4.1.1 Revising our ‘communities’ of learning 78 4.2.0 Framework analysis 83 4.2.1 Identity 83 4.2.2 Knowledge 89 4.2.3 Language 94 4.2.4 Power 98 4.3.0 Relationships 106 4.4.0 What else? 115 4.5.0 Conclusion – and where next? 120 5 Data Analysis: Theoretical Concepts 122 5.1.0 Introduction: developing a of self 122 5.1.1 A sense of belonging? 123 5.2.0 From A to B via Z, Q and P! 125 5.2.1 Charlie (learner participant) 126 5.2.2 Alex (learner participant) 130 5.2.3 Sam and Gerry (teacher participants) 136 5.2.4 Chris, Morgan and Dom (observed participants) 145 5.3.0 Pat (manager participant) 152 5.4.0 Conclusion 158 6 Companions Along the Way 160 6.1.0 Introduction: remembering we started 160 6.1.1 The organisation 163 6.2.0 Why do we ask our learners to tell us what they think? For whose benefit and to what purpose? 165 6.2.1 How do learners’ self-perceptions influence their involvement with learner voice initiatives (perceived ‘trajectories’, sense of self and cultural placement)? 170 6.2.2 What are the issues around language, locus of power, tensions and conflict? 175 6.3.0 What are the implications for practice? 180 6.3.1 The micro and the meso – development of a knowledge partnership 181 6.3.2 The exo and the macro – the organisation and beyond! 185 6.4.0 Limitations and further research 189 6.5.0 Conclusions 191 6.5.1 A researcher’s journey 194 References 196 Appendices Appendix One: Literature Review I Appendix Two: Identities of participants and organisation, including ‘naming’ protocol to ensure anonymity XXXIV Appendix Three: Observation pro-forma XXXV Appendix Four: Interview schedule XLI
Chapter One: Introduction Watch out for the grasshoppers! Those amongst us, of a certain ‘vintage’ age, may remember the 1970s ‘Kung Fu’ film, featuring the Master Shaolin monk and his apprentice, Caine. In a classic scene, after having defeated the boy in combat, there follows an exchange during which Master Po asks his young charge to close his eyes, to listen and to tell him what he hears. Somewhat puzzled, the young Caine lists the obvious things – the water and the birds. Master Po asks “Do you hear the grasshopper that is at your feet?” and in response the boy opens his eyes, looks down and sees the insect: “Old man, how is it that you hear these things?” To which Master Po replies: “Young man, how is it that you do not?” So, what has a grasshopper and a 1970s martial arts cult series got to do with learner voice and the development of the expert learner? Set in a Shaolin temple, where apprentices study in the shadows of their masters – listening, learning, practising, assimilating and eventually accommodating skills and knowledge into their own practice – our attention is drawn not only to the need to develop ‘mastery’ of a subject, but also to develop the ability to listen. The ‘grasshopper’ simply represents how easy it is to miss something which is frequently present, but all too easy to overlook – perhaps because of its ubiquitous nature: from my perspective, this is the learner voice. This chapter forms the first steps along this road to ‘enlightenment’ by reconsidering where the interest in this subject first started: with the Literature Review (Appendix One) and those initial research questions around Learner
Terms/Dates Activity Purpose Method/Methodology Term 3 May/June 2011 Initial meetings with teaching being observed. Discussion of research project, their involvement and obtain informed consent. Ensuring are comfortable with process and have provided informed consent. Explained focus of research, reassured feedback would not be an aspect of this experience. Focus is on the learning and how this would be used to develop reflective skills of the participant learners and teachers. Meso-systems level. 15 minute discussions – not recorded. May 2011 Interview with the Pair 1 teacher ‘observee’. Discussion in further depth about involvement in the process. Establish viewpoint from the teacher being observed: concerns, expectations, in terms of meso-systems level impact. 20 minute interview recorded (DVR), fully transcribed for coding and analysis. June 2011 Pair 1 and Pair 2 each completed an informal observation. Follow-up discussion after observation to review own viewpoints . Used pro-forma provided (Appendix Three) to record individual observation comments. Framework for follow-up discussions. Researcher sat in on lessons to observe pair – no direct input, field notes. Each pair: 1 hour classroom observation, completing own notes on pro-forma. Immediately observation, 30 minutes follow-up discussion recorded (DVR). Set up by researcher, but researcher not present during discussion. Fully transcribed to inform follow-up interviews, and subsequent coding and analysis. Themes emerging related to: learning observed, discussion, language used, concurrence or divergence of ideas. Evidence of interactions and relationships –communities of practice or ecological learning systems. and meso-systems levels.) Initial coding themes identified and set up in ‘continuum’ (Table 4.1, 4.1.1: 82). Participants offered option to also email further thoughts to me at any subsequent point. July 2011 Follow-up interviews with participant teachers who had ‘paired’ a learner. Impact on those involved, what were their perceptions in terms of their own practice and that of others – and for the organisation. Informal dissemination of some interim findings to participants. Action research and phenomenological approach, micro- , meso- and exo-systems level perceptions. 30 – 45 minutes each interview recorded (DVR). Fully transcribed after for subsequent coding and analysis, or to provide additional ‘quotes’ in support of data findings. Themes emerging, discussion, language used, any evidence relating to communities of practice or ecological learning systems. Impact on own practice and outcomes at an individual level.
