Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of South Florida]On: 31 October 2014, At: 08:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teachers and Teaching: theory andpracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20
Brokering dialogue between secondarystudents and teachers to co-constructappropriate pedagogy in reduced-sizeclassesGary James Harfitta
a Faculty of Education, Hong Kong University, Hong Kong, ChinaPublished online: 16 Oct 2013.
To cite this article: Gary James Harfitt (2014) Brokering dialogue between secondary students andteachers to co-construct appropriate pedagogy in reduced-size classes, Teachers and Teaching:theory and practice, 20:2, 212-228, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2013.848572
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848572
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Brokering dialogue between secondary students and teachers toco-construct appropriate pedagogy in reduced-size classes
Gary James Harfitt*
Faculty of Education, Hong Kong University, Hong Kong, China
(Received 13 June 2012; final version received 14 January 2013)
This study focuses on how two teachers working in reduced-size secondaryclasses of the same grade adapted their pedagogy as a result of a brokereddialogue between myself as researcher and 43 grade 10 students from the teach-ers’ classes. Research was carried out over the course of one academic year.First, students’ perspectives on studying in a reduced-size class were elicitedbefore they were invited to suggest ways of improving the teaching and learning.These interviews were transcribed and given to the teachers of these classes.Next, these teachers were interviewed to gauge their opinions on what thestudents had reported in the earlier interviews. At a later stage, their teachingwas observed to determine whether, and to what extent, the two teachers hadattempted to incorporate changes based on the feedback from pupils. The studyshowed that the pupil voice is a very powerful and constructive trigger forenacting teachers’ pedagogical change and developing our understanding ofstudents’ learning processes. Findings demonstrate that teachers respondedpositively to their students’ perspectives despite initial apprehensions. Implica-tions for professional development and good practices in reduced-size classes arealso presented.
Keywords: pupil voice; teachers’ practice; class size reduction; professionaldevelopment
Background
This paper positions itself at the intersection of the interrelationship between threekey areas of classroom research: pedagogy, student voice and teachers’ professionaldevelopment. Its starting point was the question of how, and to what extent, teachersemploy a different pedagogy in reduced-size secondary classes in Hong Kong. Inparticular, the paper seeks to examine the pedagogical changes that experiencedteachers might adopt in their classes as a result of reflecting on their students’ feed-back. While teachers appear to universally welcome smaller classes (Korostoff,1998; Wang & Finn, 2000), there is a substantial body of research which suggeststhat teachers do not change their practice when moving from large classes to smallerones (Rice, 1999; Shapson, Wright, Eason, & Fitzgerald, 1980). This is in spite ofthe powerful teaching opportunities that small classes are supposed to offer(Pate-Bain, Achilles, Boyd-Zaharius, & McKenna, 1992). There is some acceptancethat specific teaching strategies are required in small classes to properly exploit thelearning opportunities available (Blatchford, 2011).
*Email: [email protected]
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2014Vol. 20, No. 2, 212–228, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848572
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
In Hong Kong secondary schools, there is a move towards the widespread use ofreduced-size classes as a strategy for better teaching and learning, and the studyreported on in this paper sets out to build upon recent studies in Hong Kong (Galton& Pell, 2010; Harfitt, 2012a) by investigating under-researched aspects of class sizereduction (CSR), namely the developmental process of teachers’ pedagogicalchange, and hearing the student voice on teaching and learning processes in smallerclasses. Pertinent to Hong Kong’s current situation, Blatchford (2011) surmises thatif educational institutions are experimenting with CSR to improve learning, then itis vital that the teaching is as effective as possible, and that research must identifybest practices in small class settings. Galton and Pell’s (2010) longitudinal study ofsmall class teaching in HK primary schools reported teachers moving away fromwhole class instruction towards an emphasis on group enquiry, pair work and groupwork (2010, p. 62) as a result of engaging in reflective and professional develop-ment practices set up by the research team. This gradual change in teachers’ peda-gogy warrants further examination in a secondary school context where there islimited published research, with the exception of some studies in the UK(Blatchford, Basset, & Brown, 2011) and in Hong Kong (Harfitt, 2012a, 2013).
Student voice and feedback on teaching and learning
Another objective reported in this paper is how students’ feedback on teaching andlearning in reduced-size classes can be used to promote reflective practice in experi-enced teachers. In an extensive review of class size research, Finn, Pannozzo, andAchilles (2003) note the student voice must be a priority, while Pedder (2006) statesthat it provides ‘the best opportunity for improving our theoretical and practicalunderstandings’ of class size differences (2006, p. 231). The vast majority ofinternational research on CSR have been conducted in early childhood contexts(Blatchford, 2003; Finn & Achilles, 1999; Galton & Pell, 2010) where young learn-ers’ are not always in a position to articulate their experiences on learning inreduced-size classrooms. In the secondary context, however, students are older andbetter able to articulate the differences between teaching and learning in large andreduced-size classes, as demonstrated in local studies (Harfitt, 2012b, 2012c).
This study, then, rests on the premise that the student voice should be seen as apowerful source of insight for teachers, and that it might serve as a catalyst forpedagogical change. Ruddock and Flutter (2000) highlight the political impetusbehind hearing the student voice which can be traced to a concern for rights, equal-ity and fairness advocated by the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights ofthe Child. Rodgers (2006) draws on John Dewey’s (1933) concept of reflectivethinking, to urge educators to become more ‘alive’ to their students’ thinking, affectand learning (p. 211). She refers to the term descriptive feedback, and situatesteachers’ dialogue with students about their learning experiences within a reflectivepractice framework, and notes that such a dialogue ‘offers the opportunity to workin a democratic partnership, granting students the authority to voice their ownexperience and contribute to decisions that directly affect them’ (p. 214).
