Notes on interview with MS
I ask him about his approach to teaching his
group. The question perhaps reflects my desire to get him talking about literacy
in general terms, or at least his literacy pedagogy. To articulate his ideas about
what he doing –as a teacher. We take a few tries to get to what I want to
explore with him.
At first he turns to the assignment. But I want
him to talk in general terms first and then relate his ideas about teaching to
the task.
He then turns to the composition of the group. He
describes his teaching as ‘fluid’. By this he means he has students who come in
and out because of all sorts of problem. Despite the closed coercive
environment he teaches in. This is an enclosed community.
Something strikes me listening to this teacher.
He is an experienced teacher who has taught for 10 years. He has worked in a
difficult situation – a harsh environment for all of that time. He expresses a
degree of disappointment and anxiety about aging. He is in his late 40s early
50s. He refers to his clock ticking. At his age I feel younger. I am at the
start of a career and feel that this was the right time (in terms of my
personal biography) to make the shift.
He feels otherwise.
There is no sense of what drives him. I do not
ask the question and he does not hint at any commitment to equity and social
justice as his motivation for teaching. He started teaching with skills for
life. And I am interested in the extent to which he is able to critique the associated
pedagogic approach.
I listen to my interview style. It is not really
an interview. Part tutorial in which I question him.
So, in analysing his overall approach to his
teaching – he describes:
Unfortunately
the main theme is getting them through the exams. That’s the focus that they’re
putting on us. It doesn’t sound right,
but teaching them to pass the exams almost like a sausage factory. And that’s
the, eh – that’s ....not that I like it, that’s the environment .... cos the
funding is gonna ... I think what they’re doing, the funding is gonna change
... they’ll only get funding for good passes. So the main focus is on trying to get them to
exam level as soon as possible. And focussing on only what they don’t know. It’s
not right. And it’s not what good teaching is necessarily about.
He then starts to talk about the assignment –
mainly his critique of assessment tools.
Two things strike me.
The first was the fear expressed by some that
once the SfL as policy infrastructure has taken hold, newer teachers who had
not experienced alternative pedagogic paradigms would not have the resources to
draw upon to critique the regime and would accept it as normal and legitimate. While
MS has no radical agenda, he is able to identify the short comings of the
regime he adheres to and the implications for his teaching.
The other thing that strikes me, is the change in
his speech as we move towards some form of critique.
When he starts to talk about the environment he
works in – by his he means the demands placed upon him by his employers to get
students through the exam - he falters.
He pauses. Thinks about what he has to say, repeats himself and stops and
starts different sentences with some thoughts remaining unfinished. This is noticeably
different to his style of speech so far. .
I ask MS about how his approach squares with
the discussions we have had in training sessions. My questions are long, rambling and
complicated.
It
doesn’t always fit in. It’s great theory and it’s good. You know, we’ve talked
about how to contextualise it and the wheel, all of that. It was very refreshing. But my mentor, all she’s
interested in is, oh, he failed, can we get him back in. Not, ‘Can we develop
this individual?’ Can we get him back in? What do you think he failed on? And
that’s the environment we’re in. And with the contracts coming up for renewal.
AS methodology – I am struck by my presence in
the encounter. Struck by the how much – as tutorial and interviewer – I fill in
gaps in his speech, we overlap and I complete partial thoughts. At times I want to suggest I should be quiet
and let him speak more. That actually eh would find his focus and his ideas
would be more fully expressed if I allowed the conversation to role.
I think I need to explore the nature of this
data more carefully. I am comfortable in accepting that it is what it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment