classroom observation case study

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Classroom Observation - A Guide to the Effective Observation of Teaching and Learning - 2nd Edition

2020, Routledge

Building on recent changes and debates surrounding the use of observation, this fully updated second edition of Classroom Observation explores the role of lesson observation in the preparation, assessment and professional learning of teachers, lecturers and educators at all levels and across all educational organisations. Offering practical guidance and detailed insights on an aspect of training that is a source of anxiety for many teachers, this thought-provoking book offers a critical analysis of the place, role and nature of lesson observation in the lives of education professionals. Updated to incorporate the latest research, policy and practical developments on observation, this new edition also includes greater coverage of research and developments in the field of observation beyond the UK. Enabling readers to use observation as a lens for understanding, informing and improving teaching and learning, and equipping them with structured frameworks for applying observation, this book includes sections on: - Teacher autonomy and professional identity - Performance management, professional standards and accountability - Peer observation, self-observation and critical reflection - Educational assessment and evaluation - Peer-based models of observation - Using digital technology to inform learning. Written for all student and practising teachers as well as teacher educators and those engaged in educational research, Classroom Observation is an essential introduction to how we observe, why we observe, and how it can be best used to improve teaching and learning.

Related Papers

Professional Development in Education

Matt O'Leary

Karla Montes

The first edition of this book was a bestseller, and is generally regarded as the most widely used and authoritative text on this topic. This completely revised and updated second edition takes into account the latest changes in educational practice, and includes coverage of recent developments in teacher appraisal and school inspection procedures. The author is an international expert on research into teaching and learning, but has always been someone who writes with teachers in mind. You will find a combination of case studies, photographs and illustrations used here to show how various people study lessons for different purposes and in different contexts. He explains a number of approaches in clear language and gives examples of successful methods that have been employed by teachers, student teachers, researchers and pupils. This book is essential reading for anyone serious about becoming a good teacher or researcher in education. E. C. Wragg is Professor of Education at the University of Exeter.

UCU Lesson Observation Project Report

This report explores one of the most widely debated and hotly contested initiatives to affect teaching staff in the Further Education (FE) sector in England recent times, that of lesson observation. The report captures the views of thousands of UCU members working in a wide range of contexts and institutions and as such represents the largest and most extensive account of the topic to date in England. * Please note only the first two pages of the executive summary are included here. The report itself is over 100 pages long and available on request from UCU *

Stylianos Hatzipanagos

Teaching observations in a Higher Education context can be underpinned by an observer's intention to enhance learning and teaching or used as a managerial tool to ensure standards are met or maintained. In this article, we investigate whether the emphasis on the developmental value of teaching observations is misleading. We seek to examine whether the 'educational developers as observers' model actually provides evidence that teaching observation can be developmental and stimulate reflective practice despite the approach stemming from government initiatives towards standards-driven teaching. The conclusions provide a view of whether this has implications for fostering formative notions such as critical reflection and enhancement of teaching practice, via the developmental nature of the scheme. A relatively new phenomenon in higher education in the UK — observation of teaching — is becoming a commonplace process within educational establishments and this is reflected in t...

This report explores one of the most widely debated and hotly contested initiatives to affect teaching staff in the FE sector in recent times, that of lesson observation. The report captures the views of thousands of UCU members working in a wide range of contexts and institutions and as such represents the largest and most extensive account of the topic to date.

Lesson observation has a longstanding tradition in the training, assessment and development of teachers. However, in recent years it has come to be viewed quite narrowly as a performative tool of managerialist systems fixated with measuring teacher performance rather than actually improving it. This position is symptomatic of a wider neo-liberal obsession of wanting to quantify all forms of human activity, epitomised in education by the reliance on graded observations. In exposing some of the limitations of such practice, this short piece discusses ways in which lesson observation can be engaged with in a more meaningful way.

… and Developments in …

Rachel Lofthouse

Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice

Barnaby Priest

Graham Maxwell

Mihaela Badea

RELATED PAPERS

Susy Peniche

The Analyst

Eduardo C Meurer

Mohsen Ramadan

Migracijske I Etnicke Teme

Tomislav Lacovic

Andrea Sander

João Guerra

Centre de recherches Archéologique en Ardenne

Molecular Crystals and Liquid Crystals

Igor berkutov

Francesc Serra Massansalvador

Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education

Pravin Minde

Donald Forsyth

Jurnal Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Bina Darma

Hadi Suprayitno

Verónica de Priego Fernández

BMC Veterinary Research

Lorella Maniscalco

The FASEB Journal

Judy Anderson

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Peter Gregersen

Defect and Diffusion Forum

Denis Dowting

Journal of clinical and molecular endocrinology

Edward Lichten, M.D.

OMAR ALEJANDRO RUIZ GUTIERREZ

BMC Medical Education

Gudule Boland

Inżynieria Ekologiczna

Zbigniew Bzowski

Valme Jurado

Zelda Zabinsky

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Observing schools and classrooms.

• Alison LaGarry Alison LaGarry University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.983
• Published online: 29 July 2019

Qualitative observation is an attempt to view and interpret social worlds by immersing oneself in a particular setting. Observation draws on theoretical assumptions associated with the interpretivist paradigm. Thus, researchers who engage in qualitative observations believe that the world cannot be fully known, but must be interpreted. Observation is one way for researchers to seek to understand and interpret situations based on the social and cultural meanings of those involved. In the field of education, observation can be a meaningful tool for understanding the experiences of teachers, students, caregivers, and administrators.

Rigorous qualitative research is long-term, and demands in-depth engagement in the field. In general, the research process is cyclical, with the researcher(s) moving through three domains: prior-to-field, in-field, and post- or inter-field. Prior to entering the field, the researcher(s) examine their assumptions about research as well as their own biases, and obtain approval from an Institutional Review Board. This is also the time when researcher(s) make decisions about how data will be collected. Upon entering the field of study, the researcher(s) work to establish rapport with participants, take detailed “jottings,” and record their own feelings or preliminary impressions alongside these quick notes. After leaving an observation, the researcher(s) should expand jottings into extended field notes that include significant detail. This should be completed no later than 48 hours after the observation, to preserve recall. At this point, the researcher may return to the field to collect additional data. Focus should move from observation to analysis when the researcher(s) feel that they have reached theoretical data saturation.

• education research
• qualitative
• observation
• ethnography

Introduction

Observation, as a concept, can refer to many things. Yet, in terms of social research and ethnography, observation is the act of “record[ing] the ongoing experiences of those observed, through their symbolic world” (Denzin, 2017 , p. 185). It is an attempt to view and interpret social worlds by immersing oneself in a particular setting—a way to “see from the inside” (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011 , p. 3). Observation draws on theoretical assumptions of the interpretivist paradigm, and is associated with methodologies such as ethnography, narrative inquiry, discourse analysis, grounded theory, phenomenology, and symbolic interactionism. It is one of many ways for researchers to understand situations based on the meanings of those involved. The particular approach to observation presented here considers the process and implications of observations in educational settings such as schools and classrooms.

The Interpretivist Paradigm

All research methods and methodologies are based on assumptions about reality and knowledge. In order to understand how one might study a particular research question or explore a phenomenon, it is important for researchers to examine their beliefs about whether the world around them can be objectively known. Researchers who approach their work from the interpretivist paradigm believe that the world cannot be objectively understood, and does not exist independently of thoughts or ideas. Since there is no objective truth, the world must be interpreted (Glesne, 2016 ). Further, the goal of such research is not just to interpret the social world, but to do so through the lens of actors in that particular setting or context. Through observation, then, qualitative researchers “access . . . others’ interpretations of some social phenomenon” and also use their own lens to interpret the actions and motivations of others (Glesne, 2016 , p. 9).

Because interpretivist qualitative research, as described in this article, is centered on interpretation, it is not considered “objective” research. Throughout the observation process, the researcher’s identity and subjectivity are always implicated. Interpretivist research engages participants’ multiple ways of knowing and making meaning, at the same time engaging socially constructed meanings agreed upon by society. Thus, while interpretations may be unique to individuals, to some degree, it is also possible to access the “perspectives of several members of the same social group about some phenomena,” which can “suggest some cultural patterns of thought and action for that group as a whole” (Glesne, 2016 , p. 9). In order to collect substantial evidence of such cultural patterns, interpretivist researchers prioritize significant, long-term engagement in the field. While one might observe and use the techniques described in this article on a short-term or ad hoc basis, sustained presence in the field and interaction with participants are vital for interpreting cultural understandings unique to the context.

Nearly every researcher has experienced schooling in some manner, making informal “insider” status somewhat universal for researchers who choose to study education. This amplifies researcher subjectivity such that most researchers entering the field have an a priori vision of what the student experience is like, and how educators are, or should be, in an educational setting. For those who have experienced traditional schooling, their experience is not insignificant, spanning more than a decade of their lives. Additionally, some education researchers are former educators, adding a further layer of knowledge and experience that influences how they engage in observation-based qualitative research. All this is to say that the cultural meanings that each of us bring to bear on educational research are heavily laden with our own schooling experiences and the social powers that shape them. This can be both a benefit and a reason for increased attentiveness or caution.

Another concern regarding observation in the field of education is that there are significant contextual implications for observations in classrooms. Thus, the term is doubly fraught with meaning. Generally, when teachers (or students) think about being observed, they assume judgement. While a fear or wariness about researcher judgement is not uncommon in observational research, the apprenticeship model for teachers invokes observation as a form of evaluation with real professional consequences. This is the case for pre service teachers and in-service teachers alike. In conjunction with student achievement, observation ratings may also be tied to teacher performance evaluations and merit pay. This discursive and symbolic conundrum can be problematic for qualitative researchers both in terms of gaining entry into the field, and also in terms of managing their own biases toward judgement. In conducting observation in classrooms, the aura of evaluation is ever-present. This is not to say that observation, as associated with educational evaluation, is bad. There are vast benefits to apprenticeship, directed feedback, legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991 ), and experiential learning (Dewey, 1938 ). When it comes to qualitative research, however, there is a necessary translation that must occur to orient both the reflexive approach of the researcher, and the understanding of the teacher or students being observed.

While interpretivist participant observation engages the subjectivity of the researcher, novice researchers are encouraged to take field notes as objectively as possible, reserving analysis and interpretation for a later phase. That said, our experiences as researchers in the field always engage some level of analysis as we integrate what we see and experience into our own extant frames of reference. Denzin ( 2017 ) reminded researchers that participant observation “entails a continuous movement between emerging conceptualizations of reality and empirical observations. Theory and method combine to allow the simultaneous generation and verification of theory” (p. 186). This article presents a methodological perspective on how one might conduct participant observation in educational settings, while paying particular attention to the movement between empirical or “objective” observation, subjective interpretation, and further evaluation. While the article focuses primarily on observation rather than analysis, it is necessary to consider how a researcher navigates the continuous push in the field to detach (concrete observation) and connect (understanding emerging concepts). The article thus includes some discussion of preliminary analysis and how it may be recorded.

It is always tricky to lay out methodological procedure when, in reality, the process is layered, cyclical, or non-linear (Spradley, 1980 ). For the researcher interested in observation, it is important to keep in mind the idea of “movement between” as stated by Denzin ( 2017 ). A vital skill for expert qualitative observation is to actually exist and think “between.” This allows for subjectivity and emic or insider understandings to inform, but not supersede, concrete thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973 ) of interaction in the field. This skill takes significant practice and mentorship. The included examples describe the process of a novice researcher, to show how one might begin to build capacity for observation and subsequent interpretation. Following the discussion of methodological procedure, there is a brief discussion of implications and encouragements for the use of ethnographic observation in educational settings.

Methodological Cycles of Observation

This section breaks the methodological process of observation in school settings into three domains: Prior-to-field , in-field , and post- or inter-field . These domains can be viewed as somewhat cyclical in nature and, realistically speaking, are not always discrete. As the researcher becomes more embedded in the research setting, more familiar with the context, and more adept at the “move between” description and analysis, the lines between the domains become blurry. So while one may separate these domains for the sake of explanation, they should be taken not as singular, but rather as guiding moments in the process of qualitative observation.

In the prior-to-field domain, the researcher examines or states their own epistemological stance toward the work, as well as their own biases toward the setting or subject matter. This reflexive work not only sets the tone for the in-field domain, but also allows the researcher to consider appropriate research questions. In the post- or inter-field domain, the researcher revisits their in-field observations to again navigate between the concrete field notes taken and their own subjective interpretations. This domain also provides opportunity to further focus observation and refine the research questions. Additionally, researchers may consider this an apt moment to check with participants for their own interpretations of interactions observed.

Prior-to-Field

Observation is more than simple data collection and, despite differing epistemological orientations, nearly all sources agree that observation-based research should be rigorously conducted. In other words, data gathered through observation or ethnography is “more than casually observed opinion” (Angrosino & Rosenberg, 2011 , p. 468). In more recent iterations of ethnographic methodology, observation is highlighted as a site of interaction. In this postmodern context, researcher subjectivity is acknowledged—rendering the researcher a participant, co-constructor, and co-negotiator of meaning at the study site. Angrosino and Rosenberg ( 2011 ) stated, “our social scientific powers of observation must, however, be turned on ourselves and the ways in which our experiences interface with those of others in the same context if we are to come to an understanding of sociocultural processes” (p. 470). This discussion of the nature of observation-based research is a vital starting point since it orients the researcher to the cultural meanings of the study site and encourages them to acknowledge their own subjectivity. As in post-critical ethnography (Noblit, Flores, & Murillo, 2004 ), this orientation serves to situate the project as theory and methodology that are inextricably intertwined. This means that the researcher needs to be aware of the experiences, meanings, and biases they bring to the field.

From a sociological standpoint, each of us moves in the world based on a number of more or less abstract identity markers that influence how others interact with us. A particular caution for educational researchers exists in the vast differences we know that students have in their schooling experiences. These differences are often based on social markers such as race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, sexuality, and religion. Schooling, as an institution, mirrors and even amplifies the social hierarchies of society such that some are distinctly privileged in educational settings, while others experience oppression and disadvantage. So, to build on the assertion that nearly all education researchers have “insider” experience with schooling, it is important to note that these experiences can differ greatly. Sometimes parallel or similar experiences may limit the view of the researcher in that they may see only their own experiences, and may not look beyond that feeling to truly engage what others might experience. Additionally, differing experiences or social positioning may result in misinterpretation of cultural meaning. Thus, educational researchers must prioritize the move between social meanings of their own and those of participants observed. This is one reason, in particular, why it is so important to record concrete sensory detail in the field.

When a researcher records concrete details, they are recording what is seen . If a researcher were to record only what they think about the events taking place in the field, this judgement (for that is what it is) may supplant other potential meanings that may be discovered. Recording concrete sensory details allows the researcher the space to later move between their own subjectivity and those of the participants—particularly during the process of writing expanded field notes. This process takes time and practice. Indeed, it takes a vigilant researcher to parse out the expectations overlaid on educational research settings by their own experiences from the experiences of others. In consideration of the ways that a researcher might begin to identify and examine their own biases, a good starting point is Sensoy and DiAngelo ( 2017 ). In their book Is Everyone Really Equal: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education , the authors guide the reader through an approachable exploration of concepts such as power, oppression, prejudice, discrimination, privilege, and social construction. Each of these concepts is vital for understanding researcher biases and how they influence interpretations in the field. In general, this examination process is referred to in the field as reflexivity, or “critical reflection on how researcher, research participants, setting, and research procedures interact with and influence each other” (Glesne, 2016 , p. 145). Pillow ( 2003 ) pointed out that this reflective process does not absolve the researcher of their own biases, yet has important ramifications for the analysis and findings.

Those who have trained and served as educators may have particular insight to offer in the field of educational research. They may understand the field in more depth, having recently experienced the nuance and pressures of policy. To those who say that prior experience in the field may bias the investigation—it does. However, all researchers are biased in that they experience the world in a particular manner and ascribe specific cultural and social meanings to settings and events. It is also necessary to acknowledge here that effective use of this depth of understanding for qualitative observation does not come without caution.

Prior to entering the field, researchers may make preliminary decisions about their level of involvement, participation, and immersion. While older iterations of ethnographic methodology encouraged the observer to participate as little as possible, this can hinder the researcher’s ability to truly understand indigenous meanings of the social situation being observed. Certainly, the lesser-involved researcher will have greater opportunity to record copious notes. However, simply being present in the setting does have an effect on participants and may alter the way that they act or interact. Furthermore, researchers need not see the roles of participant and researcher as two poles. Rather, it is useful to think of these as two ends of a continuum, where the researcher(s’) role is never static.

While research ethics are not the primary focus of this article, it would not be appropriate to advocate for observation without mentioning that participants’ rights and confidentiality should be considered at every step of the process. Prior to entering the observation setting, the researcher must obtain approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB). This is particularly important for research in schools, where participants may be minors and parental consent for participation may be required. Once approval is granted, the researcher should obtain consent from participants and provide a disclosure of nature of the study and time requirements for engaging in the study. Additionally, participants should be reminded that they can opt out of the study at any time. The IRB will also provide explicit guidelines on how all sensitive or identifiable data should be stored to protect participants’ identity.

Another key decision to make prior to entering the field is how field notes will be recorded. While notes can certainly be recorded on paper, or using a word-processing program on a laptop, pervasive use of personal digital technology (smartphones, tablets, etc.) has transformed the available options for documenting the field. As long as one has received approval for photo or video documentation from IRB, digital photography is instantaneous and can help document the research setting in greater detail. Digital videos can record activities and interactions such that the researcher can return to these when expanding field notes for further verification or perspective. Aside from simple dialogue, voice recorders can also record soundscapes , a growing area of qualitative research analysis (Gershon, 2013 ). There are also a number of app-based note-taking and qualitative-analysis programs helpful for observational research, including: Atlas.ti Mobile, Evernote, EverClip, MAXApp (corollary to MAXQDA), and Indeemo. Additionally, Google Could now offers a free speech-to-text function that can capture dialogue in more detail than one might be able to do on paper or by typing.

The choice of note-taking platform should take into account participants’ wishes, as well as the needs inherent to the setting. This decision is not just a simple question of what will work best for the researcher and their research product. Returning to the prior discussion of educator evaluation, teachers may associate note-taking—on paper or electronically—with recording judgement. When I have mentored student teachers, they have expressed that the tapping sound produced by typing on a laptop can increase their anxiety exponentially. While these considerations may sound superficial, the comfort level of participants is of utmost importance for the researcher in establishing themselves as collegial, and not intrusive. In fact, I have found it to be useful to ask a classroom teacher how they would prefer for me to record my observations. Regardless of their choice, I always assure them that I am “documenting” the events taking place, and not recording judgement.

Before moving on, it is worth noting that any prior-to-field decision-making may shift and evolve throughout the process of the research engagement. Qualitative research, by nature, seeks to understand meaning from the perspective of the actors in a particular context. Thus, the researcher must be willing to follow threads of understanding or thought, even if they are unexpected. For example, one may plan for low participation (Spradley, 1980 ) in the setting, but one day during the field visit the teacher may invite the researcher to lead a group of students through a math activity. In the interest of building rapport and trust with the participants, it may be necessary to move to a higher level of participation in response to this invitation. This will be discussed in further detail relating to the in-field domain. Emerson et al. ( 2011 ) stated that a good participant observer must be both “sensitive and perceptive about how they are seen by others” (p. 4). If the participants see the researcher as detached, unhelpful, or otherwise standoffish, this can affect their level of comfort and shift the insights they choose to share. Changes in the researcher’s level of participation should be recorded in field notes, and do not negate the reliability of eventual findings. In fact, participants may share additional insights with researchers who show interest in their perspectives, actions, and thoughts.

This section details two major considerations for researcher(s) embarking upon in-field observations: What to look for, and how to record what is seen. This is obviously oversimplified, but these two considerations will help to organize the process of collecting qualitative data via observation. These decisions can be made by an individual researcher or by research teams working together to investigate a particular setting or phenomenon.

What Should the Researcher Look For?

The first thing a novice researcher often asks about observation in the field is “What should I be looking for?” This question is loaded, and takes some time to unpack. While there may be something that the researcher hopes will happen, it is important to focus explicitly on what does happen, and how it happens. One of the first skills that a participant observer must begin to hone is explicit awareness of a situation (Spradley, 1980 ). This awareness can be compared to that of a wide-angle camera lens that takes in as much as possible. The goal, Spradley stated, is to overcome the “selective inattention” most people employ to conduct daily tasks and interactions (p. 55). This explicit awareness is not solely directed outward. Spradley also noted that the researcher must increase their introspectiveness so that they are better able to see and reflect upon the cultural frames and meanings associated with that which is observed.

Using the metaphor of a wide-angle lens, one common way to begin observation is through descriptive observation . In this case, the researcher approaches the observation with very general questions in mind. For example: “What is happening here?” or “What is going on?” These broad, open questions allow for the researcher to see and feel the setting as it is, without overlaying a priori meanings or assumptions.

Table 1. Spradley’s Descriptive Question Matrix

Source: . Spradley ( 1980 , pp. 82–83).

Spradley ( 1980 ) outlined a “Grand Tour” as a procedure for descriptive observation. In this overview, the researcher would take note of various facets of the setting and participants including:

The first three facets are presented in bold (author’s emphasis) because these three form a meaningful starting point for any observation, and the remaining six provide additional nuance. A diagram can be useful for illustrating the set-up of the space, mapping objects as well as actors. After examining each of these facets of the setting, Spradley recommended creating a descriptive question matrix wherein the researcher integrates observations from two or more of the facets to examine how they might interact. For example, consider how a student who is disabled might interact with a space that is not accessible for mobility. More detail is provided in Table 1 .

