THREE RESEARCH REPORTS

1) "WHAT OUGHT I TO HAVE DONE? AN EXAMINATION OF EVENTS SURROUNDING A RACIST POEM"

	This paper is a report on research carried out in my own classroom. It is an analysis of some ten minutes of video tape plus writing in my own and pupils' diaries and about two and a half hours of taped interviews. It is an attempt to reflect systematically on the events with a view to bettering my practice by asking the question "How do I improve this process of education here?"(Whitehead 1983) It has been my intention to reconstruct events in the form of a case study.

	In doing this ,I am aware that I am generating an unusual kind of educational knowledge. It seems that "there is a deep-seated (and largely uninvestigated) disjunction between the common-sense knowledge held by the educational community and the operational framework used by educational research" (Hamilton 1980) An example of this can be found in BERJ vol 11 no 1 1985, where a correspondent, Philip Freeman, wrote, in a humorous letter, "I would suggest that your latest issue would find little acceptance in staffrooms." What the writer is saying is that educational research often has little to do with what goes on in classrooms or, for that matter, much relevance. It is a view with which I agree on the whole. Indeed I think many teachers are suspicious of or worried by many of the papers printed in academic journals simply because the research is done TO them rather than by or even with them. The positivist, behaviourist paradigm still, it seems, holds sway. 
	  
	There is however a movement in educational research which holds different views. Perhaps, as well as   turning to the principles of sociology, psychology or linguistics, amongst others, for our answers, teachers ought to examine more closely and more rigorously what is going on in their lessons and classrooms. To support this point of view, here is a quotation from Stenhouse's book "An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development",

	  "The critical characteristics of that extended professionalism which is essential for well-founded curriculum research and development seem to be:

	 The commitment to systematic questioning of one's own teaching as a basis for development; 

	 The commitment and the skills to study one's own teaching;

	 The concern to question and to test theory in practice by the use of those skills.

	 To these may be added as highly desirable, though perhaps not essential, a readiness to allow other teachers to observe one's own work - directly or through recordings - and to discuss it with them on an honest and open basis." (Stenhouse 1975 p144)

	and Jean Rudduck wrote, in March this year,

	  "...classroom enquiry is a way of helping teachers to see beyond the encrustation of habit, to probe rather than to disregard the dilemmas of the classroom, and to anatomise rather than merely be grateful for successful practice." (Dialogue In Education Spring 1985)

	 These two quotations, among a growing list of others ( notably David Hamilton's presidential address to BERA conference in 1984 reported in BERJ 11, 1 1985) support 
	the argument for seeking out alternative ways of generating educational knowledge.

	  What follows then is an attempt to examine some ten minutes of video tape. My purpose in doing this is to present my own reflections and proposals for further action concerning the problem. These comprise two stages in the "action-reflection spiral": this is a common-sense, though rigorous methodology I used in attempting to come to terms with the problem of the racist poem in the classroom. The form of the spiral is as follows: discovering a problem; imagining a solution to the problem (this takes the form of a plan of action); implementing the plan; observing the events  of the implementation; reflecting on the observation. The cycle continues when more problems occur or when proposals for further action are undertaken: as a classroom is a form of social gathering, problems are bound to occur. So, then, the paper is my reflections and proposals for further action - work which all good teachers do anyway. The difference here is that it is carried out in what I believe to be a more systematic and rigorous way than is normally possible because of the constraints of time, resources and support of third parties (critical friends).

		THE POEM

	  The PROBLEM was that I was handed a racist poem during a lesson. What ought I to do?

	  My SOLUTION was to confront the racism after a short "cooling down" period during the lesson. I felt that I had to discuss the poem and its content with the lads who had handed me the poem.

	  The ACTION took place on June 13th 1985 in my own classroom.

	  The OBSERVATIONS took the form of video film, taped interviews between "critical friends", myself and the pupils concerned - a form of triangulation - written notes in informal diaries.

	  The REFLECTIONS take the form of this paper.

	  The PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER ACTION are contained within the paper - they are the beginnings of the next cycle  in  the  continuous action-research spiral.

	  The form of the paper is that of a hypothetical dialogue between a questioner (Q) and myself, the answerer (A). The questions were formed out of conversations with colleagues in school and the University of Bath who have seen the video. I have attempted this vernacular dialogue for  several reasons: I think it reflects the collaborative and questioning way I went through the process of reflecting on the data; it provides some of the thorny problems I had to handle very carefully - and presents them in a very dramatic way too; it provides me with a form I find relatively easy to write and which therefore delights me; it provides me with a way of interpolating data and the standards of judgement I am using here: my own educational values, which are:

	1) I value the notion that to be aesthetically pleasing a piece of work or work of art must be both truthful and beautiful.

