Teachers’ perceptions are represented by ‘internal’ and ‘external’ positions

Findings from my process of coding teachers’ transcribed interviews include a total of 70 ‘internal’ positions, 42 ‘external’ positions and a total of 2619 ‘internal-external’ position interactions. Principally, teachers’ ‘internal’ positions reflect the different roles they assumed as they developed their understanding of enquiry, as well as a range of positive and negative emotions over time (Table 8, p. 83). Teachers’ ‘external’ positions connote the involvement of people and contextual factors in their experiences of developing understanding of enquiry based learning (Table 9, p. 84). They also include tools which were introduced as part of the KTP project (Figure 2, p. 5).

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Findings

Table 8: Dimensions of teachers’ ‘internal’ positions Roles I as a colleague I as creative I as doer/user I as follower I as idealist I as individual worker I as leader I as learner

I as a Learning Area Leader I as listener I as a man/woman I as observer I as a parent I as realist I as a son/daughter I as a Student Performance Leader

I as talker I as a teacher (enquiry) I as a teacher (general) I as a teacher (subject) I as team worker I as thinker

Positive emotions Negative emotions

I as certain I as comfortable I as curious/interested I as empowered I as energetic I as engaged I as fearless I as flexible I as free/in control I as happy/enjoying I as helpful/supportive I as in time I as involved I as knowledgeable I as organised I as positive I as problem solver I as relaxed I as responsible I as risk taker I as successful I as taking action I as understanding I as understood I as challenged I as constrained/controlled I as critical I as disempowered I as disengaged I as disorganised I as distracted I as doubter I as failure I as fearful

I as helpless/in need of support I as inflexible/fixed

I as irresponsible I as lacking knowledge

I as lazy I as negative I as not taking action

I as out of time I as problem seeker I as uncertain I as uncomfortable I as under pressure I as unhappy/not enjoying I as uninvolved

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Findings

Table 9: Dimensions of teachers’ ‘external’ positions

People Personal experience

A fellow teacher A problematic person/people

Andrew Walker Anthony Jones Chloe Taylor/Isobel Smith**

Christopher Lewis Daniel Williams Elizabeth Davies Ethan Thomas Matthew Brown Mia Evans Michael Wilson My child/children

My fellow enquiry teachers (group) My fellow teachers My husband/partner My KTP Associate My line manager My mother/father My Principal

My students in enquiry sessions My students in non-enquiry sessions

My teacher My wife/partner

Me/myself Other people*

My other responsibilities My personal prior experience

The residential weekend

Contextual factors Enquiry tools

My classroom My curriculum area My rules and routines

My timetable My school Other curriculum areas

Other things* The KTP project Whole school CPD

Enquiry/my enquiries

The assessment framework for enquiry skills

The Habits of Mind*** The toolkit for enquiry

n=42

A critique of these categories appears at the end of this section. In particular, I evaluate the positions I have marked with asterisks (*) in Table 9 (above).

Importantly, however, by placing them in matrices, teachers’ ‘internal’ and ‘external’ positions begin to portray shifting perceptions of enquiry when their prominence varies

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Findings

and the number of interactions changes from interview to interview (Appendix M, p. 170).

5.3.2 Multiple ‘internal’ and ‘external’ positions interact to portray teachers’ shifting perceptions

Table 10 (below) summarises the number of different ‘internal’ and ‘external’ positions which appear in each individual teacher’s interviews. At this early stage of presenting findings, I note the emergence of patterns which require further

investigation. For example, the total number of ‘internal’ positions for Andrew, Ethan and Isobel fluctuates over time. This is not the case for Chloe and Michael, who demonstrate an increasing number. Conversely, the number of ‘internal’ positions decreases for Christopher and Matthew. The summary information for teachers’ ‘external’ positions follows a similar pattern. Going further, some positions are unique to particular teachers (both Andrew and Ethan demonstrate evidence of the ‘internal’ position ‘I as a son’) whereas other positions are in evidence in all of the teachers’ interviews; the ‘internal’ position ‘I as a thinker’ and the ‘external’ position ‘My students in non-enquiry sessions’.

Table 10: The number of teachers’ different ‘internal’ and ‘external’ positions by interview Number of different ‘internal’ positions

Teacher Interview 1 Interview 2 Interview 3

Andrew 43 25 29 Chloe 18 30 33 Christopher 26 25 21 Ethan 24 28 27 Isobel 27 22 33 Matthew 24 24 23 Michael N/A 25 28

Number of different ‘external’ positions

Teacher Interview 1 Interview 2 Interview 3

Andrew 19 16 24 Chloe 15 18 20 Christopher 13 14 8 Ethan 21 19 22 Isobel 16 15 19 Matthew 14 16 14 Michael N/A 16 19 n = 2619 different interactions

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Findings

These initial observations offer insights into the potential for exploring Hermans’ (2008) dimensions of ‘multiplicity-in-unity’, ‘dominance and social power’ and ‘openness to innovation’ because there is no particular pattern of interactions at this stage. This triggers a personal curiosity to find out even more about the interplay of teacher’s ‘internal’ and ‘external’ positions over time.

5.3.3 ‘External’ positions indicate the structure of the social context of this research study

Before embarking on a more detailed exploration, I am able to use findings from teachers’ ‘external’ positions to indicate the structure of the social context of my research study. These findings exist in Figure 10 (p. 87) in an adaptation of Hermans’ model of positions of the ‘dialogical self’. Positions are sequenced in the numerical order of their code (Appendix K, p. 166). Exceptions to this are where the length of the text is too great for the intended order. In these cases, positions are placed so that they can be read in one line and in the original font size. The ‘outside’ domain relates mainly to the voices of people or contextual factors outside of school. The ‘external’ domain principally reflects the voices of colleagues or students within school who were not directly involved in the KTP project. It also includes general school systems and contextual factors which influence and affect teachers’ practice. The ‘internal’ domain involves teachers’ own voices. This is an issue which I will address in the final section of my findings regarding teachers’ shifting and emerging positions and ‘openness to innovation’ (pp. 106-115).

Going further, I have also identified a sub-domain; ‘external – KTP project’, which includes relationships, systems and contextual factors in school which were directly involved in the KTP project. This includes the voices of students, other teachers, both collectively and individually, the KTP Associate and the school Principal. In order to highlight this domain for readers of this work, I have included a dotted line to denote the proximity of these ‘external’ positions to the ‘internal’ domain of teachers’ ‘selves’.

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Findings

Figure 10: The structure of the social context of my study

Within the wider contexts of ‘performativity’ (Ball, 2000) and change in UK education (Kennedy, 2005), I am particularly keen to find out more about the manner in which teachers’ ‘internal’ positions interact with ‘external’ positions (Hermans, 2001b) from within the KTP project compared to those within school, outside school, or even within the teachers themselves since I anticipate agreement, disagreement and tensions which affect teachers’ shifting perceptions of enquiry based learning over time.

5.3.4 Critique

Criticisms of these initial findings relate to the manner in which I have categorised teachers’ ‘internal’ and ‘external’ positions (ibid.), the range of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ positions within each teacher interview, as well as the number of interactions, and also to my adaptation of Hermans’ (ibid.) model of the positions of the ‘dialogical self’.

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Findings

when I discuss my findings in the next chapter of my work because they are central concepts to the theme of ‘performativity’ in UK education (Jeffrey and Troman, 2012). I acknowledge that my choice and placement of each position within a category is subjective. For example, the ‘external’ position ‘Other people/things’ appears in more than one category so that the total number of positions equals forty-two and not forty- one. This is because a small number of ‘external’ positions emerged at the end of the final stage of analysis and I grouped them together. Only when I sharpened the focus of my findings, did I realise that they relate to different dimensions of the teachers’