Emerson et al. ( 2011 ) also advocated for a wide-angle lens and prioritized the senses in helping to establish initial impressions. They expanded on the facets listed by Spradley, encouraging the researcher to consider physical space and environment in terms of characteristics such as size, space, noise, and layout. It terms of actors in a setting, they also suggested observing such characteristics as perceived race and gender, dress, comportment, and proximity to other actors. Moving beyond these facets, Emerson et al. also advocate that the researcher ask the question “What is significant or unexpected?” in the field. In other words, what seems out of place or out of the expected flow? Such unexpected moments are often of the most interest, and also represent some of the most significant cultural learning for the researcher. For instance, do the actors in the field react as though the same event is unexpected? If not, the researcher will need to examine the event, activities preceding the event, and those following the event to work to understand the significance. It is also important to register one’s own feelings, as the researcher, when observing in the field. Then, in working to understand one’s own reactions, feelings, and biases in comparison to those in the field, one may reveal cultural meanings unique to the context. It is important to note that the researcher should not take their own feelings as findings. Rather, they should move beyond their own reactions toward an analysis of what those in the setting may find significant (Emerson et al., 2011 ).

Focused observation takes place after the researcher has been in the field for some time, and serves to limit the inquiry in a meaningful manner. Whereas in descriptive observation, the research questions were general, in focused observation the researcher engages more structural questions (Spradley, 1980 ). For example: What are all the ways that a teacher asks a student to focus on their work? Focused observations may be conducted as surface or in-depth investigations. According to Spradley, surface investigations examine a number of cultural domains in some depth. In-depth observations are just that, observations where the researcher selects one domain and examines it thoroughly. These cultural domains may be selected based on personal interest, suggestion by informant, theoretical interest, or other strategic reasoning (Spradley, 1980 ). Additionally, this can lead the researcher to a potential taxonomy of events or codes occurring at the site ( selective observation ).

While Spradley’s approach can be useful and meaningful, there is also room to hone the initial general research question of “What is happening here?” to a more structured prompt that does not demand taxonomic reduction. An example of such a prompt engages the significant or unexpected events described by Emerson et al. ( 2011 ). In this case, the researcher might choose to further examine a particular event or occurrence, asking the questions: When this event happens, how does it happen? What else is happening? What changes? This way, the researcher is not limited to types of interaction, but can also consider the means by which these interactions take place and the dynamics that are set into motion.

Recording Field Notes

Field notes are the first phase of documenting happenings as data via observation—a method of inscription or textualization which later serves as a basis for iterative analysis. Further, according to Emerson et al., “Field notes are distinctively a method for capturing and preserving insights and understandings” ( 2011 , p. 14). There is no best way to record field notes, and none approaches a truly objective accounting of the events that occurred. One observer may choose to record significant events or key phrases that another observer does not choose to record. Thus, when conducting research in teams, it is useful to cross-check notes with others who observed the same events. This can be done in formal calibration meetings or informal conversations post-observation. Cross-checking can also be performed as a type of member check with participants, where the researcher might ask if anything was missed. Subjectivity is always implicated, since each observer filters events through their own cultural meanings and understanding of the social world. Yet, researchers observing in social settings are still encouraged to record what they see as concretely as possible. Taking a step back, researchers must decide the appropriate method for recording notes in the field. In the moment, researchers will need some method to record jottings, which are “a brief written record of events and impressions captured in key words and phrases” (Emerson et al., 2011 , p. 29). These quickly written or typed fragments are used to help the researcher as they later create detailed expanded field notes.

A researcher may choose to take notes on paper or another electronic device. When permission is appropriately obtained, the researcher may also create video or audio recordings of the setting. Even when a recording is made, the researcher should still take jottings when possible as a source for both back up and further detail. The choice of paper or electronic device should be made based on the setting and the researcher’s level of participation in the field. In any case, the method used should be as unobtrusive as possible and should not disturb the events taking place. The researcher may choose to take jottings down openly—so that participants can see them writing or typing—or in a hidden manner (Emerson et al., 2011 ). The decision of how to record jottings in the field is also dependent on a number of other factors, including the nature of the research questions, the skill of the researcher, the mobility required by the setting, availability of power or Internet, and the language of the researcher as compared to the participants.

As events in a research setting unfold, the researcher should take down short notes in order to later remember the events when assembling expanded field notes. These jottings may be fragments of interactions, keywords, phrases, or verbatim quotes (when possible). For example:

Music Education Class Participants: 1 Instructor, 8 Students (college-aged), 1 researcher 2:15 p.m . Instructor (Dr. Hart) tells class they are making a chart about assumptions Hope: Learning takes place in a building Hart: So, learning should look a certain way Hope: No! Not what I meant Hart says translating to fit in chart Hope: No, no! (shakes head and looks at me) Me: I think she is saying that learning could happen outdoors, or at home . Hope: Yes!! Hart writes “Learning should look a certain way” on chart, ignoring our protestations Hope frowns scrunches eyebrows together. Looks down at phone . 1

Jottings may also consist of drawings and diagrams that document the space. Jottings should always show time and date, and it is useful to check the clock and record the time every 5–10 minutes or so throughout the observation. This will help later, when considering and analyzing the pace of events. The question of when a researcher should take down jottings is also worth consideration. If the researcher is involved in a conversation, or is an otherwise active participant in the situation or events, they should prioritize this interaction over note-taking. Tact and rapport are vitally important to qualitative observation, and sometimes note-taking may come across as if the researcher is rude or not listening. Wait for breaks or lulls in the conversation to record jottings. If your participation requires that you move around a room or other space, it may be best to use a small notebook or electronic tablet that is easily carried.

Our inclination as educational researchers is often to provide evaluative feedback on the performance of the educator being observed. When recording field notes, it is important to resist this urge. Jottings should include as much detail as possible, using descriptive and concrete language. Emerson et al. ( 2011 ) suggest the following recommendations on how one might document what is observed. First, one should describe all key components of the setting, using concrete sensory details that would help a third-party reader gain a reasonable vision of the actors and events. Rather than stating that a participant looked defeated, for instance, it would be more appropriate to record the details of their bearing that lead you to believe this is the case. In this example, the researcher might record: The participant’s eyes were cast down toward the ground and their shoulders were hunched forward . Additionally, researchers should avoid characterizing events through generalization or summary in field notes, since these represent a form of analysis or judgement. The purpose in avoiding generalization at this phase is to leave the possibility open for alternative interpretation once the full data set is established. It is possible that later events may clarify or alter the meaning of a particular social act.

Feelings and emotions will always be present in a research setting, and should be acknowledged and recorded. Emerson et al. ( 2011 ) noted that it can be informative to describe actors’ emotional expressions and responses to the events occurring throughout the observation. They also recommend that the researcher record their own impressions and feelings about the events. Having recorded these feelings and responses, the researcher can compare their own reactions to those of the participants in order better to understand the cultural and social meanings unique to that setting and those actors. However, the impressions and feelings of the researcher do represent a form of analysis, and should be specifically recorded as such.

In field notes, the researcher should differentiate between the types of information they record so that it will be recognizable when they return to the jottings to expand them into completed field notes. Concrete descriptions of sensory details and verbatim interactions should be recorded in one manner or place, and impressions or personal feelings should be recorded differently. For example, some researchers choose to separate these types of jottings into two columns in their notebook before entering the field. Others use the comment function in word-processing software to separate analytic commentary from notes. These parallel notes can also be recorded using the advanced functionality of apps such as Evernote and MAXApp.

Both types of recording are important, and serve to help the researcher remember what they were seeing and feeling while in the field. These reminders will serve as recall prompts when the researcher goes to expand their field notes into full notes, and later when they use those notes to create analytic memos.

Post-Field or Inter-Field

This domain is dually named to highlight the fact that qualitative participant observers should complete multiple observations over a significant length of time. A single observation is not sufficient for allowing the researcher to understand contextual cultural meanings, and most qualitative methodologists encourage in-depth, long-term engagement in the field. Thus, the inter-field domain name refers to the idea that researchers will likely need to enter and exit the field a number of times. Expanded field notes, notes-on-notes, and memos should be created in between visits to help focus the study. At some point, examination of field notes and other qualitative data (i.e., interviews, documents) will start to seem redundant. In other words, the researcher(s) will begin to see the same phenomena occurring, with nothing new arising in successive observations. In other words, they have reached the point of data saturation (Glesne, 2016 ). There is not a set number of observations, or a pre determined length of field observation, necessary for rigorous qualitative observation. Rather, the researcher(s) must determine this point of theoretical saturation for themselves.

Expanded Field Notes

The process of observation does not stop once the researcher leaves the field. One cannot possibly record every detail of the observation in the moment, so jottings should be re-read and expanded after the fact. In order to preserve detail with the freshest memory, a number of sources recommend that the researcher read over jottings and expand them into fully realized field notes within 24 to 48 hours. This expansion process involves recreating a record of the events and interactions observed in full, rich detail (Geertz, 1973 ). In the field, the researcher may not have had time to record these happenings fully, but the jottings serve to jog the memory so that the researcher can later recall the field more fully. Expanded field notes may take the form of prose (paragraphs), a script of dialogue, figures, or diagrams. Time notations from jottings should be preserved in expanded field notes, and researcher asides or commentaries should also be kept separate from concrete sensory observations. Here is an example of field notes expanded from the jottings provided in the section “ Recording Field Notes ”:

Music Education Class Participants: 1 Instructor, 8 Students (college-aged), 1 researcher 2:15 p.m . The instructor, Dr. Hart asks the students what assumptions we make about learning. Hope, a white woman, raises her hand and says, “We assume that learning takes place in a building.” I feel that I understand what she’s saying and nod in agreement. Though I’ve nodded my head somewhat unconsciously, I notice that Hope has seen me agreeing with her. Dr. Hart says: “Yes, we assume that a school should look a certain way.” She says “No, that’s not what I mean!” and looks at me. Dr. Hart says that he’s going to translate her meaning a bit so that it will fit the chart they’ve been creating, and that, basically, it’s the same meaning anyway [paraphrased]. Hope looks disconcerted, with her eyebrows scrunched together. She is also shaking her head to left and right (as if to disagree) and frowning. She tries to reiterate her point, [paraphrase] “I am saying that learning experiences don’t need to happen in a building.” She again looks at me and I feel compelled to speak up. I say, “I think I know what you’re saying, you mean that you don’t have to be inside a school to learn, that you can learn outdoors, and at home with your family.” She says, “Yes! That’s what I mean!” Dr. Hart says “Oh, Ok!” but then asks John to write-up his original statement of “Schools look a certain way.” Hope slouches in her chair and rounds her shoulders, picks up her phone and begins to type .

In a first visit to a setting, it may be useful to assign pseudonyms or codes to participants to help with de-identifying participant data throughout the field notes. In addition to assigning such codes, the researcher should keep a code book or identifying document, preferably stored separately.

