Stimulated recall dialogue is a technique used to investigate unobservable mental processes such as, in this case, the perceptions and thoughts of the teachers of what was going on in the observed lessons (Dörnyei, 2007). In this study VSRD was used to surface EL teachers’ personal knowledge and theories of the curriculum and interactive learner-centred teaching, to highlight the assumptions teachers make in their thinking about EL teaching and to reflect upon and articulate aspects of their teaching practice so that teachers’ view of effective EL pedagogy can be extrapolated and teachers’ understanding of the SCPS can be drawn.
During the process, teachers are asked to vocalize what was going through in their minds when performing a task after the task has been completed. As Gass and Mackey (2000, p. 17) put it,
Stimulated recall methodology is one of the introspective methods which can be used to prompt participants to recall thoughts they had while performing a task or participating in an event because it is assumed that some tangible (perhaps visual or aural) reminder of an event will stimulate recall of the mental processes in operation during the event itself.
It has been shown that asking teachers to reflect on video recorded lessons provides opportunities for self-reflection and self-monitoring. The very act of reflecting on teacher’s actions and interactions during lessons from videotaped extracts can be “a powerful means of digging deeper into teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, views, beliefs and understanding of a range of pedagogical practices, including various types and forms of interactions” (Moyles et al., 2003, p. 4). Powell (2005) suggests, “video
knowledge about their pedagogy” (p. 407). Similarly, Walsh (2003) suggests that closer understanding of language use and interactive decision-making in the L2 classroom can be achieved by reflecting on audio- and video-recordings of one’s own lessons. Moreover, to infer why teachers act the way they do in a lesson simply by observing them may well not be accurate. As Breen et al. (2001) note, “we cannot infer the intentions of teacher action or the reason why teachers work in the ways they do in particular lessons with particular students from observed practices…we need to reflect with them upon actual instances of practices in order to deduce language pedagogies on the basis of teacher’s accounts of how they work” (p. 498).
Apart from that, stimulated recall dialogue is also effective as professional development (Moyles, Adams & Musgorve, 2002). Feedback from classroom profiles derived from observations provides teachers with valid and accurate information that could be used to facilitate their professional growth. Waxman (2003) says feedback from classroom observations is a viable and effective mechanism for providing teachers with the information they need about their classroom behaviour and if discussed in clinical sessions helps teachers understand their own strengths and weaknesses and consequently enables them to significantly improve their instruction. It is a purposeful process that teachers can use to critically analyse what happened, why it happened, what they could have done to be more effective and what they would change to improve their teaching performance in order to improve their teaching (Galvez-Martin, 2003). In their study of Chinese ELT teachers, Wang and Seth (1998) found that stimulated recall:
helped the teachers to understand that they had a responsibility for their own development;
helped the teachers have better understanding of their own classroom experiences;
introduced teachers to a more developmental approach to teacher training;
helped the teachers build a more supportive and trusting relationship with their colleagues, and to realize the mutual benefits that would accrue from this.
(p. 206)
The video stimulated recall dialogue (VSRD) in the present study involves all eight teachers. Following the lesson observations, teachers were invited to view an extract
from the recordings of their lessons and comment on a ‘critical moment’ chosen by the researcher to explore their pedagogical decision-making processes during the course of their whole class, group-based and one-to-one interactions with pupils. The ‘ciritical moment’ were segments which involved teacher-student(s) or teacher-whole class interaction as the third research question of the study focuses on how the curriculum was implemented with reference to classroom activities and teacher-students(s) interaction patterns. Controlled VSRD where the researcher chose the ‘critical moment’ of the video recorded lesson was employed to avoid irrelevant choice of teaching episodes because “in selecting one discrete pedagogical episode as from the video in VSRDs, teachers very frequently chose an area in which they felt most confident and knowledgeable” (Moyles et al., 2002, p. 471) rather than those required in the study.
The VSRD sessions were conducted on two consecutive days as the teachers needed time to view the video footage before the actual VSRD session. The videoing therefore took place on Day 1 and the VSRD session on Day 2. The video of the teachers in action was used as a shared source of information and a springboard for discussion where teachers were asked to reflect on their teaching practices and on the interactive decisions they made in the class. To accompany this, teachers were given a list of reflective questions as potential prompts to thinking (Appendix H4) to provide supported challenge in considering aspects of the video content for discussion and to stimulate professional reflection on practice. The prompts used to probe the teachers are explained in detail in 5.9.3.
During the VSRD, an issue transpired. Teachers were anxious and concerned about being videoed and having their competence and knowledge challenged during the VSRD session and having to talk openly about their own practice, uncover their thinking around their underlying beliefs and feelings about practice and reflecting upon their strengths and weaknesses. However, the reassurance that they would not be criticised, assessed or compared with other teachers, and, most importantly, that their contribution would be valued by the researcher as a partnership, contributed significantly to the success of the process. Ethical assurances of confidentiality and, anonymity also applied and were reiterated during the session. Besides, having the teachers to become accustomed to the presence of the researcher (who was also the video camera operator) and having the camera in the class helps to foster good rapport between the researchers and teachers and lessens their anxiety (Nguyen, McFadden,
Tangen & Beutel, 2013).
Teachers also had difficulties in surfacing and articulating pedagogical values and beliefs. They were not able to identify and articulate effective and interactive aspects of their work. According to Jensen, Foster and Eddy (1997), teachers need opportunities and time to recount the anecdotes and stories of the daily activities in which they are engaged in order for them to locate their voices. However, the process of stimulated recall aided by the use of video-recording enable the teachers to engage in a dialogue with the researcher, promoted deeper thinking and conceptualization of the area of study i.e teachers’ perceptions and understanding of the curriculum.
The data from stimulated recall may prompt the teachers to recall thoughts they had while conducting the EL lessons observed and analysed in the discourse analysis. The results of the stimulated recall analysis will complement and be used to cross validate the data from the discourse analysis.
5.8.3.1 Video Stimulated Reflective Dialogue (VSRD) protocol
This section describes Video Stimulated Reflective Dialogue (VSRD) protocol with the teachers, which was adapted from Moyles et al. (2003). The protocol was divided into five sections (see Appendix H4):
A. intentions B. self-awareness C. practical reflection D. technical reflection E. critical reflection
The first section, which related to intentions, explored teachers’ intentions and goals of practising a particular teaching strategy in the classroom (e.g., “What were your intentions/aims/purposes in using this strategy?”). The second section, which was on self-awareness, tried to explore the teachers’ feeling at the moment of teaching (e.g., “What were you thinking/feeling at this moment?”). The third section which was on practical reflection aimed to explain and clarify the assumptions and predispositions underlying teachers’ practices (e.g., “What assumptions are you making about language
teaching and learning?”). The fourth section, which was on technical reflection, involved identifying the educational basis for intentions and providing reasons for actions (e.g., “Why did you choose this strategy?”). The final section, which was on critical reflection, aimed to question and critique the goals and practices of the teaching strategies (e.g., “How does this section fulfil the objective of an active learning and interactive learner-centred teaching?”).