A broad literature exists on successful engagement with the student voice ineducational settings, (Cook-Sather, 2001; Hopkins, 2010; McIntyre, Pedder, &Rudduck, 2005; Ruddock & Flutter, 2000). These studies have shown that while thestudent voice on school-wide issues is relatively easy to elicit, students’ commentaryon teaching and learning in the classroom is more difficult. One exemplar of the
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 213
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
latter type of research is McIntyre et al. (2005) who employed case studies todescribe how six teachers adapted their practice in response to pupil feedback on theUK-Government-funded Teaching and Learning Research Programme. The researchteam employed a ‘linked researcher’ from a University to act as an intermediarybetween the teachers who were new to consulting students. In their study based onthree secondary schools, six pupils in each class were interviewed about their experi-ence of three lessons. The interview transcripts were then given to the teachers,before a follow-up phase which included interviews with the teachers and studentsto understand the nature of any changes implemented. A few months later, theresearcher visited schools to see if any changes in pedagogy had become permanentfeatures of the teachers’ repertoire. Findings showed that student ideas had to meetsome demanding criteria before teachers would consider adopting changes in theirclassroom, and that suggestions from students needed to be based on what teachersrecognised as valid. In sum, they would not entertain suggestions that they believedto be imagined or over-personalised by students. Pupils’ responses were found to beconstructive and insightful, but teachers reacted in different ways with someadopting change after reflecting on their practice, and some quickly reverting toformer practices because of issues of practicality. This was when teachers felt theycould not change their practice due to curriculum constraints. Other teachersdismissed the worth of pupil statements.
The student voice has also been used as a source of evidence in the assessment ofindividual teacher performance in the UK, Australia and parts of the USA (Chamberlin,Wragg, Haynes, & Wragg, 2002). In Tennessee, USA, performance pay for teachers(or incentives) has been equated with student achievement as well as assessment ofclassroom practices and the opinions of school principals. Odden (2000) points to theimportance of rewarding teachers who learn new teaching skills and who are successfulin helping students to learn.
The aforementioned studies of the student voice were carried out in Anglophonecontexts, while the study reported on here represents a new departure in research onstudent voice because it stems from a Confucian-heritage culture (CHC), wherethere may be cultural barriers to ascertaining the student voice and using it topromote teachers’ reflection or pedagogical innovation. Hong Kong teachers havealso been stereotyped as figures of authority and respect (Littlewood, 2000), makingit less likely that they would engage in the type of democratic partnership advocatedby Rodgers (2006). Another characteristic of Asian classrooms and Chinese learningcontexts is its ‘collectivist culture’ (see, e.g. Chen, 1992; Jin & Cortazzi, 1998), andlocal students have often been labelled as reticent and passive (Tsui, 1996), makingit unlikely for teachers to consult their learners on pedagogy, and also for studentsto offer up their own perspectives. Other cultural aspects such as self-esteem, lackof confidence and the issues of ‘face’ (Triandis, 1995) may impede teacher–studentconsultation. To overcome these perceived cultural obstacles, I chose to brokerdialogue between teachers and students along the lines of McIntyre et al. (2005). Indoing so, I was also guided by Joseph Schwab’s seminal paper on ‘practical’(1983), where he imagined professors with a critical grasp of the field engaging withschools to foster curriculum improvements (p. 250), and involving students who canappraise the effects of ‘… what and how we teach which no others can’ (1983,p. 248).
Schwab (1983) describes the four ‘commonplaces of education’: teacher,students, what is taught and the milieu of teaching, learning, as having intrinsically
214 G.J. Harfitt
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
equal importance (1983, p. 241), and by eliciting the student voice, this study aimsto build on the extensive literature which recognises the importance of teachers’‘personal practical knowledge’ of the classroom as being crucial to better teachingand learning (Clandinin & Connelly, 1988, 1992; Craig & Ross, 2008). Clandininand Connelly (1988) highlight numerous reflective tools including professionaldialogue, journal keeping, biography, picturing, storytelling, interviews, participantobservation and make reference to learning from students. Their work describedteacher knowledge as narrative life histories situated in a personal and socialcontext, as they sought to understand teachers as knowers: knowers of themselves,of their situations, of children, of subject matter, of teaching and of learning(Connelly & Clandinin, 1999). This study aims at exploring the students’ narrativeto determine if, and how, students’ brokered dialogues can mediate teachers’personal practical knowledge and their own understanding of the curriculum facingtheir students.
Context of the study
This study was conducted in Hong Kong where a typical secondary class cancontain 40 students, or more. There is presently an ongoing debate in Hong Kongbetween the teachers’ union and the government on the reduction of large class sizein secondary schools and whether smaller class size might improve student learning.In Hong Kong, classes in primary schools were set at 25 pupils (Galton & Pell,2010), which in the local context would certainly be seen by teachers and studentsas ‘small’, but from an international perspective, such a class size might still beviewed as large. For example, the famous Student Teacher Achievement Ratioproject which has contributed so much to the small class debate included ‘regular’class sizes of 22–25 and ‘small’ class sizes of 13–17 in its examination of class sizeon student achievement in Tennessee, USA. So, while findings from internationalstudies on class size are informative and helpful, they may not necessarily begeneralisable to other regions, particularly Asia where class sizes are often muchlarger. Rather than trying to define an optimal ‘small’ size in this study, I choose tofocus on classes where the regular class size has been greatly reduced, hence the useof the term ‘reduced-size class’. The two classes reported on in this study contained21 and 22 students, respectively.
