At the end of Cycle One we had arranged for Anne and Ruth to be released from their classroom teaching for a whole day, in order to take part in the off-site reflection day. The first half of the teacher reflection day was devoted to discussing the previously coded observation transcripts. We compared and cross checked my analyses with those of the teachers, and discussed the few discrepancies in coding that had occurred. When we were unable to reach a consensus, the coding assigned by the teacher was applied.
The second half of the reflection day was devoted to discussing the coded lesson transcripts in the light of the readings I had provided. Three weeks before I had given the teachers copies of two chapters from The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk Amongst Teachers and Learners (Mercer, 1995). Chapter Four, The Learner’s Angle, provides an accessible, interesting, and sometimes amusing account of learning conversations, including analyses of observation transcripts. It provides a learner’s point of view regarding the ambiguity of some teacher-student interactions, and highlights the pointless and tedious aspects of some learning conversations. I expected that reading
transcripts of other teachers’ lessons would provide Anne and Ruth with points of comparison (positive and negative) with their own transcripts. Chapter Seven, Teachers, Researchers, and the Construction of Knowledge, discusses the roles of academic researchers and teachers in educational action research, emphasising partnerships, the sharing of expertise and experience, and reflection. I hoped that reading this would encourage the teachers to develop greater ownership of the research process and to take a more proactive role.
I asked the teachers to read each of the coded transcripts of their lessons in light of the readings, and to take note of any similarities to or differences between what they had read and their own learning conversations. I asked them to consider the kinds of questions they had asked, the explanations they had given, and the type of feedback they had provided to children. I suggested that they consider what learning was evident, and whether each lesson had achieved what they had intended.
At this stage the teachers did not appear to see any real connection between the readings that I had provided and the learning conversations in their transcripts. Both teachers were generally satisfied with the quality of the interactions in their transcripts, and their reflection on their practice was at a very superficial level. They seemed to see their teaching in a very general way. They offered very little critique of their own practice apart from their preoccupation with grammar. For example, they were both concerned that they spoke in incomplete sentences and used too much “slang.”
Anne: I’m so embarrassed, I use so much slang, and I don’t finish sentences. I hardly ever speak in proper sentences! (Reflection
Day: Cycle One)
They were also unhappy with the length of many of their utterances, and their apparent domination of classroom talk.
Ruth: I can’t believe how much I talk. Look at this! A whole page! … And another one. Those poor kids having to sit and listen! (Reflection
Both Anne and Ruth noted how the transcripts provided evidence that some children dominated discussions, and although they showed some concern over the fact that some children did not feature at all, Anne justified this by suggesting that these children often were “taking it all in” and learning just as much as those who had a lot to say.
Both teachers focused mainly on quantitative information related to behaviour management issues and administrative interruptions. They were concerned about the number of interruptions to teaching and learning that had occurred, especially those that were created by the school administration and were therefore avoidable. Their resolution to present the research data and voice their concerns about this at a staff meeting (with a view to effecting some change), was in fact a pivotal moment in the research process, when they began to see the possibilities that the process provided to effect changes in their working environment.
Neither teacher registered concern at the relatively low percentage of interactions at Level Three in their transcripts. Both teachers were focusing on the effects of the actions of other people, including their students, on the type and quality of their classroom interactions, rather than on their own professional practice. At this stage of the research process the teachers were not reflecting on their practice deeply enough to examine or question the nature of their teacher talk, questioning, or feedback to students in the transcripts of their teaching. Their reflection-on-action at this point was at a technical level (van Manen, 1977). They both explained what they had learned about their practice in terms of external factors over which they had little control (Turner-Bisset, 2001). The teachers’ preoccupation with external factors was consistent with claims (Elliott, 1991; Turner-Bisset, 2001) that teachers’ vulnerability to criticism and fear of undermining their own professional status leads to a preference for collecting less personal quantitative data, because it helps them to objectify and distance themselves from their own practice.