The final extract in this section looks at different way in which the trainer can perform a request in order to generate development of a trainee’s description. In the following case, the trainer initiates the development of the description, as in the previous extracts, but then her role in the process shifts; moving from that of questioner, she takes on the role of co- informant in the development of the description. The following extract is taken from day fifteen of the course, the trainer is Ingrid and the Tw is Annie. This instance occurred during the positive group-feedback phase of Annie’s feedback cycle.
Extract 24 – “What did she do first…” D15FB 254
1 I: !how did she start the modelling in the u::se (0.4) when
2 they had the strips (0.4) what did she:: do first do you
3 reme:mber?
4 (1.0) ((Tr seeks mutual gaze from Tes))
5 A: I gave it (.) to (nao)=
6 I: =a:nd (nao) was a:sking::=
7 A: =me=
9 S: =right
10 (0.5)
11 I: and the::n (.) you asked (nao) (0.6) back
12 (0.2)
13 A: °yep°
14 (0.8)
15 I: !why is it, (0.6) s- w- (.) now cathy:: knowing the example
16 wha- why was it so good
17 (0.6)
18 C: because they could see it (0.6) ho::w it (0.4) h-
19 like (could see it) clearly like ho:w to do i:t
The extract above opens part way through the extended negotiations between the trainer and trainees, over the description of an event from the Tw’s previously taught lesson. In line 1 the trainer formulates a request for an extension of Sean’s description of the event (not included in the extract), “!how did she start the modelling in the u::se (0.4) when they
had the strips (0.4) what did she:: do first do you reme:mber?”. The use of
'she' as pronoun in this formulation indicates that the request is being projected to the other trainees in the group, rather than directed toward the Tw herself. More specifically, the request would appear to be directed at Sean who has been providing a description, previous to the opening of the extract. The trainer’s opening TCU, formulated as a direct question to the trainees, requests the expansion/extension of the description of the Tw’s practice (“!how did she start the modelling”) in relation to a particular stage of the lesson (“in the u::se”). A pause follows this initial request, but the trainees do not orient to it as an opportunity to speak. The Tr then provides a further description of the event in question,
“when they had the strips”.
The formulation of this question indicates that it is a “display question” (Seedhouse, 2004: 73), display questions are a common device employed by teachers in classrooms, where the teacher already knows the answer to the question, and in answering it, the interlocutor ‘displays’ that they also ‘share the same knowledge’. Following this display question, the Tr pauses but there is no uptake from the Tes. The Tr then reformulates the original request,
“what did she:: do first do you reme:mber?” (lines 2-3). A second long pause then
occurs, during which the trainer seeks to establish mutual gaze with several of the trainees unsuccessfully. The Tw then self-selects and formulates a description of her practice “I
gave it to (nao)”. This self-selection by the Tw seems at odds with the formulation of the Tr request, which specified the other trainees in the group as recipients, but not the Tw, through the pronoun ‘she’ employed as referential device. Thus the Tw orients to her interactional rights as Tw within the group, by displaying that she has the right to provide reflective feedback, in the absence of the ‘preferred’ (requested) participants, by providing the second pair part of the Tr’s request.
The trainer’s next move is oriented toward developing the Tw’s description, but not in the ways previously discussed in this chapter. The trainer does not make a request for an
extended/expanded description from the Tw , rather she takes the role of ‘co-informant’ and offers her own further description of the event, “a:nd (nao) was a:sking::” (line 6). The delivery of this description, however, performs an additional social action. In that the
intonation and sound stretching presents this as a question. In next turn position, Annie completes the turn with “me”. Here Sean re-enters the participation framework with an agreement token, “right”. After a short pause the trainer continues in her role as ‘co- informant’ by continuing with the description of the event, “and the::n (.) you asked (Nao) (0.6) back” (line 11), and the Tw responds with an agreement token, “°yep°”. Thus we see in this extract that the trainer is able to play another role in the development of a Te’s description, that of ‘co-informant’; and that by providing her own descriptions, and in places formulating these descriptions as ‘questions’, the participants in the group can jointly
construct the description of the event in question. So another way the trainer can ‘support’ the development of a description, and more generally ‘support’ the process of doing reflective practice as an interactional activity, is to shift from the role of ‘questioner’ or ‘requester’ of descriptions, to becoming a ‘co-informant’ or ‘co-describer’.
Returning to extract 24, after a pause at line 14, the Tr’s next interactional move makes the transition from the description stage of the ELC to the interpretation and theorising stage. She formulates this transition initially as a direct question, “!why is it,”, but then hesitates, attempts two restarts, both of which are cut off, then reformulates the question, “why was it so good”. However, this time the question is directed at another trainee within the group, who has not been a direct member of the participation framework for a number of turns. As well as directing her ‘why’ question towards Cathy, she presents this question as predicated upon the description of the “example” the trainer and Tw have just
negotiated and co-developed, even though Cathy was a peripheral participant within this negotiation. Her formulation of this request therefore carries out several social actions, she shifts the focus from a descriptive request (“what did she:: do first”) to a request for an interpretation (“why was it so good”), thus moving the focus of the FBT from the
descriptive to the interpretive stage of the ELC. She also changes the participation
framework, by selecting the trainee that the request is directed towards (“now cathy::”), and thus projects the expectation of ‘active’ participation in the development of this FBT from Cathy, involving her directly in this stage of the FBT. This turn also projects the
expectation that the requested interpretation be based on the description the participants have just negotiated (“knowing the example wha- why was it so good”), in doing so she explicitly, though subtly, orients the participants to the ELC as tool for encouraging reflective practice. Cathy responds to this request by providing a reason why the event had happened the way it did.
To summarise, this section has investigated a number of interactional moves that orient to the first (post-experience) stage of the ELC, developing a description. It has illustrated a number of different ways the participants go about the negotiation and development of a FBT, in this stage. It has shown that the talk-in-interaction of the feedback meetings has a strong reflexive relationship with the model of the ELC and that the participants’ orientations to the ELC encourage reflective practice. The following section will turn to the analysis of orientations to the second stage of the ELC: interpreting and theorising.