Listening to the teacher: the value of participant reflection on video data
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference,Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
Doreen Challen, University of Southampton, UK
Draft: please do not cite without permission of the author.
Abstract
This paper focuses on an element of an ongoing research project which adopts a Bernsteinian socio-cultural framework to explore English primary teachers’ understandingsof the pedagogy involved in guided reading. As an important element of this research, a technique known as video-stimulated reflective dialogue (Moyles et al. 2003) is used to provide access to a teacher’s own interpretation of the interactions which occur during a guided reading lesson. Following video-recording of a guided reading lesson, the teacher provides a commentary on aspects of the lesson which she considers significant. Superimposed on the lesson transcript, this enables the analysis of observed behaviours and language patterns to be illuminated with the teacher’s own interpretations.
This paper will discuss:
- in what ways does the teacher’s commentary enhance the findings from observational data?
- what methodological issues arise?
1Background
According to Bernstein (1996), all educational activity entails recontextualisation. In relation to teaching children to read, this means that the real-world activity of ‘reading’ is selectively reconstructed in a way that embodies prevailing cultural assumptions about how children learn. The last decade has seen a significant change from the long-established predominance of individualised ‘reading to the teacher’as the main vehicle for the development of reading skills in many schools in England, particularly for younger children, in favour of more socially situated and objective-driven approaches(Stannard and Huxford 2007).
Guided reading is a small-group, teacher-led approach to the teaching of reading which was introduced to most English primary schools (5-11 years) by the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) in 1998 (DfEE 1998).It was designed as part of a teaching sequence which enabled children to move from dependence on a high level of teacher support in whole class lessons, through varying levels of teacher support in group guided reading lessons, to being able to apply skills independently (DfEE 1998; Stannard and Huxford 2007). This sequence originated in New Zealand and Australia, and remains a common feature of primary education in these countries, where, in recent years, its social constructivist underpinnings have been explicitly recognized(e.g. Biddulph 2002; Bindon 1999; Hornsby 2000; Ministry of Education 2002).
The Vygotskyan concept of socially-mediated learning, whereby a more experienced participant in a cultural practice helps a learner succeed in areas in which he cannot yet succeed on his own, gradually handing over responsibility as proficiency develops (Vygotsky 1978), applies to guided reading both as situated within a sequence of lessons, andalso as a lesson in its own right (Hornsby 2000).Here, the concept of ‘scaffolding’ (Wood, Bruner and Ross 1976, cited in Wood 1998) applies in theory to the group of five or six children as well as the individual. As children are typically grouped according to their learning needs, the teacher can support all at once, butcanalso respond to the identified needs of individual learners. While scaffolding occurs proactively through lesson planning and text choice, it also, crucially,occursmore contingently as the teacherguides learners in ways that she considers appropriate as the lesson unfolds (Hornsby 2000).
However, in the 1998 ‘cascade’ model of transmission of NLS principles and practices, the emphasis in the training materials provided to teachers in England appeared to be stronger in terms of structures than pedagogical principles, and although more recent official professional development materials (e.g. DfES 2003) and other recommended resources (e.g. Hobsbaum, Gamble and Reedy 2002) have been more explicit in this respect, it is arguably the case that many teachers remain unclear about what in guided reading they are attempting to achieve, and how they should be achieving it. Official attempts to recontextualise teaching and learning do not necessarily translate into the practice which is intended.
Socially mediated learning occurs primarily through the medium of talk. It follows that investigation into how teaching brings about learning demands a focus on the oral interactions between participants, and a number of post-NLS research studies into literacy teaching have taken this approach (e.g. Burns and Myhill 2004; Moyles et al. 2003; Mroz, Smith and Hardman 2000) although few have studied interactions within guided reading specifically (e.g.King, 2001; Skidmore,Perez-Parent and Arnfield 2003).
However, most observational studies of classroom interactionrarely take into account the intentions and understandings of the participants, nor the situation of the interactions within a wider matrix of classroom culture, relationships and learningover time.Additionally, studies which analyse recorded talk only are likely to overlook the (often subtle)non-verbal participation whichis integral to social interaction, and which contributes powerfully to theways in which lesson events are framed to realise the teacher’s intention (Bourne and Jewitt 2003).
Research based on analysis of observed interactions presents valuable accounts of lessons and the patterns discernible within them. However the intentionality of the teacher,as architect of learning, is often a missing link, which assumes particular significance in studies which explore relationships between beliefs and behaviours.While teachers may describe their beliefs and practice in ways that are consistent with their observed behaviours, it is also possible that they may describe beliefs which are not borne out in practice; or that they may act in ways which appear consistent with a coherent pedagogy, without being able to articulate this in a more abstract manner (Medwell et al. 1998).
