didactic teaching role” and maybe this is indicative of the inherent potential of a position”: the relationship of a “teacher-student ‘master-apprentice’ community of practice. What was different about this observation was that the observed participant, Chris, independently asked for feedback from Sam: this had not been a requirement of the research project and we shall look at this from Chris’ point of view in section 5.2.4. Sam’s reaction to this (Interview Nine) was that the: discussion with my fellow observer allowed me to “…initial ‘objective’ come into the discussion [with Chris] with a clear idea of the key development points. I felt that this enabled me to facilitate the discussion towards stronger critical viewpoints than I have done during previous peer observations… […] The previous discussion had … allowed me to get all of the minor points my chest’ as well as the ‘off ability to check, clarify and confirm issues [with Charlie]”. The final follow-up interview with Sam took place a few weeks after the observation and essentially recapped on what she/he had already put into the email. Once again Sam stressed that what had been of real interest was the between teacher and trainee in the observation process” (Sam, “collaboration Int9) and that there was a decision to try and sit back” (Sam, Int9) “conscious and allow Charlie the opportunity to put forward his/her own ideas. Although these were described as being similar’ by Sam, there was a note of ‘pretty caution that the or trainee will feel obliged to agree” (Sam, Int9). “student – – In the post-observation interview Charlie actually put forward a confident argument; however, it is a valid note of caution for any future practice (6.3.1). Had Charlie wanted to demonstrate both a personal and social identity which would validate membership in the community of practice then he/she might
didactic teaching role” and maybe this is indicative of the inherent potential of a “teacher-student position”: the ‘master-apprentice’ relationship of a community of practice. What was different about this observation was that the observed participant, Chris, independently asked for feedback from Sam: this had not been a requirement of the research project and we shall look at this from Chris’ point of view in section 5.2.4. Sam’s reaction to this (Interview Nine) was that the: “…initial ‘objective’ discussion with my fellow observer allowed me to come into the discussion [with Chris] with a clear idea of the key development points. I felt that this enabled me to facilitate the discussion towards stronger critical viewpoints than I have done during previous peer observations… […] … The previous discussion had allowed me to get all of the minor points ‘off my chest’ as well as the ability to check, clarify and confirm issues [with Charlie]”. The final follow-up interview with Sam took place a few weeks after the observation and essentially recapped on what she/he had already put into the email. Once again Sam stressed that what had been of real interest was the “collaboration between teacher and trainee in the observation process” (Sam, Int9) and that there was a “conscious decision to try and sit back” (Sam, Int9) and allow Charlie the opportunity to put forward his/her own ideas. Although these were described as being ‘pretty similar’ by Sam, there was a note of caution that the “student – or trainee – will feel obliged to agree” (Sam, Int9). In the post-observation interview Charlie actually put forward a confident argument; however, it is a valid note of caution for any future practice (6.3.1). Had Charlie wanted to demonstrate both a personal and social identity which would validate membership in the community of practice then he/she might
Observations_a%20vehicle%20for%20enabling%20learner%20voice%20and%20developing%20expert%20learners.docx