Algoritmo de Lerchs y Grossmann 3D (1965)

Johnston (2010) describes a situation in which negative feedback is symptomatic of a negative relationship between mentor and student, including if the student feels isolated from other sources of feedback. Using a sample of 16 student teachers, Johnston analysed such problems using both a socio-cultural and a professional framework. This helped to explain some negative experiences as the result, for example, of mentors being too busy or feeling pressured for time, but also as “the ultimate power move in preventing [students] from feeling valued” (Johnston, 2010, p. 316). Students who did not feel accepted either socially or professionally felt trapped and powerless, unable to take risks or ask for support. Johnston’s recommendation is that students be made aware of the importance of forming positive working relationships, while schools are encouraged to see mentoring as a whole-school support system rather than a dyadic relationship.

Johnston’s study was illuminating in how it described conditions in which negative relationships affected feedback and led to students adopting coping strategies such as mimicry. However, this did not engage with the experience of that negative feedback and what it actually meant for the students, for example in how it led to them feeling that they should not take risks in their teaching and how much of this was to do with feedback as opposed to assessment anxieties. Since students had spoken to me about feeling victimised or even bullied, it was therefore important to find a study which went further in exploring the experience of feedback in these fairly rare but nevertheless persistent situations.

65 of 283

adult to adult bullying in Maguire (2001) which looked exclusively at postgraduate secondary school student teachers and their experiences of bullying as personally defined: if a student felt bullied, then they were. Sewell et al. (2009) used a similar survey method with a broader sample, adding a comparison of primary and secondary students to help identify some risk factors for bullying and adding some interviews to explore the issues further.

The study had a potential sample of 386 and used pen-and-paper questionnaires at the end of a lecture to obtain a strong response rate of 71% for the secondary cohort and 75% for the primary cohort. This was a useful strategy for improving my own survey response rate. The study also noted the risk of surveying at the end of term since students would be very tired and less likely to engage meaningfully, which was a useful tip in planning my own research schedule to avoid this issue.

The risk factors for bullying are interesting reading which might help to explain some narratives (female students in primary schools who are either much younger or older than average or are from an ethnic minority background), but what is particularly relevant for this thesis is how bullying was reflected or enacted through feedback. The most commonly reported bullying behaviour was “negative or belittling comments” (Sewell et al., 2009, p. 9), including during feedback but also often in public. Undermining behaviour, such as negative comments during a lesson or within earshot of pupils, and breaking confidentiality with peers were the only bullying behaviours which did not have a clear link to feedback. Otherwise, bullying seemed to manifest mainly through feedback, including unfair or inconsistent judgements, unrealistic pressure, an intentional lack of support, or ignoring behaviours, all of which contributed to making students feel isolated from sources of help.

66 of 283

negative comments and one being told to display the criticisms on her wall until the next observation so that she would “constantly remind myself of where my weak points were”, while another student described being told “I don’t think they like you...you need to change your teaching style” and another was told “I don’t think you’ll cope in September” (Sewell et al., 2009, p. 11).

The study also raises the issue of needing to consider non-verbal communication when analysing feedback, particularly when it contradicts the verbal feedback. One obvious case was a student who only received text messages as her mentor refused to talk to her, while another described being given feedback by a mentor who refused to make eye contact and another student was only allowed to talk to her mentor during their allocated weekly slot. This would obviously limit opportunities for dialogue, a point explicitly made by one student who would not even see her tutor to receive her feedback: instead she would suddenly notice that a feedback sheet had been secretly placed in her handbag. In such situations, what is actually said in those feedback sessions is inconsequential compared with the message sent by the context.

This study was very influential in my analysis because I had struggled with the issue of students being blinkered in their conception of feedback, making them liable to blame others when they should have been more engaged with feedback. This study was therefore a valuable reminder that outrageous mentor behaviour does occur frequently enough that it would be unsurprising in my own data, encouraging me to be more confident in trusting students’ views. The study also emphasised the significant cumulative impact seemingly small events might create, particularly behaviours which contribute to a student feeling undermined or unwelcome. Any consideration of feedback must therefore also be sensitive

67 of 283 to the context within which feedback is given.