Aims of the study
This study has two main aims. First, it seeks to broker the student voice on teachingand learning in reduced-size classes as a foreground to the second aim, which is todetermine if, and to what extent, teachers are able to use that feedback to reflect ontheir own practice and implement pedagogical change. By brokering dialogues inthis way, it is hoped that this study will connect with previously cited curriculumstrands (Clandinin & Connelly, 1988, 1992; Schwab, 1983). The following researchquestions underpin the study:
(1) How do students perceive that teaching and learning processes might beenhanced in their reduced-size classes?
(2) What are teachers’ perceptions of the student feedback, and how does itinfluence their practical knowledge of the classroom?
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 215
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
Study design
This study focused on two secondary school teachers of English, Joanne and Connie(pseudonyms), each working in different schools but with reduced-size classes ofthe same year grade (grade 10), and of varying academic ability. The first small class(SCI) contained 21 students, while the second class (SCII) contained 22 students.Research was carried out over the course of one academic year. The dataset for thispaper includes semi-structured focus group interviews with 43 students from thereduced-size classes and multiple interviews with their two teachers. I also observedone cycle of teaching in each of the 2 classes (approximately 14 lessons in total).
Case study research was used in order to investigate the classroom in its entirety,but the case studies also drew on principles of narrative inquiry to capture theexperiences or ‘stories’ of students and their teachers in both schools (Connelly &Clandinin, 1999, p. 4). These narratives provide a window onto students’perceptions of how CSR can enhance teaching and learning processes, and whetherteachers can use these perceptions to shape or transform their professionalknowledge. The narratives in the form of interviews and brokered dialoguesrepresent the thread that links each case study. A ‘case’ in this study constitutes oneteacher teaching in a reduced-size class. A replication strategy (Yin, 1991), then,strengthens our understanding of the cases. Case studies lead to new hypotheses andunderstandings about language learning or related processes (Merriam, 1998), andhave proved invaluable in illuminating some of the fine detail in what makes smallclass contexts different to larger ones (Blatchford, 2003; Galton & Pell, 2010;Harfitt, 2012a). In order to collect in-depth qualitative data, sampling focuses ontwo schools and purposive sampling was used to identify suitable schools and teach-ers (Patton, 2002).
Through an extensive knowledge of the local secondary school context, I identi-fied the two case study schools with involvement entirely voluntary. Both schoolswere co-educational, and both represented different academic bandings (one bandone and one band three). In Hong Kong, schools are divided into three bands (bandone to band three), with band one indicating a higher level of academic abilityamong students and band three the lowest. There was no random control over thechoice of student subjects; this was guided by the school’s arrangement of havingthe same teacher teach both classes. In each school, the teachers had been givenreduced-size classes largely because of workload issues in the respective schools,but neither teacher had previously taught classes lower than 36 in size. A non-exper-imental research design was adopted so all observed classes formed part of theteachers’ existing teaching timetable. Students in both classes had no experience oflearning in smaller classes prior to this study. In each institution, the selection ofstudents in each class was done randomly, meaning there was no streaming ofparticular students or groups. In both schools, administrators wanted to examine theeffectiveness of small class teaching with a view to expanding the initiative to otheryear grades in subsequent years.
Both teachers in the study were female reflecting the gender bias of the teachingprofession in Hong Kong, and each had between nine and 12 years’ experience ofteaching, with five years being a commonly accepted criterion in the selection ofexperienced teachers (Tsui, 2003). Both teachers possessed a postgraduate diplomaor certificate in education. The selection of experienced teachers in my proposedstudy is crucial, since in Galton and Pell’s (2010) study a lack of command of
216 G.J. Harfitt
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
English was adjudged to be a key factor in a teacher’s ability to change practice andmaximise the benefits of CSR.
Student and teacher interviews
I interviewed all the students in the two reduced-size classes to elicit qualitative dataon how they perceived teaching and learning in their respective cohorts. A combina-tion of focus group and individual interviews were conducted with the 43 studentsduring lunchtime and after school, over a four-week period. Focus group interviewsensure that the concept of applicability can be met with students possessing knowl-edge of the research area. Using Krueger’s (1994) framework, group interviewsconsisted of approximately six students, and were held at lunchtime and after school,so that learners were encouraged to express opinions in a non-threateningatmosphere. Each interview took approximately 20–35 min. Being aware of issuesin interview research when mother tongues are not shared (Casenave, 2010),students were given the option of using Cantonese, with the help of a translator, butall students chose to use English in their discussions with me. Interviews elicitedstudents’ views on key themes extracted from the literature on class size: students’opinions on the lessons, classroom organisation and pedagogical strategies, students’own views on what they like and dislike about learning English in their class,students’ views on peer relationships in their respective classes, students’ participa-tion in class, reasons for engagement and on-task attention in their respectiveclasses, students’ view of language learning anxiety as well as their sense ofconfidence in class, and crucially, how they would improve teaching and learning intheir smaller class (see Appendix 1 for student questions).
After the students’ interviews were analysed and transcribed, I gave copies ofthe transcriptions to the two teachers who were asked to consider their responses tothe students’ comments. After a month, I interviewed the teachers to elicit theirviews on the students’ comments and on how they saw those comments influencingtheir own pedagogy, if at all. At this stage, teachers were also asked to consider anypedagogical changes they saw as being helpful to teaching and learning in theirrespective class. The main foci for the teachers’ interviews included: their opinionson the feedback from their respective class, and discussion of the teachers’ pedagog-ical decisions. Interviews typically ranged from 40 to 50 min and were conducted inEnglish. Follow-up semi-structured individual interviews were arranged after theobservations to seek evidence or counter evidence that might support or disconfirmany emerging theoretical insights from the focus groups, with all interviews beingaudio-recorded and transcribed.
Inductive analysis generated insights that emerged from the raw data andinformed the study’s research questions. The data analysis continuum here was anumber of distinct though highly interconnected stages (Ritchie & Spencer,1994): coding of interview and observation data by reviewing field notes as wellas data reduction through summaries of key findings relevant to the researchquestions (Miles & Huberman, 1994); categorising codes into emergent theoreticalinsights (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) or ‘organised constructions’ (Holliday, 2002);further data mining to examine evidence or counter evidence which might supportor refute the emerging insights. The qualitative text analysis software (NVivo)facilitates the coding of transcripts descriptively, but my own analytical skillswere also central to any interpretation. It must be stressed that I do not aim to
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 217
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
make generalisations beyond the data that emerges from the two research sitesand there is no attempt here to claim that students’ and teachers’ perspectives arethe only possible interpretation of interviewee responses. However, respondentvalidity was ensured to a large extent with students and teachers reading andapproving all oral data.
Classroom observations
The final phase of the research followed approximately 3 months after the interviewstage. I was able to observe seven consecutive lessons in each class (with each beingapproximately 40 min long). These lessons represented one cycle of teaching andallowed for me to observe a regular period of teaching in each teacher’s schedule.The teacher participants were not asked or required to make any amendments totheir lessons, subject content or teaching methods for the purposes of the study.Rather, the lessons were seen as ‘slices of life’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 98) inwhich the teachers and students were observed in a naturalistic way. This approachcaptured a snapshot of the teaching and learning in each of the case study schoolsby employing a modified version of Galton and Pell’s (2010) systematic observationschedule with emphasis on teachers’ and students’ behaviour including classroomorganisation, questions, individual and whole-class instructions, teacher–pupil talk,pupil–pupil talk, time on-task and feedback. Focus will also be placed on theobservable classroom discourse using field notes taken during observations as wellas the systematic classroom observation schedule, and from reviewing lessontranscriptions. Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975) analysis of classroom discourse helpsto examine the shift in patterns of dialogue taking place in teacher–pupil andpupil–pupil dialogue, but it is but one measure by which the effects of reduced-sizeclasses on any teaching approach might be estimated. A more comprehensiveframework such as that used by Robin Alexander (2000) is deemed a more appropri-ate tool for analysing classroom discourse in this study.
Trustworthiness must be a central concern in qualitative studies. The principlesof informed consent, anonymity and confidentiality (Eisner, 1998) were strictlyobserved and all observations were conducted without any form of participation onmy part. A potential threat to the trustworthiness of this research is the notion ofsocial desirability. This threat was minimised through prolonged engagement witheach case (one academic year), combined with a persistent observation of the salientfeatures in each (Lincoln & Guba, 1995). All oral data (interview transcripts andlesson transcripts) were given to participants to ensure member checking andrespondent validity (Erlandson et al., 1993).
Findings
In interview, students reflected in a mature and confident way about their experi-ences of learning in smaller classes, often drawing on their previous experience ofstudying in larger classes. At no point in the interviews did students make personalcriticisms of their teacher, or school. A number of themes from the coding of thestudent interviews emerged but, due to a lack of space here, I choose to focus on thethree most salient: students’ sense of belonging, increased opportunities for partici-pation, and a perceived increase in confidence and self-esteem.
218 G.J. Harfitt
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
Students’ views on studying in reduced-size classes
A consistent response from students in SCI (n = 21) and SCII (n = 22) was that theyfelt a sense of unity in their respective classes:
It’s much better in a small class because we know each other now. We are like a groupof friends. Before, [in a large class] we do not have good relations with the others. (SCI)
This is the best class I have been in. We work together and help each other. (SCII)
It was noticeable that in both classes the students saw their teacher as being animportant part of the class ‘group’ as this comment suggests,
She knows us really well and can help us. It makes us closer to her. Sometimes thereis a distance between teachers and us [students] but in our small class we are together.It’s better than before because we have more attention now. (SCII)
According to the students, this perceived sense of belonging also translated intomore opportunities for participation in class,
I like answering questions now … no one looks down on me in this class, so I try toanswer more. (SCII)
We get more chances to speak up in English lessons now … the small class means wecan ask for help easily. I like speaking to the teacher now … she helps us all the time.(SCI)
In turn, this participation seemed to fuel students’ confidence in learning English,
I am better in English than before. I can speak more now and am not afraid. (SCII)
Last year [in a larger class] I hated to make presentations in class. But this year I tryharder and my performance is better. I am improving this year. (SCI)
In these comments, students appeared to see the reduced-size class context asbeing a ‘safer’ environment where they felt less anxious and more empowered toask for help, answer questions and speak up more.
Students’ suggestions for improving teaching and learning
Students were keen to suggest some improvements to their teaching and learningenvironment, but this was mostly done by suggesting ways of modifying existingteaching practices rather than suggesting a completely new approach. Interestingly,students from the higher academic-ability school (SCI) spoke about wanting theirteacher to promote more interaction in class, while the students from the loweracademic banding expressed their desire for more group work during lessons. Therewas also a commonality across the two case schools with the students’ suggestionthat teachers provide them with more time to complete tasks.