Expanded field notes should include as much detail as possible. Emerson et al. ( 2011 ) elaborated on this descriptive writing strategy that “calls for concrete details rather than abstract generalizations, for sensory imagery rather than evaluative labels, and for immediacy through details presented at close range” (p. 58). By necessity, this means that field notes will be long and labor intensive, with the added pressure that the researcher should record them as soon as possible to avoid losing detail. It is important not to skip this step of the process. It is easy to forget the particularities of the social field over time, and expanded field notes preserve complexity and richness of the data. Additionally, expanded field notes are vital when collaborating with other researchers, as they allow the others to experience a full description of events even if they were not present.

Notes-on-Notes

While writing expanded field notes, the researcher will inevitably begin to develop preliminary commentary and impressions. These impressions should not be considered findings when they arise from a single observation. Rather, they should be noted clearly so that the researcher may confirm or disconfirm their impressions in subsequent observations, interviews, or document analysis. To do this, researchers should create a short memo containing notes-on-notes for each field observation. Such a memo should move beyond impressions and begin to comment or theorize on what is observed. That said, notes-on-notes should not be considered findings until they have been compared to observations and triangulated with other types of data. Notes-on-notes can help to focus and narrow the research questions, and aid in moving the research project from descriptive to focused observation. Additionally, they may help in generating interview guides for focus groups or individual interviews where preliminary findings can be confirmed or ruled out. This is also a place for the researcher to record their own feelings in more detail. For example, if the researcher is experiencing frustration because they are not able to observe interactions between particular participants, they may note this frustration in the notes-on-notes memo. Notes-on-notes need not be lengthy; sometimes a paragraph or two is enough to express whatever should be noted for follow-up or later confirmation.

The process of qualitative observation is cyclical. Expanded field notes, along with the corresponding notes-on-notes, will most often direct the researcher back to the field to gather further information. The requisite information may represent a broadening of perspective, or a narrowing, depending on the setting and participants. Experienced researchers often begin the analytic process immediately upon entering a field of study, parsing out codes and themes in the data that they can further clarify (and sometimes quantify) as the study progresses. Analysis and coding are not included in this article, though the authors cited herein offer great insight on that topic.

Encouragements

One of the most encouraging aspects of observational research in educational settings is the opportunity to build partnerships and rapport with those who are currently working in the field. Very often there is a perceived divide between academics and P–12 teachers who work in classrooms. Again, the importance of developing rapport, basic trust, as well as collegiality cannot be overstated. Meaningful partnerships across these perceived divides are one of the most productive potential sites for educational change and reform to occur. These are the sites where, together, we might exert the most influence over policy, equity, and curriculum.

Rapport building should be genuine. It is not advisable to fake an interest in a site of study or associated stakeholders simply to benefits one’s own research agenda. Such an approach echoes the exploitative measures of early ethnographers, and is considered highly unethical. Thus, a skill that we have not yet explored regarding qualitative observation in educational settings is the ability of the researcher to seek and build meaningful, ethical relationships with those they study. The conundrum here then becomes that when we establish real relationships with participants, our subjectivity is engaged on yet another level. However, the benefits largely outweigh any potential pitfalls.

Moving beyond the stereotypical idea of one observer recording the events of a classroom, another opportunity is that of participatory action research. By engaging stakeholders in the design and execution of the research, the research may address issues that are pressing or of great importance to participants. This serves to generate educational change regarding issues that are of urgent concern to those engaged in the field on a day-to-day basis. A particular arena of possibility here involves engaging students in research.

Final Thoughts

To summarize, observation in educational settings is a detailed and rigorous process. This process involves self-reflection, attention to concrete and sensory details, and, most important, the ability to build rapport with participants. This article has detailed one methodological perspective and approach toward qualitative observation in educational settings. This approach can be used in both traditional and nontraditional educational settings, provided that the researcher maintains flexibility and an introspective approach to observation and, later, analysis. Cornerstone observational studies such as Ladson-Billings’s ( 2009 ) The Dreamkeepers , Lareau’s ( 2011 ) Unequal Childhoods , and Willis’s ( 2017 ) Learning to Labour provide useful examples of the insights that can be gleaned from observation.

The reflective “move between” one’s own subjectivity and that of participants is truly the generative site of observational research (Denzin, 2017 ). When done well, this moving in between can reveal similarities and differences, and can help people to take the time to understand diverse experiences, rather than approaching them from a stance of judgement and evaluation. Truly, observational research is a place where we have the opportunity to focus deeply on the experience of others. This is not just to walk in their shoes, but to understand the forces and meanings that influence their daily lives. These are some of the most exciting moments of potential change that qualitative research has to offer.

Methodological Texts

• Emerson, R. M. , Fretz, R. I. , & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation . New York, NY: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston.

Representative Studies

• Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children . San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
• Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Willis, P. (2017). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Angrosino, M. , & Rosenberg, J. (2011). Observations on observation: Continuities and challenges. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 467–478). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education . Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
• Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Basic Books.
• Gershon, W. S. (2013). Vibrational affect: Sound theory and practice in qualitative research. Cultural Studies?↔Critical Methodologies, 13 (4), 257–262.
• Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed.) New York, NY: Pearson.
• Lave, J. , & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Noblit, G. W. , Flores, S. Y. , & Murillo, E. G. (2004). Postcritical ethnography: Reinscribing critique . Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
• Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 16 (2), 175–196.
• Sensoy, O. , & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts in social justice education . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

1. Expanded field notes from these jottings are included in the section “ Expanded Field Notes .”

Related Articles

• Ethnography and Education
• Qualitative Design Research Methods
• Interviews and Interviewing in the Ethnography of Education
• Writing and Managing Multimodal Field Notes
• Ethnography Across Borders
• Mixed Methods Approaches and Qualitative Methodology for Higher Education Policy Research
• Qualitative Data Analysis and the Use of Theory

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 08 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|195.190.12.77]
• 195.190.12.77

Character limit 500 /500

Classroom observation frameworks for studying instructional quality: looking back and looking forward

• Original Article
• Published: 26 May 2018
• Volume 50 , pages 535–553, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Anna-Katharina Praetorius   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7581-367X 1   na1 &
• Charalambos Y. Charalambous 2   na1  

6200 Accesses

104 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Observation-based frameworks of instructional quality differ largely in the approach and the purposes of their development, their theoretical underpinnings, the instructional aspects covered, their operationalization and measurement, as well as the existing evidence on reliability and validity. The current paper summarizes and reflects on these differences by considering the 12 frameworks included in this special issue. By comparing the analysis of three focal mathematics lessons through the lens of each framework as presented in the preceding papers, this paper also examines the similarities, differences, and potential complementarities of these frameworks to describe and evaluate mathematics instruction. To do so, a common structure for comparing all frameworks is suggested and applied to the analyses of the three selected lessons. The paper concludes that although significant work has been pursued over the past years in exploring instructional quality through classroom observation frameworks, the field would benefit from establishing agreed-upon standards for understanding and studying instructional quality, as well as from more collaborative work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

On Classroom Observations

Possible biases in observation systems when applied across contexts: conceptualizing, operationalizing, and sequencing instructional quality

Studying instructional quality by using a content-specific lens: the case of the mathematical quality of instruction framework.

For ease of discussion, we refer to generic, content-specific and hybrid frameworks, although, as explained in the introductory paper (see Charalambous and Praetorius 2018 ), these frameworks can be situated along a continuum in terms of how generic and content-specific they are.

It is possible, however, that the intended uses of the frameworks are (better) clarified in other publications.

The quotes here and in what follows are directly drawn from the preceding papers of this special issue.

In the publications in the special issue, this challenge is solved by the CLASS researchers by focusing on one version of CLASS (i.e., CLASS-UE), and by the TBD researchers by providing a comprehensive overview of elements included in different studies. In the following, we refer to the results presented based on these decisions.

For ease of reference, in what follows we use the term “elements” to more collectively capture the different terms employed across instruments to describe what they contain on their respective Level-1, 2, and 3.

DMEE and MECORS complement these with low-inference instruments. High-inference instruments require a high degree of subjective judgment on the raters’ part, thus allowing more latitude for interpretation. In contrast, low-inference instruments constrain such interpretations by focusing on more readily observable behaviors and thus reduce both ambiguity and the need for interpretation (see more on this distinction in the publication by Kennedy 2010 , p. 231).

Whereas the two preceding measurement decisions are closely tied to the specific framework, the following two might vary to a certain degree from study to study, but still allow us to point to some differences among frameworks. Presented here is the typical approach according to the authors of the respective papers in the special issue.

Instead of conducting a comprehensive review on these issues, we contacted the authors of each paper and asked them to provide us with information regarding reliability and validity. For some frameworks (e.g., TBD) a systematic literature review was conducted to gather such information. For other frameworks for which a large number of publications was available (e.g., CLASS), doing so would, however, have been a huge effort; therefore, the data provided should be seen as indicative.

Because the frameworks differed in the criteria used to examine reliability and validity, Tables C1 and C2 include those common criteria that were also reported by most frameworks.

For example, Shavelson et al. ( 1986 ) suggest that a crossed design should be preferred when the lessons are considered as interchangeable, which is the case when the teachers are observed on the same day teaching the same or similar lessons content-wise; this design should also be used when certain features are largely similar across teachers (e.g., the time interval between observations among teachers is shorter than the time interval between observations within lessons of each teacher).

In making this argument we do not mean to imply that the MET study was not without limitations in terms of design and results obtained.

For parsimony reasons, for this work we used Level-1 elements instead of Level-2 elements to organize the huge list generated from the preceding procedure.

The general description of Level-1 indicators was not always consistent with the Level-2 and Level-3 indicators. Some Level-1 classifications were very broad and encompassed other Level-1 or Level-2 classifications within the same instrument. Some Level-3 indicators captured diverse elements which were not necessarily corresponding to or reflecting Level-2 indicators within the same instrument.

The distinction among the intended, implemented, and achieved curriculum (McKnight 1979 ) gets close to this idea, but still does not emphasize the importance of explicitly attending to students’ use of opportunities.

AERA/APA/NCME (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington: American Educational Research Association.

Google Scholar  

Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T. A., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 109 (5), 458–474.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bell, C., Gitomer, D. H., McCaffrey, D. F., Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., & Qi, Y. (2012). An argument approach to observation protocol validity. Educational Assessment, 17 (2–3), 62–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2012.715014 .

Bell, C. A., Qi, Y., Croft, A., Leusner, D., McCaffrey, D. F., Gitomer, D. H., & Pianta, R. (2014). Improving observational score quality: Challenges in observer thinking. In K. Kerr, R. Pianta & T. Kane (Eds.), Designing teacher evaluation systems: New guidance from the Measures of Effective Teaching project (pp. 50–97). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berlin, R., & Cohen, J. (2018). Understanding instructional quality through a relational lens. ZDM Mathematics Education . (this issue) .

Berliner, D. C. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (3), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105275904 .

Boston, M. D., & Candela, A. G. (2018). The instructional quality assessment as a tool for reflecting on instructional practice. ZDM Mathematics Education . (this issue) .

Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory . New York: Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Casabianca, J. M., Lockwood, J. R., & McCaffrey, D. F. (2015). Trends in classroom observation scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75 (2), 311–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164414539163 .