Term/Dates Activity Purpose Method/Methodology Term 3 July 2011 Follow-up interview with the staff ‘observee’ from the pair 2 observation Viewpoint from a member of staff having been observed 20 minute interview recorded (DVR) and transcribed for coding and analysis. (Meso-systems level.) Term 1 (2011-2012 year) October 2011 Further follow-up discussion with ‘observee’ from Pair 1 observation This individual had sought feedback from teacher participant after the observation Opportunity to gain viewpoint on ‘feedback’ element of the process and level). 20 minute interview recorded (DVR) and fully transcribed for coding and analysis. September – December 2011 Follow-up discussions with learners. Their interpretation of learner voice, expert learners – what they had gained from the experience, used in their own practice (micro- and meso-systems level). To provide some interim dissemination to the participants. Summer break delayed interviews. Learner participants invited to provide additional thoughts via email if they wished to in the interim. 20 - 30 minutes each interview recorded (DVR) and transcribed. One face-to-face, one by phone. Coded and analysed against continuum. January 2012 1 x Individual interview with Curriculum Manager Informed consent obtained. Management perspective on the project, how it has been enacted or not within the area. Provide some dissemination of interim findings. Use of interim findings to inform discussion with manager. Involvement of staff in the process, impact on the area and learners. (Meso- and exo-systems level.) 30 minutes interview recorded (DVR) and transcribed. Coded and analysed. systems
extent, the reflection of how others view us: the “looking glass self” (Cooley, 1902). It is, in effect, the: “product of our constructive efforts […which] refers to the cognitive aspects of the self-system and expresses subjective knowledge people have of themselves as psychological and physical beings. It is the answer to the question ‘Who am I’?” (Schaffer, 2000: 159) This self-concept, however, does not remain static, rather it changes dependent upon the introspection with we all indulge: “the ‘I’ watching the ‘me’.” (Schaffer, 2000: 159) Perceived ‘successes’ and ‘failures’ can impact on this self-concept, of how we view ourselves in the ‘looking glass’, of how great, or small, is the imagined gap between the ‘ideal’ and the ‘perceived real self’ (Schaffer, 2000). So, what else might impact on this perceived competence? What other questions might an individual ask of themselves in relation to their abilities and capabilities? What – or who – influences this ‘construct’ of the ideal or perceived real self? Self-concept can be regarded as that part of an individual’s self-schema comprises of “affective perceptions as well as competency perceptions” (Hughes et al. 2011: 278) and it is accompanied by value judgements about the self and one’s own ‘self-worth’. In contrast, self-efficacy perceptions ask questions based on “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997a: 3) – it will ask the ‘Can I do…?’ questions, whereas self-concept perceptions ask the ‘Am I good at…?’ questions. For these learner participants, self-efficacy judgements may thus typically be tied to a specific domain or situation based on ‘mastery’ experiences (Bandura, 1997a). In contrast, self-concept judgements are “more general and less context dependent, and more likely to
This was actually a point taken up by Chris (one of the staff who was observed) during a discussion prior to the observations taking place. “I personally feel that it’s a very important process, erm, that learners have this opportunity, as, observations are something that we actively engage in, and it is about learning about ourselves, and thinking about how we move forward within our teaching practice…[… ] help us move forward and think about where we need to develop ourselves, how we can improve, how we can share best practice. How we can hold professional discussions and think about the learner.” (Chris, Int4) There was agreement about the need for, and the value of, these learning opportunities – both for the learner and the teacher – although such exchanges were discussed in relation to a process which was regarded as ‘peer’ observation as the learners involved in this research are trainee teachers. As such, they could be regarded as already having a degree of legitimate peripheral participation (communities of practice). Yet, Chris’ reflections also indicated that this was about ‘discussion’ – albeit ‘professional discussion’ – and so there are leanings towards an ecological learning perspective. So, does ‘knowledge’ have to be situated in one framework or the other, or can there be different locations dependent upon context? During the post-observation discussion between Alex and Gerry, there was an extended exchange of more than ten minutes during which the teaching partner, Gerry, picked up on one of Alex’s comments about learning being ‘problematized’. Alex felt that there was a need to provide learners with the “systems, the processes, the formulae, to problematize learning [whilst at the same time giving them] confidence and structure so that they can sail,
has that focus come? Gerry does recognise that if that focus comes from him/her, then “it’s a power thing…about what I would like our course to develop in” – and this would be a similar position for Sam, Charlie and Alex: “this is all going to be based on what your own experiences are” (Gerry, Int2). Sam puts a different perspective forward, telling us that “unless otherwise directed….I’ll actually say ‘what do you want me to look at in particular and use that as a focus.” (Sam, Int2). In this way, Sam places the emphasis and choice in the hands of the observee. Although these two extracts demonstrate individualised reification within the discourse, the orientation of this actually comes from different sources: with Gerry, this is from the observer and with Sam, this comes from the observee. We have begun to unpick some of the threads woven within the continuum of practice, with some of the coded themes coming through strongly in the dialogue: knowledge, identity, language, relationships and power. To a lesser extent, there has also been evidence of the ‘other’ themes: getting started/progress, information exchange and reification. So, where do we go from here? 4.5.0 Conclusion – and where next? This chapter has focused on the relationships between the participants (at ‘‘micro’ and ‘meso’ level), and also between the participants and the environment (‘meso’ level). The research has discussed the interactions, the anticipations and expectations, and the reflections which have arisen. If we return to the story of our young Shaolin monk (who has been absent for some
might this in some way explain why she/he made such strenuous efforts to be ‘accepted’ – to be ‘acknowledged’ – as belonging? We have already seen in Chapter Four (4.2.4:102) how Alex has referred to himself/herself as someone who has “graduated from the course”, albeit only just. The research provided opportunities for Alex to “engage with the tutors, to some minor extent, in, in a way that will model again an engagement with the tutors that could be, could slightly open up the silence” (Int3). There was evidence here of Alex’s perceptions of how he/she could be the ‘bridge’ between these two ‘communities’ – learners and teaching staff, which echoes a community of practice approach. It is not clear, however, why Alex feels that there is a ‘silence’ which needs to be ‘opened up’ – perhaps there is something here which links to earlier expressions of dissatisfaction with the course (p.101). Is it that Alex to be perceived in this role, both by self and others, and has constructed this ‘identity’ accordingly? Alex appears to be demonstrating how his/her knowledge and actions validate a claim to legitimate participation within the community of teaching professionals. Alex also identified himself/herself as the ‘expert’ amongst fellow-learners on the DTLLS course, with reference to being experienced on the same course, but “at a higher level of the same thing” (Int3). Yet, does this indicate that these identities are ‘strong’, or simply that Alex is behaving and enacting behaviours which would, in some way, reduce the ‘imagined gap’ between the ‘ideal’ and the ‘perceived real self’ (Schaffer, 2000: 164)? If Alex’s participation as a volunteer was motivated by a “need to carry out the activities of the group” (Mayes, 2992: 169), then this would become more of a social identity with
didactic teaching role” and maybe this is indicative of the inherent potential of a “teacher-student position”: the ‘master-apprentice’ relationship of a community of practice. What was different about this observation was that the observed participant, Chris, independently asked for feedback from Sam: this had not been a requirement of the research project and we shall look at this from Chris’ point of view in section 5.2.4. Sam’s reaction to this (Interview Nine) was that the: “…initial ‘objective’ discussion with my fellow observer allowed me to come into the discussion [with Chris] with a clear idea of the key development points. I felt that this enabled me to facilitate the discussion towards stronger critical viewpoints than I have done during previous peer observations… […] … The previous discussion had allowed me to get all of the minor points ‘off my chest’ as well as the ability to check, clarify and confirm issues [with Charlie]”. The final follow-up interview with Sam took place a few weeks after the observation and essentially recapped on what she/he had already put into the email. Once again Sam stressed that what had been of real interest was the “collaboration between teacher and trainee in the observation process” (Sam, Int9) and that there was a “conscious decision to try and sit back” (Sam, Int9) and allow Charlie the opportunity to put forward his/her own ideas. Although these were described as being ‘pretty similar’ by Sam, there was a note of caution that the “student – or trainee – will feel obliged to agree” (Sam, Int9). In the post-observation interview Charlie actually put forward a confident argument; however, it is a valid note of caution for any future practice (6.3.1). Had Charlie wanted to demonstrate both a personal and social identity which would validate membership in the community of practice then he/she might