	2) I would like relationships within the group to be open, friendly, responsive to the feelings and aspirations of others in the group.

	3) I value rational discussion as a potentially fruitful way of coming to know. That is, I value the "interpretation" mode of teaching, where individuals can make sense of things in their own ways.

	4) I value critical reflection on ideas.

	5) I would like to foster the notion of freedom of expression at the same time as valuing each others' opinions, feelings and contributions.

	6) I would like to foster the notion of individuality within a framework of the unity of humanity.

	  For these reasons, I have written the piece as if the dialogue was going on as the two participants are looking at the video of the events. Thus the transcript is interrupted by conversations between myself, the teacher-researcher and a curious observer.

	  Here is a "dramatis personae" of the report:
	  QUESTIONER = Q
	  ANSWERER = A
	  ON THE VIDEO TAPE
	  TEACHER(myself) = T
	  KEITH, BERNARD & JOHN = K, B & J respectively.
	  ON AUDIO TAPE
	  CRITICAL FRIEND(Alan Skelton) = AS
	  TEACHER(myself) = AL
	  KEITH, TREVOR & BERNARD = K T & B respectively.

	(The names of the participating pupils have been changed because of the sensitive nature of the topic in question.)

		HYPOTHETICAL DIALOGUE

		QUESTION

	How did the situation arise? 

		ANSWER

	It just happened. It was an occurence of a kind that often happens in the classroom. You're walking around the room advising, questioning and trying to sort out students' problems when something happens and you have to deal with it. The issue could be an argument, a nose-bleed, a fight or any breech of the existing code of behaviour or of "normal" social relations. In this case, Trevor handed me a poem and asked me what I thought of it.  

		QUESTION

	Can you tell me what was going on in the lesson? I mean what were the pupils supposed to be doing? 

		ANSWER

	During the lesson, the students were beginning to gather together some coursework for their end of year folders. This was a fairly routine activity which nevertheless led to a lot of questions from the students about the suitability and /or improvement of their work. It was an activity that the English department team had decided to undertake as a kind of fourth year exam. Probably because of the barrage of questions I'd been getting from the students, I initially only glanced at Trevor's poem.

	My  first  reaction was that it looked like a well-ordered piece of work: the lines looked to be uniform. I read on and found that this was a racist poem about Pakistanis coming to Britain and "sponging" on the Welfare State.

		QUESTION

	So what did you do? 

		ANSWER

	Trevor told me that his uncle wrote the poem but he seemed rather pleased by the thing. I said that I didn't like it. I was distressed. 

		QUESTION

	Why?

		ANSWER

	Well, first of all, when I read things like this I ususally feel weak. It's as though all the horrors of Auschwitz and the Third Reich, with all its inhumanity, are contained in there. After that I usually become very angry. 

		QUESTION

	You just said "distressed" though. This doesn't fit in with what you just said about feeling "weak". What do you mean? 

		ANSWER

	Well, Keith and Trevor are not the students I would have expected to hold such appalling views. Also, I have always got on quite well with them. To have got angry with them could have jeopardised this relationship. But more than this, if I wanted to persuade them that they were wrong, anger would be counter-productive. It was these things that distressed me. How could I cope with rising anger and frustration about the racism on one hand, yet do something about the views expressed and sympathised with by the boys on the other? I felt it best to attempt to defuse a potentially explosive situation by retiring from it. I said that I thought the poem was awful, and that is quite clear on the video film taken of the lesson, and moved away. This would, I thought, allow me time to think about what I should do and say and would allow the boys time to mull over the poem in the light of my disapproval. It was my intention to return and talk about the thing further.

		QUESTION

	OK. There are two questions I'd like to ask. First, you've mentioned something about aesthetics. If the poem was controlled and rhythmic and so on doesn't that in itself make it a good poem?

