates these stages will be analysed. However, it must be stated that the following extract is atypical of the way in which the stages of the ELC are usually instantiated within the corpus. This extract is a brief episode in which the trainer, through a series of direct questions and trainee responses, ‘talks the participants through’ an instantiation of the experiential learning cycle within one FBT. Within this extract, although it follows the stages of the ELC, there is arguably little genuine opportunity for trainee reflection. This example stands in stark contrast to the vast majority of FBTs in the corpus, which are developed and negotiated over an extended period of time (often covering several pages of transcript and several minutes of talk), and are therefore too large to practically analyse in detail within the limitations of this study. Therefore this short

example, which concisely encapsulates the stages of the ELC, will be used to introduce these stages and their instantiation in talk.

The following extract is taken from day six of the course during Dave’s (Tw) negative self- feedback phase; the trainer is Liz. The FBT under discussion, previous to the opening of the extract, has focussed on Dave’s vocal delivery within class. The extract opens at an extended pause, which marks the end of the previous FBT.

Extract 10 - “When you think about this lesson…” D6FB 243 C1 10.00

1 (2.2)

2 L: .hhhh (0.8) now (0.4) e:r e- !anything e:lse that you

3 (0.2)

4 D: e::r

5 (0.3)

6 L: °can think o:f?°

7 (0.6)

8 D: mm

9 (2.8)

10 L: .hh let me ask you a question (0.4) when you think about

11 this (.) this lesson today (0.8) who: was doing all the

12 work

13 (0.5)

14 D: ((clears throat))

15 (0.4)

16 L: you: (.) or the students

17 (4.8)

18 D: it more my: m:: mi:ne (.) my part is more like (1.0) give

19 them information.

20 (0.8)

21 L: ha, #mmm=

22 D: =right

23 (0.5)

24 L: what do you guys think who- (0.2) who had the bigger ro:le

25 the teacher or the students.

26 (0.3)

27 A: °he did°

28 (0.4)

29 L: definitely right (.) sh:ould it be like tha:t, or should

30 the roles be reversed=

31 A: =°reversed°

32 (0.3)

33 L: definitely (0.8) so: (.) I think that is something >we have

34 to focus on< (.) ho:w can we (.) minimise your role (.) and

Following the extended pause in line 1, which marks the end of the previous FBT, the trainer Liz self-selects; she initiates her ‘bid for the floor’ with an in-breath. The trainer requests an account from the Tw in lines 2-6, “!anything e:lse that you°can think o:f?°”. However, the requested account is not provided by the Tw in next turn-position and the Tr again self-selects, marking her intention to take the floor with an in-breath. Liz continues her turn with a TCU that explicitly frames her intended action in this unfolding turn, “let me ask you a question”, making mutual gaze with Dave she enacts her intention to nominate Dave as the recipient of the projected question. She follows this marker with her projected question, “when you think about this (.) this lesson today (0.8) who: was doing all the work” (line 12), the final TCU in the question is the FBT initiator, in that it locates a practice from the previously taught lesson, in this case, the amount of ‘work’

carried out by the students and by the Tw in the lesson. The Tw does not however, provide an answer in the pause that follows the question, but only clears his throat. The Tr orients to this lack of uptake by further specifying her question, reformulating it from a ‘broader’ ‘Wh’ question, to a choice of two options: “you: (.) or the students” (line 16). Another extended pause follows, during which the Tw breaks mutual gaze with the Tr, looks up to the ceiling, then gazes back at the Tr again, before providing the second pair part of the

question/answer adjacency pair. This embodied action can be seen as the participant ‘doing thinking’ (see section 5.3), through non-verbal actions. Dave then provides the expected second-pair part answer: “it more my: m:: mi:ne” and extends this description further:

“(.) my part is more like (1.0) give them information.” (lines 18-19). The

trainer acknowledges uptake of his answer and the Tw confirms this action (line 22).

