Stimulated recall interviews

Stimulated recall interviews are described by Paterson & Graham (2000, cited in Swennen et al 2008:535) as “retrospective reports of thinking based on the provision of extensive retrieval cues...of the preceding activity”. The justification for this is provided by Bloom (1953), often cited as the first user and advocate of the method:

The basic idea underlying the method of stimulated recall is that the subject may be enabled to relive an original situation with vividness and accuracy if he is presented with a large number of the cues or stimuli which occurred during the original situation… Since the individual is a participant in an event at one time and is a subject reporting his conscious-thought participation after the event, this type of investigation can be carried on in such a way as to have only minimal effect on the nature of the original situation. (p161)

Newby (2010) refers to the method of video-stimulated reflective dialogue (VSRD), using a ‘think aloud’ approach, albeit with respect to its use as a stimulus “with children or with people whose experience of what is being investigated is limited” (p355). This clearly is not the case with my own study, where – conversely – it was felt that this process had the potential to provide richer data than

researcher-driven observation notes alone, precisely because of the depth and breadth of knowledge on the part of the teacher educator. Involving the participant and researcher watching through the video of the teaching session together, with the former leading the viewing and reflection/discussion, it was a method which the researcher had not undertaken before piloting this study.

The choice of method was also driven by the need for the researcher to link the research questions into a coherent whole: observation allowed for a glimpse into what the teacher educator’s pedagogy looked like in practice, but not the pedagogical reasoning and knowledge base underpinning this habitus. A teaching session, in “the complex and entangled environment of the classroom” (Meijer et al 2002, cited in Reitano 2006:2), does not allow for cognitive processes to be investigated during the event without the researcher intervening in the activity; however, stimulated recall has been used in educational research since the 1980s as a technique to capture these retrospectively (for example, Gass & Mackey 2000). Reitano (2006) describes it as “an effective technique for identifying and examining teachers’ thoughts and decisions, and the reasons for acting as they do” (p2), which are component parts of habitus. In his study of sports coaching, Lyle (2003) reports that “the procedure successfully elicited expert accounts of decisions taken and maintained the benefits of the naturalistic context” (p861), which reflects the aims of the methodology within this piece of research.

Despite the obvious benefits of generating rich verbal accounts of pedagogical reasoning in- and on- action, there are a number of methodological issues raised by this technique. Theobold (2008), whilst referring more to young children than adults as the subjects, warns of possible distortion or misrepresentation as a result of participants being influenced by the researcher. In this case, attempts might be made by them to provide what may be perceived to be ‘text book’ justifications of teacher educator behaviour, particularly as the participants would be aware of the researcher’s own background and experience in teacher education, as well as the purpose of the research. However, Calderhead’s (1981, cited in Lyle 2003) advice to ‘screen’ the research goal from the participant does not seem desirable – or attainable – in this instance. In relation to this, although Lyle (2003) warns that the researcher’s familiarity with the context may also have the potential to contaminate the process of research design and data collection (pp872-3), the concomitant advantages of shared understandings with regard to knowledge about teaching and learning when transcribing and analysing the data must also be taken into account. Other limitations of this method which are raised by Lyle (2003) include those related to the perspective of the video (i.e. researcher, rather than subject), the time lapse between the event and the interview process (causing potential ‘recall decay’, and/or allowing time to reflect and elaborate – or censor), and the opportunity to ‘sanitise’ accounts. The possibility of causing the participants anxiety and stress, both at being videoed and watching the tapes of their lesson, is also referred to by Reitano (2006). The question of whether tacit knowledge can be verbalised was particularly pertinent to this study, as teaching is recognised as a highly

complex activity which relies heavily on tacit knowledge and ‘automatisation’ (Calderhead 1981:213). However, Reitano (2006) refers to a number of studies which “give detail to the argument that video stimulated recall enables teachers to make explicit their implicit understandings of their interactional cognitions” (p4).

It was important to incorporate procedures at the research design stage to minimise the potential impact of any limitations. Reitano (2006) advises that “(t)he effectiveness of video stimulated recall procedures will first of all depend upon the unobtrusive nature of videotaping of the classroom lesson” (p8), and particular care was taken to avoid disrupting the classroom dynamics. As participants were very much volunteers, it was hoped that they would be less prone to feelings of stress or anxiety at taking part. Perhaps most importantly, and following Swennen et al’s (2008) lead, it was decided not to use questions to prompt the teacher educator’s recall. Instead, the participant was invited to co-watch the video, and to pause the tape and ‘reflect aloud’ (Swennen et al 2008:535) at sections where they felt pedagogical reasoning was appropriate; probes were only used when it was felt these would be useful. In this way, the method had more in common with the ‘think aloud’ technique outlined by Newby (2010), rather than a more traditional two-way interview procedure. This minimised the potential of ‘power asymmetry’, resembling more “collaborative interviewing where the researcher and subject approach equality in questioning, interpreting and reporting” (Kvale 2007:15). This obviated the “need to ensure that the questions/prompts do not alter the cognitive process being employed at the time of the event”, which, according to Lyle (2003), is “(k)ey to the validity issue” (p865). In addition, the stimulated recall interviews were scheduled to take place as soon as was possible after the teaching session, minimising the time lapse. The maximum period of two days corresponds with Bloom’s (1953:162) assertion that it is within this time frame that 95 % of the events of the lesson can be recalled with the help of stimuli. Attempts were made to disabuse participants of the notion that their pedagogy was being ‘judged’ in any way, or that there were common understandings of what constitutes effective ITE pedagogy – whilst at the same time accepting that participants would inevitably want to present themselves in the ‘best light’.

In combining this method with semi-structured interviews and observation (involving note-taking during the videotaping of the session), triangulation of evidence was made possible, allowing for enhanced reliability and validity (Newby 2010:122). As Calderhead (1981) asserts, some

indication of the validity of reported thoughts [in stimulated recall interviews] may be obtained from their internal consistency, and the degree to which teacher [educator]s’ accounts appear to match observed classroom practice (p215).