indeed have shaped his/her behaviour in order to do so (Oyserman et al. 2011). was also further reflection by Sam on the observed participant’s request for feedback as soon as the observation had been completed which Sam – declined to do as she/he wanted to a bit of a pause for reflection” (Sam, “have Int9). Again Sam made reference to the benefits of had somebody to “having bounce your ideas off first, before giving that feedback” (Sam, Int9). This had confirmed the initial thoughts during the observation and resulted in a greater clarity, with salient points emerging from the post-observation discussion which then informed a far richer discussion with the observed ‘feedback’ participant, Chris. Transferring this into the DTLLS course delivery was something which was felt to require further consideration, and there would certainly be potential logistical issues purely in terms of the practicalities involved in arranged cross-organisational observations. However, Sam did consider that this might help when discussions around arise ‘transferability’ and individuals protest: oh, it wouldn’t work with my learners oh, mine “… – would never do that and actually, going into different environments, erm, – could help that” (Sam, Int9). This approach could construct for ‘possibilities’ individuals to consider how they might be able to apply something they had in a different context, and this potential for transferability in relation ‘observed’ to the research (referred to in Chapter Two, section 2.4.0) is returned to in the final chapter. When looking at my final conversation with Gerry (Interview Eight), there was again reflection around the purpose of the observation. Gerry felt that both the observation, and the post-observation discussion, should be around “my
indeed have shaped his/her behaviour in order to do so (Oyserman et al. 2011). was also further reflection by Sam on the observed participant’s request for feedback as soon as the observation had been completed – which Sam declined to do as she/he wanted to “have a bit of a pause for reflection” (Sam, Int9). Again Sam made reference to the benefits of “having had somebody to bounce your ideas off first, before giving that feedback” (Sam, Int9). This had confirmed the initial thoughts during the observation and resulted in a greater clarity, with salient points emerging from the post-observation discussion which then informed a far richer ‘feedback’ discussion with the observed participant, Chris. Transferring this into the DTLLS course delivery was something which was felt to require further consideration, and there would certainly be potential logistical issues purely in terms of the practicalities involved in arranged cross-organisational observations. However, Sam did consider that this might help when discussions around ‘transferability’ arise and individuals protest: “… oh, it wouldn’t work with my learners – oh, mine would never do that – and actually, going into different environments, erm, could help that” (Sam, Int9). This approach could construct ‘possibilities’ for individuals to consider how they might be able to apply something they had ‘observed’ in a different context, and this potential for transferability in relation to the research (referred to in Chapter Two, section 2.4.0) is returned to in the final chapter. When looking at my final conversation with Gerry (Interview Eight), there was again reflection around the purpose of the observation. Gerry felt that both the observation, and the post-observation discussion, should be around “my
Observations_a%20vehicle%20for%20enabling%20learner%20voice%20and%20developing%20expert%20learners.docx