		ANSWER

	For me if something is to be called "good literature" then it has to be good in all aspects. So a piece of writing which denies the unity of humanity, internationalism or any kind of denial of human rights, as this  poem did, would not be "good literature", despite having a "good" form. The aesthetic is not just the form of the poem, novel, story of whatever but it has a  lot to do with the content as well. Aesthetic beauty is not just a handsome piece of writing but the message it transmits or that comes across. They are inter-related. Now because I dislike racism intensely and because the message transmitted by the poem is untrue the poem was for me a bad one. Also, as racism is a denial of the unity of humanity and of internationalism, then any expression of racism in writing makes the writing aesthetically unsound because of the expression itself. Thus the idea that "good" and "beautiful" must be present together in a piece of writing is one of my educational values. I cannot accept anything else as being "good literature". In this way, when I read Trevor's poem, I felt the urge and need to change the ideas contained in it. This would be a part of what I see as my role as a teacher attempting to improve the process of education in my own classroom.

		QUESTION

	Thank you. The second question in some ways follows on from this question of aesthetics. You said that you thought Keith and Trevor's views were "appalling" and that the writing could not be "good" because of the racist views it expressed. Isn't that a bit arrogant? Surely they have a right to their own opinions?

		ANSWER

	The expression of racist views is a denial of my own educational values and my understanding of humanity. Paulo Freire says something about oppression dehumanizing both  the oppressed and the oppressors. For me racism fits this bill: becoming a better human being requires attempting to overcome racism, which is a form of oppression, with a view to becoming more fully human.

	I also think I need to explain what I mean and understand by the phrase "freedom of expression". Within the framework of the lesson, which is after all set up by me, I would like there to be  enough scope for the students to be able to say what they really think. But I also believe that each of us has the responsibilty for what we actually say, whether expressed in writing or talk but at  the  same time being aware that everyone else has opinions and ideas which they have the right to express in the same way you have. Also it is important to remember the effect that what you say may have on others. I'd like this to apply to me just the same as the students, although this is a more difficult thing to achieve than it might appear on paper. But it is possible to discuss other people's opinions and through that discussion to come to some understanding. To explain more fully what I mean it might be useful to look at the video and the transcript of what happened when I returned to talk with the boys. I had given them an extract from John Berger's book "The Seventh Man" to read.  The transcript starts with Keith expressing his view of the extract. (An oblique line in the transcript indicates a brief pause in the utterance of the speaker.)
		TRANSCRIPT

	K: This is a load of rubbish!

	T: What's that?

	K: We've got enough unemployment without/bringin' 'em in.

	T: But/look/but look/the point/the point this/this bloke's makin' is that it actually costs Britain less/to bring imported workers over/because th...th...first of all their wages are lower/secondly they haven't had to pay for their upbringing.

	K: Yeah...

		DIALOGUE
		ANSWER

	At this point Keith attempts to say something but he is stopped short by me. Thus  I am denying Keith his right to express his opinion by overriding his attempt to take a turn. I am thus perhaps using my position of greater status, power and authority in the classroom to make my point forcefully. My posture at this point is very aggressive in that I am leaning over the desk in a very threatening way. He seems to read this and holds back his utterance. My eagerness to alter the boys' way of thinking dominates my manner and my performance!
		TRANSCRIPT

	T: Thirdly/the time when/most of the people were brought/into Britain was a time when/labour was needed.

	K: Yeah but I'm talking about now/ that was ages ago.

		DIALOGUE
		QUESTION

	He manages to offer his views here, doesn't he?

		ANSWER

	To me Keith shows great confidence and strength of will in that he is prepared to come back at me with a strong counter argument. In an interview with a colleague, Alan Skelton, seven days later, Keith said that he found some of the things I said difficult to argue with and that I did put my point of view very strongly. However, he also said that this in no way put him off his guard or his argument.
		TRANSCRIPT

	T: So you're just saying that people should be brought over when they're needed and then shoved off back again when they're not needed.

	K: I'm saying that they shouldn't be brought over at all.

	T: Well they had/well according to the/economy they had to be.

	(Keith raises his eyebrows in a gesture of disbelief or "I don't know about that.")

		DIALOGUE
		QUESTION

	What were you trying to say here?

		ANSWER

	At this point I felt that Keith was arguing from a position of some ignorance because he did not appear to know or understand the reasons for the migration of workers. I was trying to impress upon him that they did not merely decide to leave their own countries but were tempted to do so by the advanced capitalist countries. I was attempting to show him and his mates that it wasn't a case of "sponging" or even of paternalism but of exploitation. I'm not sure that this  was altogether successful but I did try to make the point later in the discussion. In looking at this part of the discussion again it appears to me that I was having difficulty in living out one of my educational values: the idea that I would like the students and I to value each other's opinions. In the strength of my feelings, I feel that I was expressing myself a bit too forcefully and therefore not really allowing Keith to put his point of view properly or allowing anyone else the chance to have a say. In using the phrase "shoved off back", I am expressing my feelings of disgust at the repatriation argument but at the same time, because of the status and power invested in the teacher's role, I was closing down the possibilities for REAL discussion to take place.
		TRANSCRIPT

	K: I think that's daft. Half of 'em who come 'ere aren't educated to our standards anyway.