The trainer then self-selects again and reformulates the same question to the other trainees in the group, “what do you guys think who- (0.2) who had the bigger ro:le the teacher or the students.” (lines 24-25). As previously stated, this is a very ‘directed’ instantiation of the ELC, however, the trainer still collaborates with the other trainees in the group; with this question she explicitly projects the expectation of a second pair part answer from another Te in the group, not the Tw. Following the trainer’s question, she receives confirmation from Annie (“°he did°”) , and the trainer accepts her answer with a stong confirmation, “definitely right” (line29). During this initial section of the extract then, we see the first stage of the ELC made manifest through talk-in-interaction: the description of the participants’ experience (What?). The FBT is introduced, through a question from the

trainer (“who: was doing all the work”), which develops into a negotiated description of the overall practice in question (“my part is more like (1.0) give them

information.”) (lines 18-19), albeit a very brief description. As stated at the opening of this analysis, however, this is a very brief and highly directed instantiation of orientations

towards the ELC, which is atypical of much of the corpus, and in which it can be reasonably argued that there is little ‘genuine space for reflection’.

Following the limited negotiation of the descriptive stage, the trainer orients the participants to the next stage of the cycle: interpreting and theorising (So what?). Again this is carried out with a simple and direct question: “sh:ould it be like tha:t, or should the roles be reversed” (lines 29-30). Thus the trainer projects the expectation to the participants, that they will interpret this aspect of practice, as either ‘appropriate’ or not. Again, Annie swiftly provides a response latched to the Tr’s question, which assesses the Tw’s previous practice as ‘inappropriate’, (“=°reversed°”). With these interactional moves the Tr and trainee negotiate the beginning of an interpretation of the practice: by assessing its efficacy. This interpretation is then further developed by the Tr in her next turn, as she provides a reason why the balance of this practice should be reversed: in order to “minimise your role (.) and maximise the students role”. Following the description of an aspect of the Tw’s practice in lines 10-29, this practice is collaboratively interpreted as problematic (lines 29- 33). The unfolding of this sequence therefore mirrors the stages of the ELC: first description, followed by interpretation.

The final stage of the reflective practice cycle is also made manifest in the trainer’s last turn in the extract. At this stage in the cycle, the participant is expected to draw upon their experience, and the description and interpretation of this experience to generate plans for future action: to indicate how they will apply the ‘outcome’ of their reflections to the next relevant incident of professional practice. In line 33, following the negotiation of the interpetation stage, the Tr marks a shift in activity with “so:”, then her following TCU explicitly states a plan for future action: “I think that is something >we have to focus on< (.) ho:w can we(.) minimise your role (.) and maximise the student’s role”. She therefore presents the interpretation as ‘something that has to be focussed on’, marking its importance as an area that requires changes in the Tw’s practice, and packaging this as a concern for future practice (“ho:w can we”). Interestingly in this

example, the ‘projected outcomes’ of this ELC, the ‘plans for future action’, are formulated as a concern for the group (“we”) rather than just for the Tw. This formulation may relate to the “third pillar” of the SIT course: collaborative work. She may be projecting the notion that ‘doing of reflective practice’ is a collaborative activity. The participants then go on to discuss ways in which the Tw can adjust the balance between the Tw and students’ roles (not

included in the extract).

Extract 10 has illustrated the stages of the ELC as they are made manifest through talk-in- interaction within this context, albeit in a very ‘limited’ way. The vast majority of the

expanded and developed FBTs within the corpus involve extensive interactional work on the part of the participants, with considerable negotiation and discussion as they go about doing the institutional business of this interactional context: ‘doing reflective practice’ as an interactional activity. These orientations to the institutional goal are complex and multifaceted, including a wide variety of interactional actions. It is the analysis of these salient features of the interaction that will form the core of this chapter. It is not suggested that these features fully represent the complexity and subtlety by which the institutional business of this context is conducted, but only that they are the most regularly occurring and ‘patterned’ features of the interaction in this corpus. This analytic chapter therefore attempts to provide an initial sketch of what may be termed the institutional ‘fingerprint’ of this interactional context, as it is instantiated by these participants on this particular training course.

In summary, this section has introduced the model of the ELC as it is oriented to in interaction. The ELC is one of the “three pillars” of the course, which underpin the

institutional goal of the feedback meetings. Within the feedback topics that constitute the vast majority of talk in this context, the reflexivity between the model of the ELC and the

participants talk-in-interaction, engenders a structured approach to doing “reflection-on- action” (Schön, 83). And therefore, in combination with the model of RP and collaborative work, the ELC plays an important role in the process of ‘doing reflective practice as an interactional activity’ as it is instantiated in the feedback meetings of this course. The following section will focus on the analysis of the openings of feedback topics.