Using peer observations as a platform for developing expert students and enabling student voice Dr Valerie Hall Professional Development Manager Valerie.Hall@staffs.ac.uk @318Val
Introduction • My background • Why this research topic? • Focus for today
The background: why this topic? • Student Voice Initiatives • An opportunity to contribute to knowledge in the poorly-documented area of post-compulsory education: some case studies did exist, mainly in the compulsory-aged sector, but these were largely anecdotal with sparse formal research • A desire to join the component parts together: students with teaching staff; and students with teaching staff and the organisation
Policy drivers and key texts • Policy: DfES (2003) 21 st Century Skills: Realising our potential; DfES (2003) Every Child Matters; DfES (2004) Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners: Putting people at the heart of public services ; DfES (2005) 14 – 19 Education and Skills; Leitch Review (2006); DfES (2006a) FE White Paper Further Education: Raising skills, improving life chances; DfES (2006b) Personalising Further Education: Developing a vision • Initiatives: LSC (2007) Developing a Learner Involvement Strategy; QIA (2007; 2008) Exploring the concept of the expert learner • Case studies: Powney and Hall (1998); Fielding (2004; 2007) and Rudduck and Fielding (2006); Cockburn (2005); Gunter and Thomson (2006; 2007); McGregor (2006); Collinson (2007); Forrest et al (2007); Shuttle (2007); Walker and Logan (2008)
My research questions 1. Why do we ask our learners to tell us what they think? For whose benefit and to what purpose? 2. How do learners’ self -perceptions influence their involvement with learner voice initiatives (perceived trajectories, sense of self and identity)? 3. What are the issues around language, locus of power, tensions and conflict? 4. What are the implications for practice?
The format • HE in FE curriculum areas were approached with an action research outline for a small-scale study • A potential area volunteered: initial teacher training (2-year DTTLS course) • Eight members of staff on the team volunteered to be involved, and two of their respective second year groups were approached with a research outline • Two volunteer student participants came forward (to observe first year groups): one from each group • An interpretivist approach used semi-structured interviews (phenomenological perspective) • Data were coded to relevant theoretical frameworks and concepts to establish themes
How was this done? • Through peer observations, teaching staff had the opportunity to engage in a learning conversation with students • Use of a pro-forma to provide a framework for the observations and post-observation dialogue • This conversation was then used as a developmental vehicle to improve the teaching and learning experience for both staff and students • It then had the potential to inform practice and organisational developments
The data analysis • Nvivo (Computer Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software – CAQDAS) • Identification of themes – how these link to theoretical frameworks/concepts and the research questions • How deep and how broad?
Two main theoretical frameworks • Communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998; 2000) • Ecological learning systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Boylan, 2005; Hodgson and Spours, 2009)
Two models: similarities and differences Communities of Practice Ecological Learning Systems • Defined ‘communities’; • Relationships are more fluid, though still inter-connected; • Boundaries and specific roles • Each level will interact with the (bridging, brokering); other three – multi-directional; • Legitimate peripheral • Partnership learning – shared participation; frameworks for creative action - • Research focus traditionally on collaboration; workplace – master/apprentice • Limited research in this area. model.
Were they enough? • Commonalities: Issues around norms, behaviours, language, trust – how these are used; locus of power • Levels: micro (learner), meso (professional practice), exo (institutional, local, regional) and macro (national) • ‘Communities’: may become defined as much by whom and what they include/exclude • Context: compulsory or post-compulsory education – different identities may ‘fit’ contexts better, have different outcomes. • NO - a new ‘continuum of practice ’ was devised to reflect the oscillation between and across the two frameworks
New: a Continuum of Practice From ………. Continuum To………. Communities of practice Ecological learning systems Relationships Sustained mutual relationships – harmonious or conflicting Transitory, more fluid – a functioning unit, collaborative; changing temporal orientations and relationships to other structures Working together Joint enterprise – shared ways of engaging in doing things Interdependent relationships; impact on other areas of work and life together Information exchange The rapid flow of information and propagation of innovation Bi-directional influences (transactional);actor and environment affected by engagement Getting started/progress Absence of introductory preambles, as if conversations and Routes and outcomes develop within contexts that are changing and interactions were merely the continuation of an on-going process subject to re-evaluation and reflection Very quick set up of a problem to be discussed New forms of collaboration, self-organising and adaptive Substantial overlap in participants’ descriptions of who belongs Environment evolves and changes naturally as a result of actions Knowledge Knowing what others know, what they can do and how they can Strongest influences impact in two directions: mutual interaction, contribute to an enterprise; enactment of particular roles including peer-to-peer; active decision-making (master-apprentice) Identity Mutually defining identities; value placed upon knowledge and Capacity/influence to shape wider sense of local identities; identity position within the community; identity ratified and given value created through transactions with others by others The ability to assess the appropriateness of actions and products Individual actors engage with context Certain styles recognised as displaying membership; ‘collective’ Sense of ‘self’ not as a component within community of practice: agency; context engages with ‘actors’ agency Language Specific tools, representations and other artefacts Informal, not structured Local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter; Independent, non-conformist conforming; dependency Jargon and shortcuts to communication as well as the ease of Language represents the individual, the system level, does not need to producing new ones move across Reification A shared discourse reflecting a certain perspective on the world Variable and changing orientations; individual perspectives Power Hierarchical, value placed upon knowledge and position Devolution of power
Sense of Self • Self-perceptions and identity: self-concept (Cooley, 1902; Schaffer, 2000; Hughes et al. 2011); self-categorisation (Turner et al. 1994; Greeno et al . 1996; Turner, 1999; Oyserman et al. 2011); self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997a, 1997b) • Metacognition (Ertmer and Newby, 1996; Entwistle, 2000; Veenman et al. 2006; Kolb and Kolb, 2010)
Teachers who were in observation ‘pairs’ • Reported the process as being ‘liberating’ • Found the opportunity to discuss the observed session with a ‘learner’ provided them with a completely different perspective • It helped to clarify their thoughts before they provided feedback to the member of staff observed (although feedback was not included in the original research design) • Were aware of the potential for power imbalance with the student • Found the pro-forma useful as a framework • Felt it was important that everyone involved was clear about the purpose of the observation – and mindful of confidentiality
Teachers who were ‘observed’ • Original research had no requirement for formal feedback to be given to the ‘observed’ member of staff, however, this was requested • Staff were keen to get this feedback – it was not the ‘usual’ peer observation feedback • This resulted in a very ‘rich’ conversation between the two teachers (observer and observee) and was experienced as more productive than normal ‘peer observation’ feedback • Staff talked about ‘fresh insights’ and ‘having the mirror held up’
Students in the observation pairs • Found the opportunity to discuss the teaching and learning to be of great value – they felt involved in the learning process • They felt that their opinions were valued – and of value • It encouraged greater reflection on their own learning – this also included some aspects connected to what made them engage/disengage with the teaching, which they recognised in the classroom • They also felt it was a positive way to improve teaching and the learning experience for other learners
Recommend
More recommend