indeed have shaped his/her behaviour in order to do so (Oyserman et al. 2011). was also further reflection by Sam on the observed participant’s request for feedback as soon as the observation had been completed – which Sam declined to do as she/he wanted to “have a bit of a pause for reflection” (Sam, Int9). Again Sam made reference to the benefits of “having had somebody to bounce your ideas off first, before giving that feedback” (Sam, Int9). This had confirmed the initial thoughts during the observation and resulted in a greater clarity, with salient points emerging from the post-observation discussion which then informed a far richer ‘feedback’ discussion with the observed participant, Chris. Transferring this into the DTLLS course delivery was something which was felt to require further consideration, and there would certainly be potential logistical issues purely in terms of the practicalities involved in arranged cross-organisational observations. However, Sam did consider that this might help when discussions around ‘transferability’ arise and individuals protest: “… oh, it wouldn’t work with my learners – oh, mine would never do that – and actually, going into different environments, erm, could help that” (Sam, Int9). This approach could construct ‘possibilities’ for individuals to consider how they might be able to apply something they had ‘observed’ in a different context, and this potential for transferability in relation to the research (referred to in Chapter Two, section 2.4.0) is returned to in the final chapter. When looking at my final conversation with Gerry (Interview Eight), there was again reflection around the purpose of the observation. Gerry felt that both the observation, and the post-observation discussion, should be around “my
Pat’s views on inviting learners into a taught session to ‘observe’ and provide feedback? After consideration, Pat accepted that this was a potentially useful “perspective to add to a body of evidence”, as an ‘additional’ means of providing feedback in order to improve teaching and learning. However, the overall judgement a learner might provide, was felt to be of less value than other feedback mechanisms and even “potentially misleading” (email from Pat). There were concerns that a personal viewpoint might influence the feedback or comments from a learner; that if there was antagonism towards one of the teaching staff, this could affect that learner’s judgement (Cockburn, 2005): “… being able to de-personalise it, and make a judgement about teaching and learning, erm, when they are in the thick of it, erm I think is, is you know quite difficult to do.” (Pat, Int11) In addition to issues around ‘power’ where there is an existing relationship, the Literature Review also considered just how ‘sincere’ and ‘open’ dialogue could possibly be within such a context (Dinkelman, 1997). Pat was mindful of the impact this could have on members of teaching staff, particularly in an existing organisational climate of redundancies and restructuring: “..you could potentially be undermining teachers, erm, in that and I think there are sufficient, erm, ways in which teachers are feeling undermined [laughs] in their professional competence [laughs] that we don’t really want to add any more..” (Pat, Int11) However, this was viewed as something worth developing, but perhaps in a different format so that learners could still engage with ‘observation’ but without the direct link to an individual member of teaching staff. Pat
suggested that there might be potential for the observation to become an ‘activity’ within a class with learners: “….jointly looking at a recorded session, so as a of learners, okay you know, this tutor has tried this activity out with these learners, you know, we wanted some feedback how you think this is working for these learners, what is it that you see…[…]… you know. .. […] …15 – 20 minutes of an activity.” (Pat, Int11) Pat had strong feelings about this and the need for the onus to be on the “teacher to be gathering that information, because it’s information actually that’s important for them and their teaching…” (Pat, Int11 – Pat’s emphasis on comments). There is a consensus between Pat’s and Gerry’s views (5.2.3: 143 - 145) on this issue: the process is for the development of the teacher. However, this research wanted to position this ‘development’ not only with the member of teaching staff, but also with the learner. When looking at the data from the interviews, and considering the context within which this research might have potential to develop, we need to remember that these learner participants are also teachers. As such, they may – by the very nature of their learning ‘histories’ and experiences – be pre-determined to engage with opportunities to observe teaching and learning: their perceived trajectories may thus be different by default of this background. When ‘DTLLS’ learners become involved in such activities, rather than the broader context of the actual ‘learning’ experienced by the student: “…. they will probably be thinking far more about teaching techniques and learning techniques and passing comments about that…” (Pat, Int11)