Chapman, C., Reynolds, D., Muijs, D., Sammons, P., Stringfiled, S., & Teddlie, C. (2016). Educational effectivness and improvement research and practice. In C. Chapman, D. Muijs, D. Reynolds, P. Sammons & C. Teddlie (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of educational effectiveness and improvement: research, policy, and practice (pp. 1–24). New York: Routledge.

Charalambous, C. Y., & Litke, E. (2018). Studying instructional quality by using a content-specific lens: The case of the mathematical quality of Instruction framework. ZDM Mathematics Education . (this issue) .

Charalambous, C. Y., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2016). Perspectives on priority mathematics education: Unpacking and understanding a complex relationship linking teacher knowledge, teaching, and learning. In L. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (3rd edn., pp. 19–59). Abingdon: Routledge.

Charalambous, C. Y., & Praetorius, A. K. (2018). Studying instructional quality in mathematics through different lenses: In search of common ground. ZDM Mathematics Education . (this issue) .

Cohen, D. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Cronbach, L. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th edn.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.

Diederich, J., & Tenorth, H. E. (1997). Theorie der Schule. Ein Studienbuch zu Geschichte, Funktionen und Gestaltung . Berlin, Germany: Cornelsen.

Fend, H. (1981). Theorie der Schule [Theory of the schooling] . München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.

Gitomer, D. (2009). Crisp measurement and messy context: A Clash of assumptions and metaphors—Synthesis of Section III. In G. Drew (Ed.), Measurement issues and assessment for teaching quality (pp. 223–233). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Gitomer, D. H., & Bell, C. A. (2013). Evaluating teaching and teachers. In K. F. Geisinger (Ed.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 415–444). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45 (1), 184–205. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312906 .

Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement . New York: Routledge.

Herlihy, C., Karger, E., Pollard, C., Hill, H. C., Kraft, M. A., Williams, M., & Howard, S. (2014). State and local efforts to investigate the validity and reliability of scores from teacher evaluation systems. Teachers College Record, 116 (1), 1–28.

Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough: teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41 (2), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12437203 .

Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Approaches to annual performance assessment. In M. M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 225–250). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ko, J., Sammons, P., & Bakkum, L. (2016). Effective teaching. Education Development Trust . https://www.educationdevelopmenttrust.com/~/media/EDT/Reports/Research/2015/r-effective-teaching.pdf . Accessed September 15, 2017.

Konstantopoulos, S. (2012). Teacher effects: Past, present and future. In S. Kelly (Ed.), Assessing teacher quality: Understanding teacher effects on instruction and achievement (pp. 33–48). New York: Teachers College Press.

Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Questionnaire design. In J. D. Wright & P. V. Marsden (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd edn., pp. 503–512). West Yorkshire: Emerald Group.

Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., & Panayiotou, A. (2018). Using educational effectiveness research to promote quality of teaching: The contribution of the dynamic model. ZDM Mathematics Education . (this issue) .

Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (1–2), 21–34.

Lindorff, A., & Sammons, P. (2018). Going beyond structured observations: Looking at classroom practice through a mixed method lens. ZDM Mathematics Education . (this issue) .

Maykut, P. S., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide . London: Falmer Press.

McKnight. C. C. (1979). Model for the Second Study of Mathematics. In Bulletin 4: Second IEA Study of Mathematics. Urbana, Illinois: SIMS Study Center.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd edn., pp. 13–103). Washington: American Council on Education & National Council on Measurement in Education.

Metzler, H. (1990). Methodological interdependencies between conceptualization and operationalization in empirical social sciences. In E. Zarnecka-Bialy (Ed.), Logic counts. Reason and argument (Vol. 3, pp. 167–176). Dordrecht: Springer.

Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timperley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of the art-teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25 (2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885451 .

Muijs, D., Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., & Teddlie, C. (2018). Assessing individual lessons using a generic teacher observation instrument: How useful is the International System for Teacher Observation and Feedback (ISTOF)? ZDM Mathematics Education . ( this issue ).

Open Science Collaboration (2017). Maximizing the reproducibility of your research. In S. O. Lilienfeld & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), Psychological science under scrutiny: Recent challenges and proposed solutions (pp. 1–21). New York: Wiley.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd edn.). London: Sage Publications.

Praetorius, A. K., Lenske, G., & Helmke, A. (2012). Observer ratings of instructional quality: Do they fulfill what they promise? Learning and Instruction, 22 (6), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.03.002 .

Praetorius, A., Pauli, K., Reusser, C., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2014). One lesson is all you need? Stability of instructional quality across lessons. Learning and Instruction, 31 , 2–12.

Praetorius, A.-K., Klieme, E., Herbert, B., & Pinger, P. (2018). Generic dimensions of teaching quality: The German framework of the three basic dimensions. ZDM Mathematics Education . (this issue) .

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Rosenshine, B. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional programs. The Elementary School Journal, 83 (4), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1086/461321 .

Scheerens, J. (2013). The use of theory in school effectiveness research revisited. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24 (1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.691100 .

Schlesinger, L., Jentsch, A., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2018). Subject-specific characteristics of instructional quality in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education . (this issue) .

Schoenfeld, A. (2018). Video analyses for research and professional development: the teaching for robust understanding (TRU) framework. ZDM Mathematics Education . (this issue) .

Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47 , 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009 .

Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77 (4), 454–499. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317 .

Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Burstein, L. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 50–91). New York: Macmillan.

Stein, M. K., Grover, B., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33 , 455–488. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002455 .

Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom . Alexandria: ASCD.

Walkington, C., & Marder, M. (2018). Using the UTeach Observation Protocol (UTOP) to understand the quality of mathematics instruction. ZDM Mathematics Education . (this issue) .

Walkowiak, T. A., Berry, R. Q., Pinter, H. H., & Jacobson, E. D. (2018). Utilizing the M-Scan to measure standards-based mathematics teaching practices: Affordances and limitations. ZDM Mathematics Education . (this issue) .

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14 , 490–495.

Wirtz, M., & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität . Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all authors who have contributed to this special issue and have invested considerable time and energy in replying to all our questions and requests. Our gratitude also goes to the reviewers of each single paper within this special issue as well as the reviewers of this paper who helped to improve the quality of the special issue considerably.

Author information

Anna-Katharina Praetorius and Charalambos Y. Charalambous contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Anna-Katharina Praetorius

University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Charalambos Y. Charalambous

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna-Katharina Praetorius .

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 86 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Praetorius, AK., Charalambous, C.Y. Classroom observation frameworks for studying instructional quality: looking back and looking forward. ZDM Mathematics Education 50 , 535–553 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0946-0

Download citation

Accepted : 16 May 2018

Published : 26 May 2018

Issue Date : June 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0946-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Research synthesis
• Instructional quality
• Mathematics instruction
• Observation frameworks
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Skip navigation

• Lugossy, Fodor: Research Methodology manual
• What is this booklet about?
• 1 What is classroom-based research?
• 2 Suggestions for small-scale research with stories
• 3 Guidelines for writing small research papers and a sample study

4 Classroom observation: implications of a case study. Evaluation and sharing the findings to discuss future options

Observation is powerful. Its significance and role have long been the focus of interest inside and outside humanities. The Grimmean littlest son leaves home, learns a trade, and wins the kingdom because he observes the world and becomes empowered by what he learns from the experience. In the 1970s the social learning theory or observational learning in behavioral psychology gave new impetus to conceptualizing observation in education. Observation and the data it brings forth have been recontextualized since the 1980s and they have become one of the key agents of awareness raising and teacher development as well. In the most Hungarian schools model teaching behavior is the accepted norm and a crucial standard in mastering the trade. The significance of further professional development is denied on many instances. Self-observation may take place in order to enhance in-service teacher development as well as create an opportunitiy to challenge and solve frustrating and problematic teaching situations. Bailey, Curtis and Nunan define teacher development as an ongoing process of experiential, attitudinal and intellectual growth of in service teachers (2001). This approach emphasizes improvement and relies heavily on the awareness, or the culturally defined understanding of people's beliefs, of previous knowledge about teaching and learning. Gaining awareness of teaching is a prerequisite to teacher development as well as it is the primary aim of exploration. Learing more about someone's teaching does not imply that some ways of teaching should be preferred to others because they are better. The goal is to be open and to attempt to grasp a clear view of the dynamics of teacher-student as well as student-student interactions and rapport. Throughout their careers teachers establish, maintain and modify their own assumptions about the nature of teachability and learnability, nevertheless, very often these two concepts develop asymptotically. In an ideal case, when they explore teaching teachers test and reconceptualize teachability and learnability and assign in them a better articulated role to their learners, too. As Gebhard and Oprandy point out, "when we explore teaching, we simultaneously probe ourselves and the larger meaning of our endeavor" (1999, p. 4). Teacher and teaching become sources of data to be probed and understood in context. Five major techniques of data collection exist: 1) observation: self and others; 2) action research; 3) reflective journal writing; 4) supervision; and 5) conference with teachers . In this part of the manual we deal with the modes and implications of diagnostic classroom observation with special focus on the improvement opportunities provided by self-observation. We will also need your insights and creative thinking to imagine yourself into the position and situations of the described teachers to fully understand the potentials of this diagnostic tool.

First in this part of the manual you will read a short summary of a case study, which sums up what happened in an elementary school English as a foreign language class to show how without minor steps taken continuously to remain connected with the learners may lead to insurmountable discomforts in one's teaching practice. Of course in most schools and situations a teacher rarely ends up so demotivated and lacking resourcefulness as in the cited story. We will use this story to help you understand minor and major signs when intervention is necessary and unavoidable to maintain integrity. The remaining of the section will be devoted to a detailed analysis of a classroom-observation based self-improvement case study. Transcripts of the observed class will be provided to provoke further thinking and prove the diagnostic capacity of self-observation based action research.

Bailey et al. claim that self-awareness and self-observation are the cornerstones of all professional development (2001). Even though our usual aim in observation is to evaluate someone, it should rather be about offering a different way to look at teaching and learning. We can easily turn classroom observation to serve our needs to revitalize and rethink our current practices with the overall goal of solving some long-existing problem. Gehard and Oprandy define classroom observation as the "nonjudgmental description of classroom events that can be analyzed and given interpretation" (1999, p. 35). Guided, systematic, and focused observation helps conceptualize and deepen knowledge dealing with teaching and learning in general. If observation is seeing teaching through the lenses of the ‘other,' self-observation is the organized and regular recording of one's own classroom behavior for the purposes of earning a better understanding of procedures and meanings. Hearing, analyzing and interpreting the data from self-observation based action research provide the potential toward reinventing ourselves in teaching. Bailey et al. holds that "self-observation implies a professional curiosity-watching, listening, and thinking without necessarily judging (2001, p. 27). As the philosophical core of observation, Gebhard and Oprandy identify nine key assumptions (1999) of which we find the following five relevant to the purposes of the present research manual.