In SCI, students told me that sometimes there was too much teacher-talk,
She explains a lot to us and we sit and listen. Sometimes it’s boring. It would be betterto ask us more questions. (SCI)
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 219
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
She talks a lot sometimes. It is boring when she talks for a long time. (SCI)
When asked to elaborate on when their teacher explained ‘a lot’, the studentsreplied that it was usually in lessons where new content was being introduced(‘when we start a new unit in the textbook’), or when the teacher was setting up atask. However, other students from the same class made a similar point about theirteacher’s use of questioning techniques,
It’s easier to answer questions in this class and she [the teacher] does ask many of us… so we can have practice. But we know some students never ask and she does notask them questions … it’s not fair to us. She should ask everyone. (SCI)
Some students answer more questions than the others. She should others or they willremain silent. (SCI)
In SCII, the most common suggestions from students concerned the teacher’sarrangement of the classroom landscape, particularly their perception that collabora-tive strategies like group work and pair work were under-used,
We are a small class but she [the teacher] makes us work on our own a lot. It wouldbe better to work together on more tasks. I have no neighbour [meaning no student sitsnext to him] but there are classmates I could work with. (SCII)
Sometimes she says we can work together and it’s fun. We can learn better when wework together but mostly we are … we work on our own in class. I like group workmore. (SCII)
Learners told me that their teacher did not vary the classroom organisation veryoften to facilitate collaboration during lessons. Students seemed to place value ongroup work and collaboration, and wanted to see it utilised more often in theirEnglish classes. The final comment shows that when the teacher does set up groupwork, it tends to be rather fixed with the same students working together. Suchresponses were not forthcoming in SCI where group work was quite common,according to students.
In both classes, a similar point was made about the perceived need for more timeon task, as the following interview extracts show,
I feel rushed sometimes … she asks us to finish tasks at the end by the end of thelesson but I want…I would like to have more time. With more time we can do better.(SCII)
We ask for more time to finish work together but we have to finish quickly. (SCI)
In these excerpts, students expressed their wish for more class time to completetasks. Students from SCI told me how much they enjoyed working with their peerson group tasks, but always felt that they had to rush their work to satisfy the teacher.In SCII, the students noted that some tasks were quite challenging to them and thatthey felt having some more time to complete them would be beneficial to the finallearning outcome.
220 G.J. Harfitt
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
Teachers’ response to their students’ feedback
In the second phase of the research study, I gave the transcripts from the studentinterviews to the two teachers and, after a month, interviewed them to gauge theirreaction and feedback (see Appendix 2). In light of previous studies showing thatteachers may feel threatened when receiving their students’ comments (McIntyreet al., 2005), I hoped that a month’s reflective space would give the teacher partici-pants time to process their students’ thoughts and suggestions. In my first exchangeswith teachers after that time, both teachers expressed surprise at the maturity of theirstudents’ responses,
I must admit I was a bit suspicious when you sent me the transcripts because I thoughtthey would complain about me [laughs]. They haven’t. They’ve been very positive.(Joanne, SCI)
I enjoyed reading their comments and I didn’t think I would. I have not done thisbefore…you know, asking students to critique my lessons. Once I read the comments afew times I found them to be better than my head of department’s appraisal [she hadreceived a lesson observation for her yearly appraisal in the same month]. What I meanis that the students’ comments were less threatening and I didn’t expect that. (Connie,SCII)
Both teachers were impressed by the students’ perception that they were part ofa ‘group’, but noted they had not previously considered themselves to be part of thatsame classroom community,
I didn’t realise they saw me as part of their group. That’s quite nice [laughs]. But it’strue that it’s easier to build good relations in a smaller class. (Connie, SCII)
I do feel happy when teaching this class. We get on well together, but being part oftheir little gang is not something I expected from them. I’m pleasantly surprised.Perhaps it’s more important to them than to me as the teacher. (Joanne, SCI)
Both teachers noted that their students’ opinions were constructive, but therewere some differences in their specific responses. For example, when Joanne readher students’ comments that she spent a lot of time explaining tasks, she becamerather defensive,
I don’t think I talk as much as they say. I have to explain things in every class. Howcan I let them talk or do tasks if they don’t know what is expected? They can’t have itboth ways. (Joanne, SCI)
Joanne also queried the validity of the students’ suggestion that she should try toengage the whole class more by inviting more students to answer questions,
I don’t really agree with that…maybe they don’t understand the reality. Some studentslike to answer questions but others don’t. I don’t want to force students to answerbecause I know it might make things worse…some students don’t like the attention onthem in class but I know that they are listening and paying attention. (Joanne, SCI)
This comment reveals a dichotomy in the classroom reality, perhaps, with learn-ers feeling that their teacher overlooks reticent students while the teacher’s response
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 221
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
shows she is not ‘overlooking’ them at all. Instead, she deliberately avoids unsettlingthem because she is aware of the psychological state of these quieter pupils.
Connie’s response to her students’ suggestions was more positive than Joanne’s.She welcomed students’ ideas for more varied group work in lessons, but noted thatthis was not always practical,
This is surprising to me. I thought they preferred to work on their own most of thetime. I wonder if they want to have more group work so that they can talk more[laughs]. I have to consider classroom management but I think their ideas are worth-while. I could move their seats more … we have lots of space in the classroom, it’strue. It’s the most interesting finding to me because they have not said anything before.I thought they were happy with things. (Connie, SCII)
In this comment, Connie appears to accept the students’ suggestions and seesthem as valid. Yet, here we can also see how teachers’ perceptions of their students’learning styles can sometimes run contrary to the classroom reality. Students havenot made explicit requests for group work and Connie sensed that they ‘preferred’independent work.