The relationship between teachers’ observed behaviour, stated beliefs and own biographiesis the focus of the current research, and an important element is the teacher’s own reflection on her practice in response to observing video-recordings of her lessons: video-stimulated reflective dialogue (VSRD).
2VSRD as a research tool
This aspect of the current research was inspired by the work of Moyles et al. (2003) in the SPRINT project,who developed VSRD as a technique forobtaining teachers’ interpretations of their own behaviours and the interactions occurring within whole-class interactive teaching. They additionally focused on its use as a professional development tool, finding that ‘it allows teachers to consider both the art and the craft of teaching and encourages analysis and critique of practice in ways that support professional development’ (p.176).
As in the SPRINT project, I utilised VSRD as ‘an opportunity [for the teacher] to reflect with a knowledgeable research-partner on one’s own teaching’ (Moyles et al. 2003:4). My decision to use VSRD however derived from my wish to understand from the teacher’s perspective the episodes and interactions of an unfolding group lesson, and my research, although alert to any potential implications for teacher development, does not specifically target this important area.
Figure 1
As shown in figure 1, a detailed initial interview exploring a teacher’s beliefs and views of her practice in relation to guided reading was followed by video-recordings of two approximately 20minute guided reading lessons with groups of children reading at different levels. The teacher then viewed the video, and selected episodes she considered interesting to talk about; I suggested choosing either one whole lesson or selected highlights from both, up to about 20 minutes’ worth in total. While emphasising that her reflections could take any form she wished, I provided some prompts for reflection to be used if desired. Some weeks later, by negotiation, we re-viewed the selected lesson episodes together,recordingthe teacher’s commentary. Transcribed and superimposed on the lesson transcript, this enabled the analysis of observed behaviours and patterns of interaction to be illuminated with the teacher’s own interpretations.
Not only was this intended to generate an extra, valuable tier of data to supplement that from earlier interviews, but it reduced the danger of my privileging my own interpretation of the data and imposition of structures on it at the expense of that of the teacher, whose intention may have been quite different. While I remained ‘in control’ of the research and the analysis and interpretation of data, I sought to work with teacher participants as partners as far as possible within the framework, and including their own interpretation of events was of high importance. I was however aware that the teacher’s choice of lesson episodes might leave me with unanswered questions about particular interactions in which I was interested, and therefore presented the VSRD as a conversation in which both of us participated, although the teacher led in deciding what to talk about.
3Participants
My research draws on three case studies of teachers who are acknowledged by theirhead-teachersto be effective teachers of readingand who are enthusiastic about and committed to the practice of guided reading. In this paper, I focus on Linda, a deputy headteacher with over 20 years’ experience, who had been a leading literacy teacher for the local authority and was currently instrumental in improving literacy standards across her school. She was currently teaching Year 2 (6-7 year-olds). I also refer to Jenny,with 9 years’ experience,who was ‘head-hunted’ to improve standards of literacy in an under-achieving school, and was teaching year 4 (8-9 year-olds).
4How does the teacher’s commentary enhance the findings from observational data?
In this section, I will outline several benefits of VSRD within the context of my own small-scale research, illustrating these with examples.
Although I endeavoured to film lessons as naturalistically as possible, and included a familiarisation session for each class, it remained important to establish how typical, in the teacher’s view, each lesson was. The VSRD provided the opportunity to do this. Lindaacknowledgedherown awareness of the camera, and had noticed that one child was occasionally distracted by it, but said that herlesson had proceeded exactly as normal:
It felt fine, it was just how I would normally teach a lesson, the actual teaching of the lesson was no different to what I would normally do, the content of the lesson and how I spoke to the children, and my approaches and everything, that’s no different.
However Jennyreported an increased level of formality in group interactions resulting from the intrusion of the camera:
They were not nearly as sparky. I expected everybody to be chipping in and asking questions of each other too, (but) it comes across as individual responses, and I think that was the camera there, they were thinking, ‘Well we can’t chip in, we can’t interrupt as much as we might normally, we can’t talk to our peers as much as we would normally...’
This is an important point. In researchinghow teachers use a group context to develop learning through talk, factors which inhibit talk must be taken into account. Jenny had previously described how her reading groups were keen to offer spontaneous comments and talk to each other as well as to her, and as her lessons provided little observational evidence of such talk, the role of VSRD in alerting me to the teacher’s explanation of the discrepancy (above) is crucial. Without this information, a mismatch between Jenny’s account and the observational data would have become apparent during analysis. With the information, I am alerted as to the limitations of my data.
Likewise, the teacher can use VSRD todraw the researcher’s attention to any special circumstances which might be significant. Lindavolunteered information about why she had taken a different approach with one child, turning pages and pointing to words for her and engaging her in few verbal interactions:
She’s the least confident, and I don’t tend to ask her a lot of questions because she doesn’t tend to answer it, so I try and get the others to model with her, and I support her with her reading. She’s more than capable of reading that level of book, but within a whole-group situation she becomes almost like she won’t speak, and she’s sort of a sort of half elective mute... so I was aware that I wasn’t questioning her a lot, but I knew why I wasn’t questioning her, because I know that in that situation she won’t talk.