• "Take responsibility for your own teaching" can be self-evident if you want to improve. The first step is always recognizing that you have individual responsibility in the process.
• "The need for others" maxim holds that successful exploration requires perspectives other than our own. In the case of self-observation, the possible interviewing of the participating students may provide the fresh look.
• "Description as opposed to prescription" indicates awareness and plays a key role in the meaningful use of the data. In self-observation projects, processing the data may also involve "self-help-explorative supervision" (Gebhard, 1990, p. 163). Accordingly, the teacher reconstructs teaching based on awareness gained from observations of teaching.
• "A nonjudgmental stance" is very closely related to the previous category of favoring description over prescription. Judgments and judgmental position may be an easy obstacle to seeing what really happens in the classroom. Data collection methods, such as audio- or videorecording the lesson, transcribing recorded data, coding the interactions as well as studying the coding to recognize patterns of interactions are such systematic ways of handling the data and remaining objective.
• "Attention to language and behavior" means that recording the lesson and coding the data help both observer and the observed to focus on the events and interactions. The coding system also serves as a metalanguage to talk about teacing rather than sink back to the comfortable yet highly inferential and thus also judgmental position of general statements, words and phrases.
• "A beginner's mind" refers to exploring the classroom without preconceived ideas about what should be going on in there. The task seems enormous, how can I explore a classroom without preconceptions after having taught there for a certain amount of time?

Following the introduction about the power of observation consider the following story in terms of possibly using classroom observation for diagnostic purposes. A class of sixth graders, who learn English as a Foreign Language in four hours per week, has brought their middle-aged female teacher, Bernadette to a stage where she considers serious sanctions to punish her students for inappropriate classroom behavior and lack of interest and motivation.

The teacher here clearly has problems motivating her students and she thinks that students can only be task focused if they work quietly and do not question procedures, results or solutions. Her frustration will likely continue in other English lessons unless she seeks some form of intervention, perhaps an outside person visiting and observing her class and comment on what may have gone wrong. Her teaching style seems cooperative on the surface, yet she switches back to being authoritative when she thinks that she has failed in controlling the classroom. It is highly unlikely that one visit to her classroom would surface the issues as this visit is perhaps seen by her as a compulsory threat that she has to get through as quickly as possible, instead of regarding it as an integrated part of her teaching. Convincing her about the value of observation and diagnostic intervention-if possible-takes time and effort. In addition to the peer feedback she would have to be encouraged to reflect on what is happening in the classroom, precisely what upsets her to such an extent. She may also consider discussing it with her students and consider their reflections as well in the long term solution to the problem. She may gradually change her attitude to that of the reflective practitioner who discovers more about her own teaching by focusing on the locally based processes of teaching and learning (Schön, 1983).

In Anna's case, she has problems with rapport, discipline, and the motivation of her students. She does not approach language teaching as the management of interpersonal communication through using the content and form of the foreign language (Cogan, 1995). Furthermore, she fails to see how the introduction of genuine, meaningful and motivating contexts for using English in the classroom would result in the lower anxiety level of the learners and their readiness to accept rather than challenge the teacher. She may however feel anxious about being visited and observed. It is actually two ways of conceptualizing the EFL classroom which are in conflict here. To avoid the chasm some form of diagnostic intervention would be needed immediately, which may run into some obstacles rooted in orthodox Hungarian teacher beliefs and practices.

The first question requires you to think about the classroom conflict between learners and the teacher. As Anna has readily available lines of scolding her students and she seems very tired of uncontrolled noise it is very likely that she does not want to consider the real age-related characteristics of her learners. First that they appreciate classroom activities with opportunities for group work, where they feel safe and more ready to share or discuss their solutions with peers rather than answer the frontal solicitation of the teacher. Anna seems to know this; however, she fails to fully implement group work with the accompanying noise and temporary chaos. Moreover, it is very unlikely that her students genuinely feel bad about Anna. They are too restricted in most of their school activities and use every opportunity to express themselves and feel less tense as would be the ultimate goal of cooperative teaching and learning.

Gebhard (1984) claims that in a number of second language teacher education contexts educators tend to limit them to giving the same reasons for doing supervision and to have the same supervisory behaviors in spite of the availability of a wide choice of supervisory behaviors. Although for a while external monitoring of teachers can be a source of providing feedback the ultimate goal should be an independent teacher capable of self monitoring and improvement. Based on his long discussions with teachers and doctoral students in Hungary's two teacher training programs, Gebhard identifies a few culture-specific issues why certain modes of teacher development in Hungary are difficult to apply (2003). The first issue is time. Gebhard's conversational partners talked about their overburdening which made it hard to focus on improvement and their unwillingness was chalked up to the little time and even less energy left for exploration of issues and development. Gebhard labels the second issue "comfort." Accordingly a number of teachers expressed their anxieties related to observation, that they did not feel comfortable with some other professional present in the classroom. Although some teachers are comfortable with observation and reflective practice, a large number of them are not. The third point concerns "teacher isolation." Most responding teachers felt that professional and collegial collaboration is almost entirely missing from Hungarian educational institutions. Accordingly, it would be difficult to ask a colleague, or trusted teacher friend to come, visit classes and discuss about diagnostic steps and opportunities. The fourth issue as an obstacle to self-development is often "trust," meaning that most teachers carry unpleasant memories of being observed during their teaching practice and need not only simple encouragement to tackle their aversions in the first place. They also mentioned that observation often equals judgment instead an opportunity to discuss teaching as a holistic experience. A few of Gebhard's respondents also pointed out that the still palpable Prussian heritage in Hungarian education makes it hard to switch to qualitative methods and reflexivity in evaluation. We would also add one source of discomfort with an outsider in the classroom and that's the anxiety felt over their knowledge and use of English in the classroom. Most of the teachers over forty years of age have spent only little time in English speaking countries let alone working in an educational context with native speakers. At the age of the internet and extended online opportunities to develop this should not be a huge problem, however, most teacher would refer to the previously revealed constraints fof further development, such as time constraint. With all such traditional misconceptions and dislike toward observation it is hard but not impossible to change the views of the Ms. Hermina, the teacher in the case study. In such education context self-observation is the less intrusive method and if the teacher is willing and ready to accept outsider views creative supervision may also bring up issues that supplement the teacher's reflections of her own context and approach.

Regarding its instrument, self-observation, however, requires a slightly different approach from traditional observations. External observers, even colleagues, would structure their description of the lesson on some formal list of categories, such as personality features of the teacher, preparation, English in the classroom, management, rapport and relationship with students, overall impressions. These are easy to identify and follow in the lesson, and the post-lesson conference should be about a genuine discussion of the findings of the observer with the observed teacher. One of the challenges in the case of structured observation would be the readiness of the teacher to distinguish these insights from negative criticism and handle them as starting points for further growth and development. In a Hungarian educational context, most practicing teachers feel that observation standards are not adaptable to the specific context and issue, but they are set by external supervisors. Supervision has served evaluative and assessment rather than developmental or diagnostic purposes. For teachers socialized into this role of observation it is hard to see the real potential of this method of action research. They often would want the observer-supervisor to give a full-length description of what they have "done wrong" instead of accepting constructive help or simply an initiative to think together about questions that concern the success of their teaching as well as individual professional satisfaction. Self-observation does not evaluate or assess teachers' aptitude for language learning rather how the usual practices in their English lesson bring less the required results.

The particular class was about the Great Depression of the 1930s and students had a discussion of the assigned chapter entitled The Thirties from the course textbook. To understand about how sociocultural competence may be developed in the classroom where English is used as a foreign language to talk about cultural content, we will sum up some approaches to the concept.

Approaches to culture

Defining culture is a complex task, since both its content and nature have to be examined. In this respect culture may be referred to as the complex entirety of the customs, ideas, values, art etc. that are produced and/or shared by one particular group of people, which may change over time but only if the majority of the members accept the changes. From a sociological perspective culture refers to the social heritage of a people - the learned patterns for thinking, feeling and acting that characterize a population or society including the expression of these patterns in material things (Wardhaugh, 1994). We understand culture essential to our humanness and some social scientists use the term "society" interchangeably with "culture", since culture lacks a life on its own and exists only with the people to enact it. The basic assumption behind the notion of culture is that human behaviour varies from society to society over the globe, which though makes defining culture more difficult, yet offers us the freedom to challenge essentialist approaches to it.

Culture in Applied Linguistics has inspired somewhat different definitions. In his widely quoted definition, Lado (1957) describes culture generally as the ways of a people which approach reflects the variety and inclusive nature of both the word and the concept. Richards, Platt and Platt define culture as the total set of beliefs, attitudes, customs, behaviour, social habit, etc. of the members of a particular society (1996). Wardhaugh interprets society as "any group of people who are drawn together for a certain purpose or purposes and a language is what the members of a particular society speak" (1994:1). In this last definition we meet the concept of language in a context which suggests that language, society and culture are inter-dependent. Byram (1989) takes one step further when he attempts to approach culture as an omnibus term (also Kaplan and Manners 1972:3). Though defining culture is attempted in a number of disciplines dealing with society and culture, the task seems, are notoriously difficult particularly in anthropology, yet, as Byram notes it is as good a label as any for the overall phenomenon or system of meanings within which sub-systems of social structure, technology, art and so on exist and interconnect (1989).

In their more recently published approach Adaskou, Britten and Fahsi refer to ‘four separate sorts of "culture" that language teaching may involve' (1990:3-4). The first category is an aesthetic sense of culture, including cinema, music and literature, in brief ‘culture with a capital C.' The organization and nature of family, home life, interpersonal relations, customs, institutions, work and leisure, and material conditions of a society - the sociological sense - means ‘culture with a small c'. The ‘conceptual system embodied in language, ... conditioning all our perceptions and our thought system' belongs to the semantic sense. Adaskou et al. (1990:4) classify ‘the background knowledge, social skills, and paralinguistic skills that, in addition to mastery of the language code, make possible successful communication' as the pragmatic (or sociolinguistic) sense. All these different meanings of culture are defined by and therefore centred around language. Therefore, the inter-related nature of language and culture has gained evidence from yet another angle.

In his approach to culture Sarangi finds it necessary to acknowledge in alignment to many scholars ‘that any definition of culture is necessarily reductionist' (Sarangi 1995, in: Holliday 1999:242,). Therefore, he suggests that two paradigms of culture be distinguished instead of what has become the default concept of ‘culture' referring to ‘prescribed ethnic, national and international entities' (Holliday 1999:237-264). In this taxonomy a ‘ large culture paradigm' refers to culture that is by its nature vulnerable to a culturist -prone to excessive stereotyping- reduction of foreign students, teachers and their educational contexts. A ‘ small culture paradigm', on the other hand, defines culture as small social groupings or activities which display cohesive behaviour. On the basis of these two paradigms our perceptions and interpretations of culture may be characterized as static (large culture) or dynamic (small culture), claiming culture as a means of investigation rather than as an end-product.

