Classroom interaction

To answer the research question it was not sufficient to use interviews and questionnaires but it was necessary also to look at what is actually going on in the classrooms. The aim of studying classroom interaction was to explore what potentials and limitations for dialogue could be identified in students’ inter-action at school in the context of religious education in Estonia? Classroom interaction in two contrasting schools is presented in the thesis. For better understanding and in order to apply questions related to the ‘representation’

element of interpretive approach, group-interviews with students by means of stimulated recall and semi-structured interviews with teachers were used.

The video-ethnographic method was utilised for data collection. In com-parison to other methods, such as keeping diaries or audio recording lessons, videotaped material offers many advantages, especially in the precision and reproducibility of the information obtained. Instead of paraphrasing the contents of the lesson, videotaped material allows for precise transcriptions. In addition, video recordings enabled me to look at the events several times, each time concentrating on a single aspect of communication (such as mimics, body language, tone of voice, movement, class arrangement, and acts of speech) and to incorporate them into the analysis of classroom interaction.

Certain technical decisions such as the type of camera(s) to use, place and time to videotape, and the perspective of a camera had to be made before the fieldwork started. Such technical decisions also influenced the information gained and shaped the analysed reality. Even before videotaping a series of decisions had to be made: should the study use many cameras or one and should professional or ‘amateur’ cameras be used; should the whole day be recorded or just a lesson or an incident; and should the focus of the video be on teachers or students (also in Henley, 2001)?

The first decision related to how to use a camera – as a facilitator of events (as, e.g., Rouch, 1995 or Denzin, 1989 see it) or in such a way so as to minimise the effect it may have on students? As the research aim was to explore patterns of interaction in statu nascendi, not to investigate the effects of the camera, the decision was made to reduce the camera’s possible effects. Prior to videotaping, I visited classrooms without the camera in order to be able to compare lessons with and without the presence of the camera. In order to minimise the effects of the camera on the behaviour of teachers and students, I stood in a corner and used a small amateur camera. In addition, to minimise side effects, only one researcher was present in the classroom and I did not move around with camera in the class as a rule so as not to interfere during the lesson.

In order to check the effects that the presence of the camera and me had, I asked students to comment on how the lesson differed from others and how the camera affected their behaviour. As a surprise for me and also for students, they claimed that the camera did not bring about major effects on their usual behaviour, except some students sometimes gave glances to camera. It is unlikely that that the camera did not have any effect but, it seems plausible that

the camera did not affect the behavioural patterns and the attitudes of students and teachers during their normal lessons. Some students reported that they hesitated more to volunteer with an answer in early lessons where the camera was present, but they forgot the presence of camera quickly when they were involved in discussions. For others the presence of the camera made them sometimes flirt with it (eye contacts with camera), controlling their behaviour;

as one student declared in an interview: “I would not start to pick my nose”. The way students communicated was not influenced by the camera, according to students and teachers and my own observation.

As I was interested in the dialogue from the students’ perspective, the camera was focused on students’ interactions. Such a decision made it possible to follow the students’ perspective, but it concealed some other aspects, such as teachers’ movements and facial expressions. The reality was reproduced only partly and was most useful when teacher-centred methods¹ were applied. For example, in one of the schools, a significant amount of group work was used;

consequently, it was not possible to obtain information on different groups’

work using one camera while standing in a corner. In addition, in other lessons, many side conversations could not be reconstructed, as only one or two microphones were used in the classroom. In order to hear all of the ‘asides’ and to determine what was going on in the groups, each student would have had to be fitted with a microphone, a procedure that was not feasible.

The video camera stood in the front of the class, focused on the students. As it was determined during preliminary video sessions that it was very difficult to understand students’ speech from the back of class, an audio recorder was placed at back of the class. This additional recorder not only helped to clarify what was said publicly, but also provided access to valuable information about students’ side conversations.

In order to have several readings and a meta-perspective on the same text, group interviews with students using a method of stimulated recall were used.

After a lesson a selected sequence was shown to a group of students and they were asked to comment on their thoughts, feelings and the lesson. The method of a stimulated recall was initially described by Bloom (1953, 161) and developed by several researchers in educational (Cook 2007; Henderson &

Tallman 2006; Polio et al 2006; Lyle 2003; Gass & Mackey 2000; Knauth et al 2000; O'Brien 1993; Meade & McMeniman 1992; etc) and medical (Skovdahl et al 2004; Barrows 2000; Elstein et al 1978; etc) research fields, as a method to revive the memories and mental modes of participants about an event under investigation.

The teachers were interviewed about their aims and interpretations of their motivations behind decisions they make. The analysis was enlarged by different

1 In the teacher-centred method of instruction, the focus of the class is on the teacher.

Students listen as the teacher lectures; during interactions, the teacher plays a strong moderator role, and students speak to the teacher. Student-student conversations, if they exist, are mediated by the teacher.

readings on the lesson from the different perspectives of the members of our international working group. These processes helped to make the data richer and interpretation thicker.

The transcription of videotaped lessons (what to write down, what not) influences what researchers have as data. In my transcription not all the movements, facial expressions and voice moods were written down but only those helping me to interpret or questioning my interpretation. Relevant elements were written down and their relevance was checked during analysis. In this respect the positivist goals of attempting to obtain general theories of patterns ever working at school were abandoned. I rather wanted to explore the patterns existing in some religious education lessons in a particular context which could contribute for understanding of deeper structures of school life. I started from my subjective pre-understandings of the lesson and proceeded by reflective analysis of the lessons and any background information I had.

As the first step, I watched the videotaped material several times (the description of schools, classes, and number of lessons is provided in Chapter 3).

During each viewing, I focused on a single aspect of the data and inserted codes found from these observations into tables: these covered content or topic under study, teaching-learning methods used, duration, types of questions and answers given, facial expressions, interactions, any increase and decrease of interest among students, and questions and remarks that arose while viewing the material (see Appendix 7; the codes used are presented in Table 7 and an example of coding is provided in Table 8). This method served as a tool to sharpen my attention and identify units that needed further investigation. The sequences found in such a way are called ‘incident suspicious units’. Only if the selected unit revealed something of wider significance behind it in a way which helped to answer the research question, did I call it an ‘incident’, as described below.

In the second step, the selected units were examined in the light of the research question and classified as ‘incidents’, a term coined by Knauth in identifying hidden aspects and structures – the ‘tips of the icebergs’.

“Incidents are phenomena in the course of interaction. They represent structures which are lying under the surface of interaction.” (Knauth, 2007)

Incidents are surprising, sometimes critical events and most importantly, they are crystallisations of a problem which is related to the basic question of the research.

On the basis of Knauth’s definition of an ‘incident’, I looked for hidden aspects representing the overall structure of interaction and pedagogical context, in relation to dialogue, that appeared or were hindered in the classroom context.

A working definition of ‘dialogue’, as described in the section on terminology (1.2.3), was used here as an analytical tool for finding incidents. All incidents were identified and transcribed.