This research has been carried out in the stages identified below (Appendix N):
I. Model lesson: audio recording. Each teacher was asked to record an observed (model) lesson in their language classroom using either a tape recorder or an MP3 player that could be carried easily. Lessons were of 40 – 50 minutes duration, and the actual mechanics of the recording process were the responsibility of the individual teachers. However, transcripts do not exceed the lesson length of 50 minutes. Participants were asked to record an appraisal observation, and did this according to college practice, so the observer could be a peer, or a classroom visitor. However, the important feature was that there was another individual present in the classroom observing teaching.
II. Model lesson: transcription. The recorded lessons were transcribed for each teacher, so that key features of the discourse could be evaluated and identified according to SETT (Walsh, 2006). Areas of interest suggested by Samph (1976) were also investigated by means of corpus analysis, first individually, and then compared in order to identify commonalities and differences.
III. Pedagogic lesson: audio recording. Each teacher involved in the study was also asked to record a pedagogic lesson in the manner suggested in (I) above. This recording was typical of a lesson that they regularly taught.
170
IV. Pedagogic lesson: transcription. As with the model lesson, the recording of the classroom discourse during the pedagogic lesson was transcribed. For each teacher in the study these transcripts have been compared with those provided from the model lesson, in order to establish commonalities and differences between them, as in (II), above.
V. Teacher interviews. The teachers were interviewed in order to discover why they behaved as they did during the model lesson, and the reasons behind particular interactional choices. This was not stimulated recall, but it was an opportunity for them to discuss events in the classroom, and relate them to a more general understanding of the observation process. This interview was recorded and transcribed. Where timetable and access limitations dictated, debriefing took place as part of a paired interview (three people including the interviewer).
VI. Supervisor/observer interviews. Three relevant individuals were interviewed in order to establish their perceptions when carrying out teacher observations for appraisal purposes, and these interviews were transcribed in order to establish exactly what observers are looking for in a model lesson.
VII. Student feedback. Six ex-students who have decided on local careers in education were interviewed together, and the resulting data has been transcribed and compared with the views of teachers and observers.
VIII. Respondent validation. Once the analysis of transcripts had taken place, those teachers who took part in the study and were still accessible were asked if they wished to view the lesson transcripts, but this was generally declined.
171
IX. Evaluation and analysis. Commonalities and differences have been identified between the transcripts of pedagogic and model lessons, initially in terms of lesson categories. Significant discourse features and/or structural differences have then been compared for each teacher and further developed with reference to the transcripts of teacher and supervisor interviews. Information gained from the interview with past students has also been used to inform this discussion.
3.5 Summary
Gitlin (1990:444) argues that ‗educational research is still a process that, for the most part, silences those studied, ignores their personal knowledge, and strengthens the assumption that they are the producers of knowledge‘. In order to avoid such a situation arising, the multiple perspective approach adopted in this study means that participants have had the opportunity to cover many aspects of their teaching, as the way in which their personal knowledge informs their teaching style is critical to the evaluation process.
172
4.0 FINDINGS: PEDAGOGIC AND MODEL LESSONS
In this section the research findings are systematically analysed: firstly with reference to the three transcripts of pedagogic lessons, and then those of the model lessons, and commonalities and differences are indicated by the use of relevant examples. Bearing in mind that the transcripts cover approximately 6.5 hours of classroom interaction in total (an example is provided in Appendix G), a broad range of factors have been considered in this analysis and evaluated in three sections. Theresa, Ophelia and Hannah‘s lessons are firstly analysed in terms of external features, referring to the holistic aspects of the lesson as identified in the literature review: these include the way the lesson is planned, the interaction and the occurrence of administrative tasks. The internal features are then discussed, which have been established from the transcripts and identified using the SETT framework (Walsh, 2006). Further information relating to the interactional features and pedagogic goals of SETT can be found in Appendices E and F, but the four modes identified by Walsh are summarised in Table 11 below:
173 Table 11: L2 classroom modes (Walsh 2006, 66)
Mode Pedagogic goals Interactional features
Managerial To transmit information A single, extended teacher turn which uses explanations and/or instructions
To organise the physical learning environment
The use of transitional markers
To refer learners to materials The use of confirmation checks
To introduce or conclude an activity
An absence of learner contributions
To change from one mode of learning to another
Materials To provide language practice activities around a piece of material
Predominance of IRF pattern
To elicit responses in relation to the material
Extensive use of display questions
To check and display answers Form-focussed feedback To clarify when necessary Corrective repair
To evaluate contributions The use of scaffolding Skills and systems To enable learners to produce
correct forms
The use of direct repair
To enable the learners to manipulate the target language
The use of scaffolding
To provide corrective feedback Extended teacher turns To provide learners with
practice in sub-skills
Display questions
To display correct answers Teacher echo
Clarification requests Form-focussed feedback Classroom
context
To enable learners to express themselves clearly
Extended learner turns
To establish a context Short teacher turns To promote oral fluency Minimal repair
Content feedback Referential questions Scaffolding
174
After this analysis there follows a section concentrating on the Samph features in the data, where pedagogic and model lessons given by the teachers are directly compared. These features relate directly to the three key areas identified in Samph‘s research (1976) concerning the way in which observed lessons differed from non-observed lessons, according to FIA. Relevant features (praise, questions and response to student contributions) have been identified in the transcripts with the aid of Antconc 3.2.1w (Anthony, 2007), an Internet concordancing programme. They have then been totalled in order to establish whether such features really are more prevalent in model lessons. Finally there is a concluding section, where the results are correlated, and commonalities and differences are clearly identified.
At this stage it is important to note that the descriptions of the model and pedagogic lessons are not narratives, but provide a guide as to what actually took place in the classrooms during the recordings. The teachers were asked to provide recordings of model and pedagogic lessons that were, as far as possible, directly comparable, and in every case the model lesson was recorded first. However, in this chapter the pedagogic lessons are analysed first in order to establish a basis for possible alteration during the model lesson when an observer is present. The salient details of the three pedagogic and three model lessons have been summarised in Table 12 below:
175
Table 12: Key information about pedagogic and model transcribed lessons
Teachers and lessons Length (mins) Total turns Total words approx Students M/F Topic Student equipment Theresa, pedagogic 50 290 4305 M Vocabulary: weather words Laptops Theresa, Model 50 548 6377 M Vocabulary: weather words Laptops Ophelia, pedagogic 40 354 3854 F Spelling test
review and oral examination preparation n/a Ophelia, model 40 521 5454 F Speaking test
review and oral examination preparation n/a Hannah, pedagogic 1 50: 24 recorded 291 4389 F Preparing reading and writing portfolios,
preparing for oral examination n/a Hannah, model 50 460 6217 F Preparing writing portfolios, completing
feedback form and discussing
examination rubric n/a
176
4.1 Analysis and evaluation of the classroom discourse: pedagogic