To sum up the information these definitions provide us with concerning the nature and content of culture, it obviously displays an enormous potential to be exploited in teacher education programmes. This discipline may be labelled Applied Cultural Studies, including applications of the target language culture through content areas such as anthropology, ethnography, cultural geography, literature and sociology as well as methodological issues on how to research and interpret such cultural materials.

The relationship between culture and language

The relationship of language and culture has been perceived in rather different ways through time. Vander Zanden finds language the most important set of symbols a human being possesses, which allows him to create culture and perpetuate it from one generation to the next (1988:63). Earlier it was assumed that learning the language should always precede learning the culture. The ‘linguistic relativity hypothesis', that every language cuts the world into dissimilar pieces, thus drawing our attention to different faces of experience, (Whorf 1956, in: Vander Zanden 1988) served as a breakthrough in judging the relationship between language and culture because it assumed direct link between the two. Many scholars, however, warn of the fallacy of the theory itself (Pinker 1994:60). Doubtless though it influenced much of the way we tend to think about culture and language. By the 1990's the axiom that ‘culture is the context for language use' (Lessard-Clouston 1996:198) has become widely accepted and exploited. Byram notes, for example, that

language pre-eminently embodies the values and meanings of a culture, refers to cultural artefacts and signals people's cultural identity. Because of its symbolic and transparent nature language can stand alone and represent the rest of a culture's phenomena, ... [it] cannot be used without carrying meaning and referring beyond itself, even in the most sterile environment of the foreign language class. The meanings of a particular language point to the culture of a particular social grouping, and the analysis of those meanings - their comprehension by learners and other speakers - involves the analysis and comprehension of that culture. (Byram 1989:41)

Another noteworthy aspect of the relationship between culture and language is the interdependence of communicative and cultural competencies. According to the findings of Manes and Wolfson (Wolfson 1986), ‘a single speech act may vary greatly across speech communities,' that is language exists primarily beyond the classroom where communicative competence, language and culture are all equal parts of successful communication. Buttjes claims that communicative competence has to be regarded as much more ‘than a purely linguistic decoding facility. Since language and culture are so intimately interrelated in the experience of both native and foreign speaker, cultural competence must be involved at all stages of such an encounter' (Buttjes 1990:55 in: Lessard-Clouston 1996:198). This is because familiarity with the background culture is the clue to understanding linguistic behaviour, or else as Saville-Troike (1983:131-132) points out ‘the concept of communicative competence must ... be embedded in the notion of cultural competence' (In: Lessard-Clouston 1996:198). The content of cultural competence defined here by Manes and Wolfson, Buttjes and Lessard-Clouston is refined and extended in Byram's definition of sociocultural competence. Byram proposes

to define sociocultural competence in terms of a content of which learners should be "aware". Furthermore, some parts of the specified content might appear to be "universal", although in fact they tend to be centred on the developed North, and have a tendency to be ethnocentric. In so far as the common framework is European, this is to be expected, but it is doubtless desirable to establish a potential for links with other developments, for example in North America. (Byram 1997:9)

• ‘Attitudes and values' refer to the affective capacity to give up ‘ethnocentric attitudes towards and a cognitive ability to establish and maintain a relationship' between native and target cultures.
• ‘The ability to learn' is identical with an interpretative system or cultural code (Guerin, Labor, Morgan, Reesman and Willingham 1992:249-250) which helps gain insight into yet unencountered cultural meanings, phenomena, expressions.
• ‘Knowledge' is defined as ‘a system of cultural references which structures the implicit and explicit knowledge acquired in the course of linguistic and cultural learning', which also considers the special needs of the students when interacting with native speakers of the target language.
• ‘Knowing-how' tends to integrate all the three capacities in ‘specific situations of bicultural contact, i.e. between the culture(s) of the learner and of the target language' (Byram 1997 14-20). Via the development of these four sub-competences the sociolinguistic ability, the knowledge of culture areas and the knowledge of culture analysis are emphasized.

To sum up a learner possessing sociocultural competence will be able to interpret and bring different cultural systems into relations with one another, to interpret socially distinctive variations within a foreign cultural system, and to manage the dysfunctions and resistances peculiar to intercultural communication, which we shall henceforth refer to as "conflict". (Byram 1997:13).

It is possible that not everybody agrees to being recorded or photographed. In that case other ways of classroom observation data collection should be chosen, e.g. inviting a colleague to take notes, taking notes by ourselves during class (if students are engaged in solving tasks) or after class, based on our memories. If a few students agree, they may be asked to take notes and reflect on the lesson as well. If we cannot record the lesson it is useful to have a detailed lesson plan with enough space to take notes, jot down things that come to our mind while teaching. This is of course a plan B that a teacher always wants to have for scenarios better or worse.

Thinking of what to share with the participants about action research can help make you more conscious of the goals of the project as well as see the difficulties and the potential controversies and respond to the challenges. It does not only reveal our ability and willingness to reinvent ourselves but also display some of our vulnerabilities as teachers to our students and accept our right to be wrong. It is also a further option to share the recorded material with our post-primary learners and involve them in the teacher development project. Such an experience may add depth to our relationship with the learners as they also think critically of their own participation and learning process. Furthermore, all teacher development projects should note that exploration and development cannot be done in a vacuum. We need another person's perceptual filter to see through the looking glass. This is an opportunity for us to gain deeper awareness of our teachings and empower ourselves to know how to make our own informed decisions. There is little evidence that any one way of teaching is better than another in all settings. We need to collect and understand descriptions rather than follow prescriptions. Self-observation gets us the necessary data to engage in a meaningful dialogue with our learners, as well as to understand why we still do or do not do certain practices.

The following excerpts are coded as communicative moves and the coding explores the rules in our teaching, it helps generate alternatives and sees the extent to which rules are broken. Furthermore, it helps raise questions about preconceived notions. Coding is the formal analysis of the material to discover themes, patterns and ways of teaching. It provides insights into the subtleties and nuanced details of the classroom communication and practices. In the present study, utterances are perceived as communication acts and are evaluated along their direction, labeled as "move" and according to the content, labeled as "message." In square brackets, we provide the abbreviation we will use in the coding table for each type of source or target.

According to Fanselow (1987), a certain act of communication can be coded as a move and as a message. XXX has a source and a target, and both of these may be the "teacher" [t], the "student" [s] or the "other" [s]. The teacher could be any one person who assumes the role of a teacher. A teacher can be a student who presents or teaches something to the class. It is therefore, not a strictly qualification- or age-related position. It is the person who aims to transmit some kind of information for further discussion, understanding or simply learning to the rest of the group. A student can be any one person on an equal basis with another. The other category accounts for communications from outside sources such as labels, books, video clips, cell phone calls etc. if the communication is responded to. On one level only four things are done in a classroom and according to the purpose of the communication there can be four types of communicative move: "structuring" [str], "soliciting" [sol], "responding" [res], and "reacting" [rea]. Structuring sets the stage to subsequent action and behavior. It is often manifested in the form of announcements, what will happen in the classroom and who is responsible for the events. Soliciting refers to setting the tasks by asking questions, issuing commands, making requests and require responses. When students reply to soliciting it is coded as responding, whereas reacting implies giving comments. Regardless of the length of a move, whether one word, or one hundred words it counts as one move. Moreover, the teacher may also react with a nod, a short statement of "very good" or a long explanation of the rules of the past perfect continuous tense the communication counts as only one reacting move. The classic pattern is when the teacher solicits, students respond, and the teacher reacts to conclude the set of moves. Move types can be combined along all these categories and so-called idiosyncratic moves may occur which distract students to an extent that the power of other moves is diminished. Altogether move type combined with information regarding source and target answer the question: What is being done?

Mediums used to communicate can be distinguished according to how they transmit the information. This way observation data and its analysis through coding allow us to answer the question: "How is it done?" The communicative moves may be coded as "linguistic" [l], "nonlinguistic" [n], "paralinguistic" [p] and "silence" [s]. The linguistic medium includes both written and spoken utterances. The nonlinguistic medium refers to noises, music, pictures. Paralinguistic medium involves gestures, tone of voice and movement. Silence is the absence of any of the so-far mentioned mediums.

Key: T=teacher; S=student; C=class; sol=solicit; rea=react; res=respond; La=linguistic audio; pe=present, elicit (ask questions for which the answer is already known); ps=present, state (give factual information); st=extended discourse; ce=characterize evaluate; d=reproduce; so=study other areas than language; fg=life general; p=procedure XX

The transcript reveals that in this scene students talked more (16 lines) than the teacher (14 lines). After a few seconds hesitation they came up with their accounts for the events in 1877. The content of the utterances was strictly focused there was only one off-theme remark about the impact of the tape-recorder, which most probably aimed to alleviate the tension both students and the instructor felt about the instrument and the fact that everything was recorded. The teacher started with a grand tour question (Rubin and Rubin, 1995) about the Great Strike of 1877 because students did not read historiography but only primary sources. Thus, the purpose of the question was to obtain broad overviews as to what extent students had familiarized with the cultural premises of the period. ADD ON QUESTION TYPES As a kind of probing the teacher asked two other questions and students were supposed to paraphrase the readings in their responses. The questions were closer to display questions than to genuine probing and were meant to be a kind of warm-up task. All interaction but one short laugh was linguistic. At one point ( lines 42-50 ) the students carried on the discussion reacting to what had been said without teacher interference. This event broke the otherwise frequent teacher-student-teacher interaction and provided feedback about the communicative value of the speaker' comments. Once S1 finished her comment the teacher allowed no thinking time and the free-flowing conversation was brought to an abrupt end by a 29-line-long teacher monologue.

A quick look at the rest of the first part of the class ( APPENDIX or OTHER TABLE? ) shows that this reaction of the teacher was roughly twice as long (29 lines) as the two students' responses (altogether 16 lines). In her talk the teacher linked events and causes of the Great Strike of 1877 to those of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Drawing parallels between the two events could have offered opportunities for asking further questions or assign creative, thinking gap activities which could have connected learners' schemata or active story-based knowledge to the new information and unknown events in American history. These unfortunately went unexploited as the excerpt shows; moreover, as the teacher's uninterrupted flow of new information poured so much unknown data on students, it brought an abrupt halt to student willingness to venture with comments and insights. This is a potential danger of teacher monologues to which we will come back in a later section of the manual.

The transcript reveals ( APPENDIX lines 141-259) that the teacher-initiate-student-respond pattern continued in this section of the session as well. There was a linguistic medium, and the content included only the current field of study except for two procedural remarks. Teacher talk was not predominant, 88 lines as opposed to 27 countable lines-WORD COUNT plus roughly the same amount of inaudible recording of student talk. Yet the ration is worse if we compare the teacher and individual students. There was no student-initiated interaction in this part of the session and the teacher and individual students and teacher utterances were always longer except when the teacher only asked one question. Responses became more evaluative; participants experimented with inferences and analogies (line 150), too. Discussion of the question as well as the first part of the class was terminated by a long talk on Social Darwinism as an example of applied philosophy. Both main questions were based on primary readings and all but one student utterance reached the length of three lines- INSERT WORD COUNT .