Linda and her pupils share a collective history, and in this case tacit understandings exist between them about their ways of working together. This was made clear to me when I spoke with children in the group later; they volunteered information about how Amy was treated differently because ‘she doesn’t speak’. Having access to this information, in relation to the non-verbal interactions which prompted it, enables me to see how Linda is consciously differentiating her interactions with children to address the needs of individuals in a range of ways, an important observation which is reinforced at other points during the VSRD; her explanation makes visible the rationale for various behaviours which would otherwise remain masked, and reduces the risk of my misinterpretation of her actions.
VSRD can therefore offer a space in which participant and researcher can use dialogue focused on observed practice to negotiate a shared understanding, and the teacher can exemplify what she says about her beliefs and practices with reference to lesson events. For example, in the initial interview, Linda described a four-day rotation of reading-based activities which incorporates guided reading, addressing groups’ specific objectives. In the VSRD, when discussing how which she structured her guided reading lesson, she expanded on this further, indicating that she viewed her guided reading lesson itself as a form of scaffolding to help children succeed with more independent activity. Children were being taught to ask peers questions based on a page of text, and Linda was modelling and prompting with the individual steps involved:
I was quite structured in how I asked the questions to them, you know, what page is it? I wanted them to understand that there was a process that they had to go through, so my questions were trying to get them through that process consistently. Because what you didn’t see, which was the next day, they read the rest of the book, and they did exactly the same process, but I didn’t sit there. I think if I hadn’t done that consistent questioning, I don’t think the next day would have worked as well because they wouldn’t have quite understood what they had to do. But that’s what it’s led on to, the next lesson. And then on the lesson after that, they were again independent and they wrote questions for each other, and then the next day they swapped books and they answered the questions that somebody else had written. So we moved on from oral to written questioning, and that was the whole sequence of lessons over the week.
Although Linda is not talking theoretically, the VSRD provides her with an opportunity to articulate her practice in a way which implies a pedagogical underpinning redolent of asocial constructivist view of guided reading, as outlined earlier. She identifies that her lesson is explicitly intended as part of a progressive learning sequence, and provides children with the knowledge and skills needed to be successful when working independently. Additionally, she explains elsewhere howshe gradually builds up children’s ability to give and receive peer support so that they can help each other when working independently. Within the lesson also, she can be seen gradually to decrease the support offered to children in forming their own questions. Although the interview data established that Linda views guided reading as part of a teaching sequence, it is the reflection on interactions within authentic lessons which offers this more principled interpretation.
While the above example illustrates how VSRD can powerfully complement more standard interview data, my view is that the earlier interview also impacted positively on the quality of the VSRD. It activated the teacher’s existing experiential knowledge, which may have sharpened her reflections on the video; it provided me with valuable background knowledge about the teacher’s approach and views, which sensitized me to particular aspects of the lesson; and in so doing, established a basis of shared understanding and a professional relationship within which it was possible for VSRD to proceed as a conversation between professionals, as described by Moyles et al. (2003).
Additionally, the freedom for a teacher to reflect, initially in private, prior to the VSRD, affordsher a private interaction with her lessons, her self-image as a teacher, her philosophy and constructs about teaching in general, and the teaching of guided reading in particular, all areas of her experience which have been activated within earlier stages of the research; she might also engage with the optional promptsfor reflection. The ensuing VSRD provides a forum for her to reconstruct more publically, and selectively, her view of herself as a teacher of reading. The provision of space for reflection increases the probability of well-considered responses to events to which she, as an expert practitioner, may have responded intuitively at the time. Lindahad clearly reflected in some depth on the similarities and differences in her approach to the two groups:
I think I’m consistent in the way I lead the guided reading session, because I think guided reading is partly teaching and partly leading them through reading, and from the children themselves. I’m quite consistent in my non-verbal gestures, which I do quite a lot of, I think I’m quite consistent in my questioning, I think I’m consistent in how I warm the book up, how I try and include all the children, the interaction that we have... I think my approaches are exactly the same but I think the way I deal with them personally is different because they’re different needs of children, and I know that they’re different.
I earlier referred to the potential role of VSRD in addressing contradictions between interview and observational data by bringing the two together. More commonly, it can confirm interpretations of data derived from interviews and observations. Analysis of Linda’s interview responses, for example, reveals a deeply held beliefthat guided reading has at its heart the meeting of children’s learning needs, which should drive all aspects of the teaching. This view is strongly and consistently reinforced by her VSRD commentary and associated observational data: