The research paradigm that influenced this study

‘The research methodology adopted in such a study is determined by the research paradigm that represents the perspective of the researcher towards the problems being studied’ (Waxman and Bright, 1993; p. 4). At a fundamental level, the discussion of research paradigms relates to the conceptions of truth and knowing (Carspecken and MacGillivray, 1998). These are often categorised as empiricist/objectivist versus interpretivist approaches to reality, although it has been argued that integrative polytheorism is more promising, depicting a more realistic view of what is happening.

This can only be done through an interpretivist approach, as one cannot create reality without the interpretation of what is understood, as discussed in Chapter 2.2.

In the research I attempted to utilise my sensitivity to the meaning behind the data while maintaining a self-awareness of my position as researcher and natural tendency to invoke my existing understandings (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The act of interpretation of each item therefore involved attempting to stand back and ask: • what was going on here?

• what is the significance of this object? • what were my feelings?

• how does this relate to the other data at that point, and within the emerging story?

The evidence was often difficult to display as it was often bulky. So I had to craft my own data displays to suit the individual needs of the study. However, valid analysis requires, and is driven by, displays that are focused enough to permit a viewing of a full data set in the same location and are arranged systematically to answer the research questions at hand. This dilemma was answered with the statistical analysis of the language. However, true representation of data is only valid by extended text, because it is only in this manner that one can note themes, patterns, comparisons and detect differences. This was carried out via the transcriptions and the cross- referencing of themes (discussed further on in this Chapter).

As a teacher trainer, I am convinced that a teacher learns more when able to share who they are with their students. There is much more to teaching than the passing on of knowledge; it is also sharing of the experiences. Even though we talk about student-centred classrooms and develop our practice to include student-centred classrooms, my experience is that this approach is rarely applied to the continuous professional development of teachers. The commonly provided mentoring schemes and example lesson plans, though relevant, do not support changes in practice effectively, as Fisher et al. (2006) state in the 2006 Futurelab report:

‘There is an underlying implication in this discourse (teacher training discourse) that the process of learning is instrumental and unproblematic: in essence, all teachers need is to be given the right ‘training’, the right ‘development’ and the result will be observable and measurable in their performance.’ (Fisher et al, 2006; P 11)

Several theories of human learning and cognition have focused on social and cultural aspects of the learning context, particularly on the discursive interaction and the powerful effect of social processes in learning. The focus of this research is based upon Vygotsky’s theory that language is the medium of social life and this interaction is the primary site for the development of higher mental processes (e.g. Vygotsky, 1978). These theories were discussed earlier in Chapter 2.

Vygotsky’s theory has informed educational policies, resulting in an increased emphasis on oracy and its assessment (e.g. Ministry of education 2002 report), with the focus of attention being practical accomplishments of educational matters such as rhetorical and discursive strategies that are located in the interaction within the student framework within the classroom (Sinclair, 1991).

What is typically missing in the sequence of in-service teacher training is the space for teachers to compare teaching experiences, and to experiment with new approaches widely reported in the literature to be effective in supporting reflective practice and noted to support changes in the classroom (Crockett, 2002; Kasl and Yorks, 2002; Windschitl and Sahl, 2002). Conversational analytic methodology is an ideal way to explore such a forum as it is language saturated. Through the collaboration, the teachers take turns to talk, constructing their talk around others’ discourse. Constructive group work, such as the one carried out in this research, is rarely undertaken in Malta, yet this seems ideally suited to on-going in-service training.

In such a training approach one has to leave space for personalities, abilities and the different experiences that the teachers have in order to enable them to be more creative and innovative in the classroom. My experience has shown me that when a certain ‘teacher’, who was what I would have tentatively labelled non-mainstream, was employed by a school, the work carried out with the students was innovative, while a more mainstream teacher, termed ‘the academic’ by Hargreaves, A. (1999), tended to lack creativity. In addition, I have found that teachers who emulate or copy other trainers lack security and are often very unwilling to take risks, and consequently tend not to adapt and change within the classroom. Having the support of peers who are in relatively the same situation, facilitated by an experienced trainer, can help give space to teachers to express fears and overcome insecurities.

Besides having their own opinions on education, the teachers with whom I was working within the S.A.I.L. project also came to the training session with their own personal experiences, backgrounds and learning styles. They had their own understanding of what was being introduced to them and how it would be carried out in the classroom.

It is interesting that when I began the S.A.I.L project and the pilot I was possibly influenced by the mainstream approach to teacher training. I did not adopt an approach that valued the teachers’ experiences, neither did my own values reflect upon them when planning or carrying out the training. It was working with the teachers, meeting them in their schools, observing their lessons and understanding their ‘real’ needs that enabled my values to surface, affecting my practice. Additionally, my background as a linguist began to take on importance within the research. As the methodology developed, it became clear that there was a need to study in some detail the language the teachers were using in relation to their practice. As a result, I began to draw upon my own knowledge and the wider literature in this area, as outlined in Chapter 2.3.6.

Quoting Huberman (1973; p. 216), Hargreaves, A. (2001), talks about teachers tinkering in their classrooms and how this helps their development. I believe that the communication of this thinking, a discursive perspective (Edwards, 1997), as discussed in Chapter 2), the verbalisation of the cognitive perspective process (Chapter 2), and the sharing of it are what give the teacher a higher chance of implementation and growth.

The added advantage of the sharing of experiences is that it influences one’s peers and more ‘tinkering’ (referred to as experimentation in Chapter 2) gets done in the classrooms, giving rise to change and possibly less burnout for teachers. Through the use of video recordings of their own practice, teachers in this research were able to share with their peers a visual record of what they were ‘tinkering’ with: this acted as a stimulus for discussion in the enquiry group.

The research was focused on the exploration of the process of their talking about their ‘tinkering’. It was carried out whilst watching the development of practice which showed how teachers were influenced by their peers (Putnam and Borko, 2000) and recording their discussions whilst these changes were happening.