Interpretación y Resultados

The debriefing that takes place after an appraisal observation would seem to be a fundamental part of the process (Edge, 1993), despite Fanselow‘s (1988) comments that the complete observation and discussion should not exceed five minutes [2.4.5.1]. Feedback is not the main subject of this research, but a review of literature on the debriefing aspect of observation is useful in order to understand the implications for teacher behaviour during model lessons. Additionally, it is important to note that a debriefing may not always take place, and may instead be provided by written reports (Malderez, 2003).

Referring to mainstream education, Marriot suggests that ‗the specific observation of the teachers‘ work has been one of the less carefully analysed aspects of education‘ (2001:vii), which certainly seems to be true in the current context. Her focus is on the fact that teachers are often unaware of their strengths and weaknesses, ‗because they have not been systematically and constructively debriefed‘ (ibid:9). Feedback is indeed a very important area in terms of PD and future appraisal for the teachers

77

involved, and research has been carried out into the way that teachers are debriefed in ELT educational settings (Copland, 2008 and 2009; Farr, 2010 forthcoming; Kurtoglu Hooton, 2008). Copland writes about the need for teacher trainees to understand and adapt to the expectations of the trainer during feedback sessions, in order to avoid negative evaluation. This would seem to be equally important in the context of this research, as a model lesson is likely to be prepared in a way that would avoid negative evaluation as much as possible. Writing in the same source, Kurtoglu Hooton (ibid) focuses on the feedback itself, and identifies the fact that confirmatory feedback has a great deal to offer in terms of encouraging positive development in teacher trainees. Again, this has reverberations in teacher appraisal debriefing: confirmatory can be as effective as corrective feedback, although for many teachers the latter may have greater impact.

Pennington (1983) writes about observation checklists, arguing that exhaustive examples are demoralising and imprecise: it is unrealistic to expect to see every indicator of successful teaching in any one observation. If such a list was used for a ‗box-ticking exercise, the appraisee would tend to notice only the crosses‘ (ibid:16), as this is the part of the assessment that will have most impact on his/her future career. Pennington (ibid) likens this process to tests for car roadworthiness: even if 98% of the car is working well, the focus has to be on the 2% which is not. To remedy this problem he suggests that the appraisal is based on four or five criteria, as opposed to attempting to observe and record everything, which is patently impossible.

To avoid problems, post-lesson, Tennant (2006) suggests that observer and observed adhere to discussing the agreed criteria, and, agreeing with Kurtoglu Hooton

78

(ibid), recommends always telling the teacher what was good during the lesson. Eken (2001) provides a range of criteria for observers to use in pre- and post- observation meetings, stressing the need for the observer to adopt a positive attitude from the beginning, bearing in mind the amount of effort that the teacher has expended in preparing the lesson. She argues that observers need to see ‗both the ‗wood and the trees‘‘ (ibid:111) and use holistic tools to carry out the observation, rather than checklists of criteria.

Fanselow (1998) claims that too many words with a positive connotation during feedback carry the same danger as those which are negative, tending to mask potential developments in an individual‘s teaching. He also suggests that conversations about lessons tend to be more about the power relationships between the individuals concerned than about the lesson itself, and that when speaking participants in an interaction are not always in control of what they say, or how they speak. As a result, he claims:

Post-observation conferences tend to be filled with judgements and tension provoking activities

in which neither the teacher nor the observer, whether supervisor or friend, are having much fun!

(ibid:4).

Walker and Adelman (1990) suggest that when responding to disagreement during the post-lesson feedback, observers should present counter-examples more or less without comment in order to remain outside the argument. Kyriacou (1997) also writes about supervisors who have to deal with hostile or nervous teachers, and that the process is ‗formal and artificial‘ (ibid:39). This reinforces the position of the observer as a person entitled to make judgements, and suggests that the unequal power relationship is

79

certainly something that needs to be addressed in order to improve the acceptability of appraisal observations.

Referring to teacher education, Garton and Richards (2008:1) state that ‗post- observation feedback is perhaps the single most important discourse that trainee teachers engage in and their success or failure may depend on their ability to deal with it effectively‘. Not everyone would agree with this, but in the context of this research, I would argue that this is equally true when referring to appraisal observations, because if that discourse does prove to be negative in nature, then the teacher concerned must deal with it in terms of the consequences, whether that be a reassessment, a retrial, or termination of contract. Randall and Thornton agree, arguing that:

any observation of a lesson is going to involve, by its very nature, judgements about what has

been seen. This is perhaps the central conundrum of all teacher observation and feedback.

Unless the feedback is to become so bland as to be of no use when moving a teacher on, the

observer will need to make judgements about what went on in the lesson, These need to be

expressed to the one being observed, and any criticism will at least have the capacity, if not the

actuality, of causing pain (2001:20)

Clinical supervision might be a possible option, described by Wallace as:

Face to face interaction between a supervisor and a teacher, or group of teachers, with reference

to some classroom teaching that has previously been observed, the aim of the interaction being to

discuss and analyse the teaching with a view to professional development of the teacher or

teachers concerned (Wallace, 1991:109)

This could allow theory to emerge from practice, but the existence of the power relationships means that there is still a strong element of subjective judgement.

80

However, the concept of dialogicism in feedback (Copland and Mann, 2010, forthcoming) would seem to provide the best possible environment for such interaction to take place.

Finally, and with reference to the complete process, Kyriacou (1997) describes the concern that both teachers and observers feel about the time constraints imposed by observation, and the impact of having to leave the lesson or the feedback session rapidly because either or both have to teach another lesson.