The issue of practicality emerged again when Joanne and Connie consideredstudents’ suggestion that they wanted more time for tasks. However, the teacherswere sympathetic to the students’ views,
I’d love to give them more time to complete tasks. But it’s not always possible as wehave so much to cover in the curriculum. If we don’t finish we have to rush throughother parts of the curriculum. I think I should explain this more to students. I am notrushing them to make things hard for them … but we have to cover a lot. (Joanne,SCI)
I agree with them [laughs]. I always feel rushed. Some say I rush them to finish by theend of lessons and that’s true. I do rush them. I need to reconsider this because if theywant more time that can only be good. (Connie, SCII)
In an exam-oriented schooling system, coverage of the curriculum in Hong Kongschools is often at the forefront of a teacher’s approach in class, and in thesecomments there is evidence that teachers are very aware of the impact this can haveon teaching and learning. Of note, is the teachers’ recognition that they need toreflect on their own actions.
Teachers’ pedagogy after receiving student feedback
Three months after the teacher interviews, I observed seven lessons in both SCI andSCII to see how, and to what extent, the two teachers had acted upon their pupils’suggestions. I am not attempting to claim that these findings based on a sample sizeof just two teachers are helpful in understanding how other educators might actwhen provided with their pupils’ feedback on their teaching. Nevertheless, findingspresented raise some interesting issues pertaining to how the opportunities whenteaching reduced-size classes might be maximised by educators. For reportingpurposes, I have organised findings from the classroom observations into twocategories: teachers’ willingness to incorporate pedagogical change based onstudents’ feedback, and their difficulties relating to incorporating pedagogicalchange.
222 G.J. Harfitt
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
Teachers’ willingness to incorporate pedagogical change
Joanne’s students in SCI had commented on the excessive amount of teacher-talk.Students told me that they thought some students received more questions thanothers; something which they thought was unfair. In response, Joanne countered thatshe thought some students did not like having the spotlight placed on them. In inter-view ahead of the observations, Joanne told me that she had considered the students’comments carefully and had initiated strategies in class. One such strategy was toinvite students to nominate their peers to answer questions because,
… Then it is not me nominating the students, and the class gets to choose. I try to givethem more responsibility this way and it seems to work. (Joanne, SCI)
An excerpt from one observed lesson demonstrates this. In the class, studentswere examining the linguistic elements of photo captions in newspapers and maga-zines, and had been asked to complete a task where they had to produce their owncaptions.
Excerpt from SC1 (verbatim from lesson transcription):
1. T: Can you give some of your answers now? Let’s go around the class.Jolene, what have you put down?
2. S1: I wrote ‘that hurts.’3. T: ‘That hurts’ – that’s good. It shows the feeling of the lady in the picture.
Can you choose someone else to answer?4. S1: Kelly5. S2: I put ‘painful business’ because she is a politician.6. T: Very good [writing both answers on the board]. Let’s hear some more.
Kelly, who are you picking?7. S2: Kobe.8. T: OK, Kobe, you’re next. What did you write for the caption?
T: Teacher S1/S2: nominated students
This was a strategy used in all observed classes. Another technique Joanneemployed was to call out class numbers or to ask students to draw ‘lucky sticks’from a container which had class numbers on. Joanne was still cautious about nomi-nating students who she perceived to be shy, but was willing to change her approachin light of the students’ comments. In interview, she explained her rationale behindthe change in approach:
I try different things to involve the whole class. Yes, they [students] made me think. Iam not happy forcing students to answer, but I sense that if they ask each other or theyare nominated randomly then they are more comfortable. (Joanne, SCI)
In Connie’s SCII class, the students noted that they wanted more variety in theteacher’s use of group and pair work. In observed lessons, I saw Connie employgroup work on three separate occasions. One such occasion was an activity wherethe whole class formed a circle to discuss a short story and to engage in a version offorum theatre where students had to take on the roles of characters in the story. Inanother class, Connie asked students to work in groups to correct their peers’grammar worksheets. According to the teacher, this was a recent development:
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 223
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
The students like to work together so I have tried to vary things a little. Now I askthem to proofread each other’s work and today they helped to mark a worksheet onconditional forms. They seem to like reading and correcting classmates’ work. (Connie,SCII)
Students from both classes reported to me that the lessons I observed werereflective of most lessons since the teachers had read their comments three monthsearlier. SCI students recognised that more students were answering questions in classand SCII students agreed that the classroom space was better utilised.
Teachers’ difficulties in incorporating pedagogical change
The pedagogical changes mentioned earlier suggest positive outcomes. Both teachershad responded creatively to their students’ feedback, but it was also the case thatJoanne and Connie encountered one common obstacle to innovation. Students fromboth classes wanted more time to engage with tasks during lessons, but this was notpossible according to teachers. Ironically, the situation had actually worsened as aresult of the teachers responding to students’ other feedback on questioning andgroup work. Joanne mentioned that inviting more students to answer questions ‘tookup a lot more class time … a lot more’ and Connie said that additional group workmeant that she ‘… could not complete the same amount of tasks as usual.’ At theend of the study, Joanne made a comment that did not bode well for the permanentimplementation of the pedagogical innovations mentioned earlier:
The students don’t understand that we [teachers] have a lot to cover and we are underpressure to prepare them for the exams. It’s not possible to do everything in classwhich they don’t understand. I’d like to promise you I will carry on these changes andI will try. But the real situation is that I have to help this class pass the public exam intwo years time. Some things have to be sacrificed to make space for whole class teach-ing. It’s more efficient. That is the reality. (Joanne, SCI)
Discussion
This paper sought to investigate whether and how teachers would modify theirpedagogy in reduced-size secondary classes, by reflecting on their students’ voicebrokered through focus-group interviews and written transcripts. The study hasproduced some interesting findings, its small-scale nature notwithstanding. Findingshere converge with previously cited research (Cook-Sather, 2001; McIntyre,Pedder, & Rudduck, 2005; Rodgers, 2006) that advocate the examination andinclusion of students’ opinions and experience in research pertaining to curriculuminitiatives. Students’ comments in this study were mature and well received bytheir teachers, despite initial suspicions that the feedback would be critical. It alsoconverges with Schwab’s (1983) model of promoting curriculum reflection by pro-moting challenging, decision-making and collaborative functions as part of the roleof teachers (p. 264). By brokering the dialogue in the ways outlined by McIntyreet al. (2005), this exploratory study not only countered prohibitive cultural factors,but also met Schwab’s (1983) recommendation of making students party to theplanning of curriculum in schools, and transforming the usual practices of dissemi-nation of professional development by stimulating teachers’ personal reflection andchange.