A short introduction to group work followed, the teacher distributed a question sheet containing four questions ( APPENDIX LINES 285-291 ) and asked students to form discussion groups. Participants could use their notes, the readings, their smart phones, tablets or any outside source that they had at hand during the ten minutes of small group discussion. The rest of class time was devoted to conversing about he questions and related issues in a similar manner to the first part of the session. The basis of the discussion was an essay on the history of the period. Of all 69 coded communications only five did not focus on the subject that is the cultural history of the period 1880s-1920s in America. The content was procedural and the number of teacher monologues increased in this section. There were no references to personal life or to everyday practices in general, the link between students' schemata and the readings was entirely missing.

Possible implications of bad student-teacher talk ratio

Consequences of not relying on student schemata in bringing forth new factual information. History remains a cold, hardly accessible, archival inventory of facts with a huge number of dormant stories which could only be exploited if the teacher opens up the links between the past and the present with tasks that step beyond question-answer-question. Rosenzweig and Thelen argue that students of history participate actively and use the past intimately, regardless of cultural and national boundaries, if the pasts they use can be connected to intimate or private spheres (1998). The central issue in a fundamentally historical way of learning and understanding culture is participation v. passivity, active and firsthand engagement or mediation by others who had mysterious and distant agendas. If used in narrative embedding, artifacts, descriptions of the historic past invites learners to revisit their own experiences at other times and places, to imagine how they might have felt and acted, to reflect on how the earlier experiences or circumstances might have changed or been changed by those who had originally participated in them (Rosenzweig and Thelen, 1998). If we consider these events in American history as a sum total of life experiences that feed introspection, they will begin to live their own lives and help students understand the importance of learning to use the past on their own terms. Engaging more actively with these texts would also bring more different tastes as each individual puts her own story as a basis to understand someone else's story. The goal is to make such distant past a common resource and a way to understand our thinking better. Emphasizing the general features of specific historical situations makes their relevance trans-historical and trans-generational and allows students to become interpreters rather than just observers.

This task is meant to get you engaged more deeply into the dynamics of using history as a meaningful content and think critically about why certain activities fail to involve learners.

According to the transcript students started a discussion without teacher initiative ( lines 292-297 ). The use function of the communication that triggered student response is coded as "characterize-illustrate" and "characterize-label." Fanselow claims that soliciting responses such as "characterize and/or characterize-evaluate" require mental operations that are the basis of development in most fields and in much learning (1985). He argues that although communications coded this way require the type of binary choice we make every day outside classrooms, they occur less than 5% of the time in most classes studied (Fanselow, 1985). The statistics has proved true in the recorded class as well. There was only one instance ( lines 292-295 ) when a student utterance could be coded as characterizing. After the response the teacher did not allow thinking time but assumed control and continued with a question, which reintroduced the teacher-student-teacher interaction pattern observed during the first half of the class. Eight of thirteen communications were coded as "recalling information, stating facts," two were questions to explore and two utterances belonged to the previously described "characterize" category. One question the teacher asked ( lines 332-333 ) was a reformulation and expansion of a student response. EXPLANATION More

The student indicated as S8 in the transcript studies economy, too and he is especially interested in topics that involve discussions on economy. Later during the class he mentioned the name of John Maynard Keynes ( line 412 ), and eventually wrote his research paper on Keynes's theory about the Great Depression. At that time he joined in and helped maintain the teacher-student interaction. In line 331 he made a mistake, used the adjective "economical" instead of "economic". This misuse of the term economical to mean economic occurred frequently in other discussions as well as in the written assignments. The teacher then decided to manage the mistake by repeating, reformulating and expanding. The example illustrates the complexity of the dilemma whether to interrupt or not at such instances. The pattern of interaction was mainly recalling and stating facts about the American economy of the time and the role of the stock exchange as a potential cause for the economic recession. The content was subject-related in a solely linguistic medium. The teacher continued with a 60-line-long talk on what it means to buy stocks on margin. In line 358 there was the actual question about the meaning of the term, and students were allowed to think for five seconds. Compared to an earlier situation when 18 seconds of thinking time was allowed, this short pause was possibly not enough for students to come up with their ideas before the talk continued. It ended with soliciting for factual information on laissez-faire capitalism and only one student could become genuinely involved in the discourse.

The coding and the transcript reveal that in the remaining of the class ( lines 413-768 ) the dynamics of interaction changed, teacher talk (approximately 305 lines ) was about six times the length of student talk ( approximately 50 lines ). Long monologues followed short student responses to teacher soliciting ( see transcript ). Pauses became shorter, and their lengths varied between 5 and 10 seconds. Of the coded 57 communications 25 were stating facts and recalling information, and these responses were given to 14 display questions. Only two exploratory questions occurred and all characterize-evaluate statements came from the teacher. Six communications had procedural content, the rest dealt with the subject per se. In this part of the class, student-initiated interaction was entirely missing. The class ended with setting the reading tasks for the following week.

Interpretations

Transcription, coding, description and analysis of the data from self-observation walk us through what happened in the November 19 th class of the course Introduction to Studying American Culture . One of the two goals of the course is to develop the sociocultural competence of the students. Byram, Zarate and Neuner hold that a learner possessing sociocultural competence will be able to interpret and bring different cultural systems into relation with one another, to interpret socially distinctive variations within a foreign cultural system, and to manage the dysfunctions and resistances peculiar to intercultural communication which is referred to as conflict (1997).

Whenever the teacher included longer (10-18 seconds) wait-time students became more active. Longer pauses tend to help students think, relate to the topic and decide whether they want to contribute or not. No less important is the fact that the communication setting is unnatural as people sharing one mother tongue are forced to speak a foreign language. Coming up with the wrong idea, expressing it inaccurately, with a less native like accent are all risk factors not easy to overcome. Interpreting and evaluating also require longer thinking time than recalling rote-learned facts. The teacher can best help her students tackle these challenges with longer wait times, and meaningful props to encourage students and help them come up with meaningful utterances. Consequently, controlled longer pauses after open-ended questions allow participants to tackle potential language and content-related problems and assist students to switch to a foreign system of cultural references.

Mastering a foreign language means the willingness to relativise one's own cultural position and set of values and beliefs and this is possible through employing all different aspects of language use. The transcript shows that only listening and speaking skills were extensively used during the session. During group-work students could use written texts and jot down their ideas for later discussions, but that activity only took 10 minutes from the 90-minute-class and it was not about reading or writing entirely either. There were four students who did not participate in any activity except the group discussion. They may have decided to withdraw from participation because they were better at tasks, which required reading and writing as opposed to listening and speaking. Developing sociocultural competence however means managing the dysfunctions and resistances peculiar to intercultural communication, which is not restricted to listening and speaking. Such emphasis on oral communication can be one factor that blocks the development of sociocultural competence.

Despite the fact that the majority of students felt they had enough discussion and mentioned it as a positive feature of the course in their feedback, even a fast glimpse at the transcript shows the imbalance of student-teacher talk ratio. An especially striking feature is the frequently occurring teacher monologues. There are extended talks in which the teacher answers an earlier solicit fully or partially, reacts to student response or clarifies issues that she thinks might be important. There was only one reference to teacher monologues in the feedback when one student claimed: "I liked the most when you talked about a certain subject in class, which we couldn't read anywhere." As the student noticed such monologues can be a source of knowledge on the target culture, which according to Byram et al. (1997) also constitutes segment of sociocultural competence. Its presence in the class is problematic when it blocks student discussion. On the other hand, monologues could be an expression of teacher anxiety rooted in the fear that she loses control over the discussion. Accordingly, the role and impact of these extended talks depend on the circumstances under which they occur.

One feature of the monologues is that they reduce the amount of time available for students to think about the task and articulate their views. Looking at the nature of student responses reveals the little number of evaluative responses, which Fanselow argues play a crucial role in development (1987). The few such communication moves occurred while students and teacher were discussing primary sources. These materials require rather than offer interpretations, which develop an ability to produce and operate and "interpretative system" in which learners gain insight into hitherto unknown cultural meanings, beliefs and practices either in a new or a familiar language and culture (Byram et al. 1997). Comments about course readings also support this interpretation. Students felt the amount of reading was too much, yet they unanimously found primary sources and video clips interesting, whereas none of them found the course text, An Introduction to American Studies challenging.

Byram et al. also hold that sociocultural competence also has an affective capacity to relinquish ethnocentric attitudes towards and perceptions of otherness and a cognitive ability to establish and maintain a relationship between native and foreign cultures (1997). Life-related tasks would help bridge the gap between native and target cultures and provide opportunities to master descriptive categories conducive to bringing the original and foreign cultures into relation. The lack of activities involving students' life and life in general means in this particular class little space was allowed for comparison and realtivzation by means of life-related tasks.

Read the following on the uses of case studies:

Case Study :

(Gebhard, 1996, pp. 27-31)

Case study:

(Gebhard, 1999, pp. 2tl-215)

Bibliography:

Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development . Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Byram, M. (1989). Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Byram, M., Zarate, G. and G. Neuner. (1997). Sociocultural competence in language learning and teaching . Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Cogan, D. (1995). Using a counselling approach in teacher supervision. The Teacher Trainer. 9 , 3-6.

Fanselow, J. F. (1987). Breaking rules. generating and exploring alternatives in language teaching . New York: Longman.

Gebhard, J. G. (1984). Models of supervision: Choices. TESOL Quarterly, 18 , 501-14.

Gebhard, J. K. (1996). Teaching English as a foreign or second language: A teacher self-development and methodology guide . Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Gebhard, J. G. & Oprandy, R. (1999). Language teaching awareness: A guide to exploring beliefs and practices . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gebhard, J. C., M. Fodor, and M. Lehmann. (2003). Teacher Development Through Exploration: Principles, Processes, and Issues in Hungary. Eds. J. Andor, J. Horváth, and M. Nikolov. (2003). Studies in English Theoretical and Applied Linguistics . Pécs: Lingua Franca Csoport. 250-261.

Griffee, D.T. (2012). An introduction to second language research methods: Design and data.

Holliday, A. (1999). Small Cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20, 237-264 .

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Lessard-Clouston, M. (1996) Chinese Teachers' Views of Culture in their EFL Learning and Teaching. Language, Culture and Curriculum , 9, 197-224.

Nikolov, M. (2011).

Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct. New York: Penguin.

Rosenzweig, R. and D. Thelen (1998). The Presence of the Past . New York: Columbia University Press.

Rubin, H. J. and I. S. Rubin. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing. The Art of Hearing Data . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Saville-Troike, M. (1983) An anthropological linguistic perspective on uses of ethnography in bilingual language proficiency assessment. In: C. Rivera (ed.) 1983. An Ethnographic/Sociolinguistic Approach to Language Proficiency Assessment . Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 131-136.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . London: Temple Smith.

Vander Zanden, J. W. (1988). The Social Experience: An Introduction to Sociology. New York: Random House.

Wardhaugh, R. (1994). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics . Oxford. Blackwell.