‘dialogical selves’ (Hermans, 2001b). Secondly, I present Chloe Taylor and Isobel Smith as one ‘external’ position. This is because they worked very closely together in developing their understanding of enquiry and the other teachers often referred to them together. I wanted to highlight this in my findings. Finally, as an ‘external’ position, ‘The Habits of Mind’ relate to teachers’ perceptions of Costa and Kallick’s (2000) framework of alternative intelligences, which was adopted in order to develop a framework for assessing enquiry skills at Tableford School (p. 5). Teachers’ perceptions do not always echo Costa and Kallick’s (ibid.) intentions. In order to highlight this difference, I present teachers’ perceptions as ‘the ‘external’ position ‘The Habits of Mind’. Where teachers refer to the original source materials, I will include the appropriate reference to Costa and Kallick’s (ibid.) work.

Going further, I report a total of 70 ‘internal’ positions and 42 ‘external’ positions. However without scanning through each of the matrices, it is unclear in my table of positions by interview and by teacher (Table 10, p. 85) exactly how they occur in teachers’ coded interviews, particularly since they were not fixed3

but continued to emerge until coding was completed on the last interview transcription. Indeed, each teacher interview is different. They vary in length and present the interactions of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ voices at a point in time. It is possible to cross reference the location of each position within each interview in my matrices of teachers’ interview data (Table 7, p. 72) however this detracts from my more pressing interest in how the positions shift over time.

3 _‘

Internal’ positions ‘I as realist’, ‘I as idealist’ and ‘I as curious/interested’ did not feature in teachers’ first interviews. Neither did external positions ‘Other curriculum areas’, ‘The KTP project’, ‘Whole school CPD’, 'The assessment framework for enquiry’, ‘My school’ and ‘The residential weekend’.

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Findings

Next, it is reasonable to be critical of my adaptation of Hermans’ (2001b) model of positions of the ‘dialogical self’ (Appendix E, p. 158). Indeed, I do not propose a rationale for plotting teachers’ ‘external’ positions but rather place them in a clockwise order of rotation within each domain, which is consistent with the pattern in which they emerged during my process of analysis. Furthermore, I offer no explanation for my positioning of ‘external’ positions ‘My rules and routines’ and ‘Enquiry/my enquiries’, for example, which lie on a perceived boundary between contextual factors which are internal to the KTP project and those which concern the wider context of the school. This is intentional and reserved for the final section of my findings, where I will present evidence of individual teachers’ developing understanding of enquiry based learning as a result of ‘dominance and social power’ (pp. 99-105).

Finally, I have come to realise that my representation of Hermans’ (ibid.) model includes a boundary between the ‘external’ domain of the KTP project and the

‘external’ domain of the school. This is a particularly interesting feature of my findings when considered in relation to my presentation of Bernstein’s (1996) theory of

‘symbolic control’ (pp. 21-28), which argues in favour of weak contextual factors and the flow of dialogue.

5.4 ‘Multiplicity-in-unity’

How do teachers’ perceptions of enquiry based learning shift over time?

 Teachers’ ‘internal’ and ‘external’ positions increase in prominence, decrease in prominence and fluctuate over time.

 Interactions between positions provide evidence of teachers’ developing understanding of enquiry.

 Teachers’ ‘internal’ position ‘I as taking action’ decreases in prominence over time.

 ‘Internal-external’ position interactions suggest the influence of ‘dominance and social power’ (Hermans, 2008) on enquiry ‘tools’.

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Findings

which allow for multiple voices, agreement and disagreement. After sharing visual representations of teachers’ shifting ‘internal’ and ‘external’ positions, I will present the results of my analyses of teachers’ perceptions of specific aspects of enquiry;

‘Enquiry/my enquiries, ‘The Assessment Framework for enquiry skills’, ‘The toolkit for enquiry’ and ‘The Habits of Mind’. Finally, I will uncover additional voices, which suggest the influence of ‘dominance and social power’ (ibid.).

5.4.1 Teachers’ ‘internal’ and ‘external’ positions increase in prominence, decrease in