Table 1 – research undertaken for learner voice initiatives Authors and institutional context Focus Methodologies/research approach Key research questions Forrest et al. (2007) FE College, Yorkshire and Humber region Distribution of leadership Personalisation Impact on policy Quality improvement Learner empowerment Qualitative – literature review re policies; audit of current practices in case study college 6 action research projects; links to development of a regional learner panel (NIACE) Steering group 2 learner surveys – across contexts and curriculum areas Student forum Learners involved in self-assessment process Most effective strategies to capture learner voice Implications for quality improvement strategies Leadership implications Shuttle (2007) FE Colleges and Adult Learning organisations Ownership of learning Communities of learning Qualitative – survey of 180 organisations (29 respondents) 2 detailed case studies Learner engagement and its impact on institutional decision-making Joint lesson observations (learners ‘trained’) Phenomenological How effective are various kinds of student representation? How do institutions act on learner views – is learner voice taken seriously? What mechanisms are in place to enable learners to develop an informed view of the educational work of an institution? McGregor (2006) Networked Learning Communities Programme – secondary schools Conceptualising leadership Students as active agents in improving learning Development of partnership relationships between adults and young people Empowerment Communities of practice 135 networks across 90 Local Authorities: 1533 schools, networks ranging from 6 – 44 schools Review of research, but a useful text Investigating ways to engage multiple voices in schools Different modes of engagement between adults and young people – learners as contributors to data, rather than passive sources Powney and Hall (1998) study of 2 HE institutions in Scotland Autonomous ‘expert’ learners Metacognition Collaboration Documentary analysis of feedback and procedures Interviews with staff/students Questionnaire Tracking of feedback Seminars/workshops Interviews with other interested parties How do learners know what is done with feedback? Problems with attributing impact to learner involvement
Authors and institutional context Focus Methodologies/research approach Key research questions Cockburn (2005) FE colleges Action research Peer observations amongst Learners involved in teaching observations Observation as a developmental not quality assurance process Self-esteem of Interviews with range of professionals involved in classroom observation practice Documentary analysis of observation feedback forms Review of college policies and literature Focus groups of observers and those observed Action research projects Impact on those observed and the observer Impact on the teacher and the students in the lesson Credibility of observer and ‘power’ of that individual Impact on professional identity Impact on quality assurance processes and policy initiatives Walker and Logan (2008) Across all education sectors in UK – majority in schools at both primary and secondary levels Personalised learning Communities of learning Empowerment Self-esteem and confidence Distributed leadership Collaboration Case studies - discussion Summary of evidence from research, policy and practice Review of various learner involvement initiatives Learners as researchers and Hearing the ‘voice’ of all learners Power, conflict and tensions Impact of learner involvement strategies Mitra (2008) Senior schools (USA) Communities of practice Identity Self-esteem Distributed leadership Language and Action research 13 schools already firmly embedded in learner initiatives: grants provided Data collection via semi-structured telephone interviews (minimum of 2 and maximum of 5 individuals per participant group) Empowerment of learners through action research Development of partnership relationships Gunter and Thomson (2006; 2007) Secondary schools Personalised learning Students as researchers Communities of learning Learner voice Active participation 2 different projects – second builds on findings of the first First : 8 students selected by the school Second: 10 students selected by the school Interviews with learners, staff, governors Observation of meetings and lessons (by research authors) Questionnaires – to parents and governors Project 1: Establishing a culture of achievement and improvement Reviewing student experience of the curriculum Personalised learning Project 2: Students as ‘objects of adult plans Learning through activism
Experienced teacher in vocational and academic areas Gerry after observation. Follow-up discussion and further comments by email. Teaching Staff Observed Observed participant Very experienced teacher in academic area Chris Observed by Sam and Charlie Interview with researcher before and after observation process. Observed participant Very experienced teacher in academic area Morgan Observed by Gerry and Alex Interview with researcher after observation process. Joint-delivered teaching session with Dom. Observed participant Very experienced teacher in academic area Dom Observed by Gerry and Alex Participant happy to be involved in the process, but no interview conducted. Joint-delivered teaching session with Morgan. Management participant Curriculum area manager – Initial Teacher Training Pat Interview with researcher after completion of research process. Appendix Three Paired Informal Observation (Learner) Learner Participant’s Name Signature Room Date Time Teacher(s) Comments What opportunities for learning do you feel happened in the session? What made you think this?