Hemsley-Brown (2004) identified problematics of “the accessibility and relevance of research, trust and credibility; the gap between researchers and users, and organisation factors” (p. 534) as issues affecting broader fields of management. This concern with research accessibility and relevance is seen as a key issue within the field of education. Ercikan and Roth (2006) went as far as to argue that the polarisation of educational research into such binaries as qualitative and quantitative can not only deter and discourage educators’ access of the produced knowledge, but by extension can also undermine its usefulness and relevance for those who would make best use of it. They argued that the very complexity of teaching is not reflected in such restrictive approaches. Whitty (2006) expressed concern that researchers who direct their work towards the specific aim of policy utility are not necessarily producing the best-directed research because not all policy can be research-based. Whitty’s view that research aimed at practitioners has merit is relevant to this research.
Educational research is framed by implicit and explicit decisions regarding knowledge, such as whose or which knowledges are most valuable (Kelly, Luke & Green, 2008; Kincheloe, 2003), an issue especially evident in debates over curriculum and standardised testing (Apple, 1993, 1996; Au, 2007; Ohanian, 1999). Similarly framed are those studies that problematise what and whose evidence is valid and important in education research (Clegg, 2005; Gorard & Fitz, 2006; Shaker & Ruitenberg, 2007; Slavin, 2004, 2008), and indeed even what is ethical in education research (Hostetler, 2005).
This section reflects the view that classroom-based research is necessary to contribute deeper understanding about classroom learning and working environments, in which teachers and students utilise roles and behaviours in order to interact, identify and engage. A substantial body of literature regarding education, teaching and classrooms extols the importance of evidence-based policy and practice that can utilise the experiences of teachers and students in order to improve schooling (Ball & Forzani, 2007; Weimer, 2006). Further studies identify that, as a gulf exists between education researchers’ and classroom teachers’ understandings of teaching (Bulterman-Bos, 2008; Wiliam, 2008), research should be a collaboration between these two groups with a valuing of direct teachers involvement in the generation of relevant and classroom-situated knowledge (Berliner, 2001, 2002; Kincheloe, 2003; Lagemann, 2000; O’Mara & Gutierrez, 2010; Wardekker, 2000). Research has also noted the growing calls for student involvement in education research particularly into assessment trends and practices that affect students’ perceptions and attitudes regarding schooling
(Blum, 2000; Brookhart & Bronowicz, 2003; Duffield, Allan, Turner, & Morris, 2000; Hargreaves, 2004; Whitty & Wisby, 2007; Zion, 2009). The classroom site is a necessary consideration regarding educational inequity, particularly given a focus on assessments that provide snapshot summaries of results rather than detailed explanations of causes of such inequity (Alloway & Gilbert, 1998).
2.2.1.1 Classroom behaviour as performance.
This research draws on theorisation of classroom behaviour incorporating Goffman’s (1990) concept of the everyday social actor’s presentation or personification of context-specific roles. In this theorisation, teaching can be considered a form of performance, which Sawyer (2004) similarly termed “creative” or “improvisational” performance (p. 12), through which classroom actors enact various roles and present themselves in chosen or expected ways. Within this simplified understanding of classroom behaviour as performance, all of the classroom actors are both performers and audience, and engage in expected behaviours to fulfil expectations of their accepted or allocated classroom role, such as ‘teacher’ or ‘student’.
Atkinson (2004) claimed that fields of educational study have become normalised, and that as a result, creative approaches of demystification are required. This is why the idea of presentation or performance (Goffman, 1990; Sawyer, 2004) has resonance in contemporary classroom-based research and why this perspective informs discussion of the classroom site in this section. Considering the roles played by classroom actors (in this case, teachers and
students, as well as principals where relevant) throughout the ‘performance’ can enable a more sympathetic and nuanced questioning of what happens in the classroom and school sites. Here, more recent research (Morine-Dershimer, 2006) supports claims made in older classroom research (Delamont, 1976; Furlong, 1976; Walker & Adelman, 1976).
2.2.1.2 Teacher-student interaction.
The classroom site, expectations and interactions of classroom actors (here referring to teachers and students) demonstrate the changing nature of the Australian educational, learning context. Classroom teachers “work with more diverse communities in times characterised by volatility, uncertainty and moral ambiguity. Societal, political, economic and cultural shifts have transformed the contexts in which teachers work and have redefined the ways in which teachers interact with students” (Beutel, 2010, p. 77).
A wide range of research directed at improving education outcomes has been conducted in the field of classroom interactions and changes over time have been noted. There has been a strong focus on teacher-student interaction and topics within this field have varied considerably. For example, research has found collaborative classroom talk and interaction enable teachers to improve their teaching, the students’ classroom environment and learning outcomes (Parker, 2006; Sawyer, 2004; Thwaite & Rivalland, 2009). Classroom research has further indicated that encouragement and guiding, rather than discipline perceived by student as unfair and punitive (Emmer & Gerwels, 2006; Kulinna, 2007/2008; R. Lewis, 2006), have the most
constructive outcomes in terms of students’ subject-specific motivation, engagement and behavioural self-correction (Beutel, 2010; Den Brok, Levy, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2005; Hoy & Weinstein, 2006; Pianta, 2006; Walker & Adelman, 1976).
Such a classroom management approach, too, ultimately affects the overall classroom climate (Rishel, 2005; Rishel & Miller, 2005; Van Petegem, Creemers, Rossel, & Aelterman, 2005), and can contribute to a positive, student-centred learning environment in which “teachers are more likely to meet students’ individual needs and abilities” (Walker & Hoover-Dempsey, 2006, p. 665), although researchers such as Garrett (2008) have questioned how realistic and academically beneficial such student-centred approaches in fact are. Nonetheless, the impact of teachers upon students is recognised, leading Beutel (2010) in particular to argue that teachers have more of an effect on “student achievement than other factors, such as school influences” (p. 78).
An examination of classroom interactions must be conducted with an appreciation that all classroom environments, as specific cultural and social organisations, are different, and that within such environments students and teachers may reach varying interpretations or responses to, for instance,
situations or interplays, and develop their own context-specific behavioural and identity norms (Eisenhart & Borko, 1993; Furlong, 1976; Walker & Adelman, 1976). Walker and Adelman’s findings of the significance in classrooms of teachers’ contextual appreciation and use of humour, which call on a shared history of meaning-making, experience and social identities and provide a means by which they and their students can navigate a complex, fluid social
situation, are reflected and upheld in more recent research (Berk, 2002; Torok, McMorris, & Lin, 2004; Ullucci, 2009).
Classroom-based research shows that the classroom site in which teachers and students engage is the site at which numerous aspects intersect and interplay, such as temporal context, actors’ status and identity, and the physical, institutional and educational setting, and that at this site classroom actors’ roles are often unequal in power relations, highly context-specific and prone to transition (Delamont, 1976; White-Smith & White, 2009; Wilson, Croxson, & Atkinson, 2006). In such a classroom context, Delamont identified the teacher as holding power and autonomy, both within and over the learning site, notably over decisions regarding access and definitions of knowledge; potential infringements to this autonomy serve as teachers’ source of vulnerability.
2.2.1.3 The classroom environment.
Management of the classroom learning environment necessitates teacher attention to “establish[ing] and sustain[ing] an orderly environment so students can engage in meaningful academic learning [and] to enhanc[ing] students’ social and moral growth” (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006, p. 4). Necessary in achieving these dual goals, according to numerous studies, is positive, constructive teacher-student relationships (for instance, Cotton, 1995; R. Lewis, 2006; Park, 2008; Sawyer, 2004; Walker & Hoover-Dempsey, 2006; Wentzel, 2006).
In Delamont’s (1976) seminal research into the classroom environment, teachers were found to hold classroom autonomy and power over students, but more recent research by Park (2008) indicated that dichotomies, “distinctive roles of the teacher and the students as the regulator and the regulated, respectively” (p. 12), are not always accurate representations of classroom roles. Park found that more often than not, classroom actors can be seen to have “cooperated, negotiated, and worked in tandem with each other for the pedagogic goal” (p. 12), rather than performed according to accepted simplistic roles relating to being empowered or disempowered.
Park’s (2008) findings were echoed by Hoy and Weinstein (2006) and Pianta (2006), who identified that teachers’ and students’ opinions of effective classroom management often differ. For instance, while students demonstrate increased motivation in a positive and non-punitive learning environment and management approach, teachers might feel pressured to prioritise academic results and task completion (Hoy & Weinstein; Pianta). For less-motivated students in the middle years of their education, Pianta’s research indicated that teacher-student relationships assume greater importance, and “can actually exacerbate risk if they are either not positive or do not match with the developmental needs of the child” (p. 699).
Reeve (2006) suggested that another key factor to be considered regarding students’ needs in the classroom learning environment is teacher acknowledgement of student experiences and opinions on tasks and
expectations. A number of studies (Emmer & Gerwels, 2006; Nucci, 2006; Reimer, 2005; Wentzel, 2006) concluded that in consideration of student
needs, teachers need to demonstrate appropriate and expected behaviour. This is particularly because students do not necessarily come to school already knowledgeable about behavioural and academic expectations. Greene (2008) addressed the issue of expectations on teachers to develop knowledge about influences upon students at schools and ways to deal with them. Greene argued that students whose behavioural or academic performance falls short of expected standards are probably trying, but might have specialised needs. Addressing these students’ needs requires an appreciation of possible reasons for their behaviour or academic outcomes. Large-scale test measures are not necessary to develop this awareness.
Considerable research has considered underlying causes of student behaviour that merit teachers’ resorting to management and discipline strategies. Teachers (especially in secondary schools) are reluctant to accept responsibility for students’ classroom misbehaviour, according to the research, attributing fault to students and other non-school factors (Ho, 2004; Kulinna, 2007/2008; Miller, 2006). Such perceptions “have significant implications for teachers’ perceptions of their own responsibility for students’ performance as well as their subsequent behavior towards the students” (Ho, p. 376).
These research findings provide plausible explanations for why classroom site behaviour and management is seen as a source of tension for teachers. Teachers have been described as juggling competing attitudes regarding what they do (and what they should do) and being increasingly held publicly accountable and answerable (Beck & Young, 2005; Blanchard, 2003; Lingard, 2010). Friedman (2006) directly attributed high teacher burnout to
such educational trends as accountability and high-stakes testing, and further argued that students can recognise and be affected by teacher burnout.
2.2.2 Educational change at the school site.