224 G.J. Harfitt
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
This paper has also opened up a possibility for emergent class size research thatfocuses on how the student voice acts as a trigger for pedagogical change viateacher reflection. Previous class size research has shown that teachers do not varytheir practices when moving from large classes to smaller ones (Galton & Pell,2010; Rice, 1999; Shapson et al., 1980). Nevertheless, the data from the two casestudies suggest that the two teachers did enact change, and that the potential forbetter teaching and learning can be maximised in smaller classes when teachers andstudents engage in constructive dialogue about the learners’ experience. Studentsreferred to their teachers being members of the classroom community, which hasimplications for pedagogy in reduced-size settings. A consistent finding was thatstudents and teachers possessed a strong sense of belonging to their respectivecommunities, enjoyed a close relationship with one another and found the class tobe a more relaxed environment for learning when compared with experiences ofstudying in larger classes. The comments from students and teachers suggest thatthe small classes in this study have led to increased prosocial behaviour which runscontrary to previous studies (Blatchford, 2003). This sense of belonging or commu-nity may be the platform that teachers require in order to involve students inbuilding innovation into their teaching and planning.
Findings suggest that students are keen to exploit the different learning opportu-nities that exist as a result of being in a reduced-size class. In particular, they askedfor more opportunities to participate through changes to the classroom landscape(more group work and use of available space) as well as their teacher’s questioningstyle. From a cultural perspective, these are notable findings because the construc-tive feedback offered by students and the manner in which it was accepted by theteachers might not have been expected given the stereotypical view of Hong Kongstudents as being reticent and reluctant to challenge their more knowledgeable teach-ers. The students’ request for more interactional opportunities and group work alsoappears to contradict the stereotype of the ‘passive learner’ which is often used tocharacterise students in CHCs like Hong Kong. To hear the student voice echoingthis view is encouraging.
Learners’ feedback also suggests that the student voice can be a powerful catalystfor teachers’ professional development. Connie (SCII) had incorporated more groupwork even though she was still concerned about classroom management. Joanne(SCI) maintained her reluctance to nominate shy members of her class believing thatit would arouse more anxiety in them. However, she adapted her questioning tech-niques to involve her students in the process. From a developmental perspective,then, the two teachers generally reacted positively to the feedback from their studentswhich was seen as ‘less threatening’ than the department head’s. Students’ commentsshow that they wanted to build on aspects that were already part of the teachers’ rep-ertoire and were not seeking to change their teachers’ pedagogy completely. The onenegative message from the data was that the two teachers regard the pressure of cur-riculum coverage as being an obstacle to their permanent assimilation of pedagogicalchange. This practical constraint, which is often seen as being outside the control ofteachers who do not occupy senior positions in their schools, confirms existingresearch (see Ingersoll & Alsalam, 1997; McIntyre et al., 2005).
It must be pointed out that this was a case which arose from a good classroomatmosphere in both research settings; such findings may not be evident in all schoolsor classes, and this begs the question of whether teachers and researchers will alwaysreceive constructive feedback of the kind that this study reports. Focusing on a larger
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 225
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
cohort of teachers over a longer period of time would produce rich data. Another limi-tation is that this study does not report a direct dialogue between the two teachers andtheir students; instead I had to play the role of broker. However, given time and thepositive outcome of the study, it is hoped that this may change in the future and teach-ers may feel more confident about initiating dialogue with their students over teachingand learning. The main positive message from the data in this study was that thereshould be nothing to fear from inviting students to comment on teaching and learning,as shown in the way the two teachers were willing to assimilate changes suggested bytheir students. In sum, the case studies point to a co-construction of pedagogy thatcould be applied to classes of any size, and not just reduced-size ones.
Conclusions
This study set out to engage students in a brokered dialogue with teachers onpedagogy in reduced-size classes. It has managed to shed more light on the impor-tance of teachers’ and learners’ own reflection of learning, rather than just the teach-ing. Teachers in this study were apprehensive about receiving their students’feedback believing that it could be a challenge to their teaching. Yet, through theprocess of hearing their students’ voice and experience, they came to see it as a wayof understanding more about how their students perceived learning in reduced-sizecontexts. Data from the study also suggest that students have a keen interest indeveloping their own learning potential; something reflected in their feedback onteaching. It was noted earlier that not all classes will produce such constructivefeedback, but by placing trust in students to play a role in achieving a shared goal,namely effective learning in small classes, we may learn more about the types ofgood pedagogical practices that would exploit the undoubted potential whichreduced-size classes bring to teachers.
ReferencesAlexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary
education. Oxford: Blackwell.Blatchford, P. (2003). The class size debate: Is small better? Philadelphia, PA: Open Univer-
sity Press.Blatchford, P. (2011). The three generations of research on class size effects. In K. R. Harris,
S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), The American Psychological Association (APA) educa-tional psychological handbook (pp. 529–554). Washington, DC: APA.
Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., & Brown, P. (2011). Examining the effect of class size on class-room engagement and teacher–pupil interaction: Differences in relation to pupil priorattainment and primary vs. secondary schools. Learning and Instruction, 21, 715–730.
Casenave, C. P. (2010). Distancing: From real-time experiences to final research report inqualitative inquiry with multilingual participants. Paper presented at the Symposium onSecond Language Writing, Murcia, Spain.
Chamberlin, R., Wragg, T., Haynes, G., & Wragg, C. (2002). Performance-related pay andthe teaching profession: A review of the literature. Research Papers in Education, 17,31–49.
Chen, S. (1992). The problems and possible remedies in dealing with large classes. TeachingEnglish in China, 24, 83–90.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1988). Studying teachers’ knowledge of classrooms:Collaborative research, ethics, and the negotiation of narrative. Educational Researcher,19, 2–14.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363–401). New York, NY: Macmillan.
226 G.J. Harfitt
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, J. (Eds.). (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories ofeducational practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cook-Sather, A. (2001). Authorising students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, andchange in education. Educational Researcher, 31, 3–14.
Craig, C., & Ross, V. (2008). Cultivating the image of teachers as curriculum makers. InF. M. Connelly (Ed.), Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 282–305).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
Educational practices. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic
enquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee’s class size study: Findings, implications,
misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 97–111.Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Achilles, C. M. (2003). The “why’s” of class size: Student
behaviour in small classes. Review of Educational Research, 73, 321–368.Galton, M., & Pell, T. (2010). Study on small class teaching in primary schools in Hong
Kong. Hong Kong: Education Bureau and Cambridge University.Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage.Harfitt, G. J. (2012a). An examination of teachers’ perceptions and practice when teaching
large and reduced-size classes: Do teachers really teach them in the same way? Teachingand Teacher Education, 28, 132–140.
Harfitt, G. J. (2012b). Class size and language learning in Hong Kong: The students’ per-spective. Educational Research, 54, 331–342.
Harfitt, G. J. (2012c). How class size reduction mediates secondary students’ learning: Hear-ing the pupil voice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13, 299–310.
Harfitt, G. J. (2013). Why ‘small’ can be better: An exploration of the relationships betweenclass size and pedagogical practices. Research Papers in Education, 28, 330–346.
Holliday, A. R. (2002). Doing and writing qualitative research. London: Sage.Hopkins, E. (2010). Classroom conditions for effective learning: Hearing the voice of Key
Stage 3 pupils. Improving Schools, 13, 39–63.Ingersoll, R. M., & Alsalam, N. (1997). Teacher professionalisation and teacher commit-
ment: A multilevel analysis. Washington, DC: US Dept of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement.
Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). A dialogue: Large classes in China. International Journal ofEducational Research, 29, 739–761.
Korostoff, M. (1998). Tackling California’s class size reduction policy initiative: An up closeand personal account of how teachers and learners responded. International Journal ofEducational Research, 29, 797–807.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1995). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? English Language
Teaching Journal, 54, 31–35.McIntyre, D., Pedder, D., & Rudduck, J. (2005). Pupil voice: Comfortable and uncomfortable
learnings for teachers. Research Papers in Education, 20, 149–168.Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Miles, M., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.Odden, A. (2000). New and better forms of teacher compensation are possible. Phi Delta
Kappan, 81, 361–366.Pate-Bain, H., Achilles, C., Boyd-Zaharius, J., & McKenna, B. (1992). Class size makes a
Difference. Phi Delta Kappa, 74, 253–256.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Pedder, D. (2006). Are small classes better? Understanding relationships between class size,
classroom processes and pupils’ learning. Oxford Review of Education, 32, 213–234.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 227
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
Rice, J. K. (1999). The impact of class size on instructional strategies and the use of time inhigh school mathematics and science courses. Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 21, 215–229.
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. InA. Bryman, & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data (pp. 173–194). London:Routledge.
Rodgers, C. R. (2006). Attending to student voice: The impact of descriptive feedback onlearning and teaching. Curriculum Inquiry, 36, 209–237.
Ruddock, J., & Flutter, J. (2000). Pupil participation and the pupil perspective: Carving anew order of experience. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30, 75–89.
Schwab, J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. CurriculumInquiry, 13, 239–265.
Shapson, S. M., Wright, E. N., Eason, G., & Fitzgerald, J. (1980). An experimental study ofthe effects of class size. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 141–152.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory proceduresand techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. M. Bailey,
& D. Nunan (Ed.), Voices from the language classroom. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Wang, M. C., & Finn, J. D. (2000). How small classes help teachers do their best.Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Center for Research in Education.
Yin, R. (1991). Applications of case study research. Washington, DC: Cosmos Corp.
Appendix 1: Semi-structured focus group questions to students
(1) What do you most like about learning in your class this year?(2) What do you most dislike about learning in your class this year?(3) When do you participate in lessons? What makes you participate in lessons?(4) What makes you pay attention in lessons?(5) What suggestions, if any, would you give to your teacher to help improve teaching
and learning in this class?(6) Why? Can you provide examples of what you mean?
Appendix 2: Semi-structured interview questions to teachers
(1) Describe your teaching in this reduced-size class(2) What did you expect when I first gave you the transcripts of the student interviews?(3) Which comments from the students impressed you most, and why?(4) Which comments do you agree with?(5) Which comments do you disagree with?(6) Are there any pedagogical suggestions in the students’ feedback that you would
implement? If so, which ones and why?(7) (After the classroom observations). Describe the changes that you have made to your
teaching as a result of the students’ feedback.
228 G.J. Harfitt
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 0
8:24
31
Oct
ober
201
4