	T: Well course they are otherwise they wouldn't come/you don't think they just let anybody in  do  you/into this country?

	K: They let those Ethiopians in/half o' them can't talk English.

	T: What difference does that make?

	K: Well (inaudible) educated aren't they?

	T: We.../English people go abroad to live in places like Spain and they can't speak Spanish.

	K: They shouldn't do that.  

	T: Why not? I don't understand that/I find that really...  

	B: Stupid.

		DIALOGUE
		QUESTION

	Were you stuck for words there?

		ANSWER

	Yes. Bernard supplies the very word I was thinking of but couldn't bring myself to say. It would have been counter-productive as I've said before. This is the only time that Bernard chips in. When he was interviewed by Alan Skelton, he said that he listened to the whole of the argument even though he continued with some writing. 

		QUESTION

	You sound angry in your response to Keith's views about the education of immigrants.

		ANSWER

	Yes. I was angry and frustrated. What he really meant, I thought, was that the immigrants couldn't speak English. This feeling was borne out when, in an interview wath Alan he said, "I was talking about immigrants coming in who couldn't even speak the language...'cos I mean some of 'em come over 'ere and they can't even/speak the language." (Taped interview with AS 20:6:85) In the lesson it struck me that this was part of the "alien cultures swamping Britain" argument which I disapprove of very strongly.

		QUESTION

	But isn't it to some extent true? Look at the number of nineteenth century chapels that have been converted into mosques.

		ANSWER

	Oh come on! You're trying to wind me up! Think of the indigenous languages wiped out by British colonialism, like in America, Australia and Africa for instance and one corollary of your argument is that it's OK for the British to "swamp" other cultures but not for the favour to be returned. I don't actually subscribe to this idea because I fail to see how a culture as dominant as the British can be "swamped" in such a way. More important than this is the point that I was trying to make on the film; that the lads saw it as all right for British people to go abroad in search of work but not for Asians. On top of that, they wanted to insist that all immigrants leave their culture at home when they migrate. That is supremely arrogant to me, especially when you consider that they have been advertised for by Western capital. All this plus the denial of understanfing between nations and cultures, one of the most important tenets of our society, was at the root of my anger. But I don't think I got my point across at all well.

		QUESTION

	Do you think the lads picked up on your anger and its causes?

		ANSWER

	They picked up on my anger all right! At the time I thought they'd picked up on the reasons for it too. However, they said in that interview with Alan that they thought I was merely trying to win the argument. To some extent  that's true: it's an urgent argument to win. But there's more to it than that. I wasn't sure that they    understood that I feel it more than as an intellectual exercise.

		QUESTION

	How did you know that? You could be guilty of underrating their powers of perception there.

		ANSWER

	Alan said that during the interview, the lads seemed to him to have felt that I was trying to put them down for good and all. 
		TRANSCRIPT

	K: Our country's got enough economic problems (unclear:all we're doin' is addin' to them.)

	T: Well actually it's not true because if you look at those statistics there/what 'appens/is that it's/actually cheaper to employ people like that and/keep/people like us on the do.../than it is to employ people like us/'cos first of all we demand higher wages/and what to people like this are high wages are/very low wages to us.

	K: (pause) (unclear: I don't understand.)

		DIALOGUE
		QUESTION

	You seem to be having some trouble in expressing yourself to Keith there.

		ANSWER

	I was having trouble in expressing myself in what I felt needed to be simple terms. The ideas I wanted to express are straightforward enough to me but I wanted to express them in ways that would be understood by the lads. 

		QUESTION

	Why did you try to express yourself in "simple terms"?

		ANSWER

	This is something that teachers try to do often enough. I think it was an attempt to say something in a way that the students would understand. It is a very patronising attitude in that I was assuming that they would not understand me if I expressed it in my normal language. As it happened I think I made an even bigger hash of it! I also think that by using terms like "capitalist"  I expose myself to charges of being a political indoctrinator.

		QUESTION

	But your argument as it stands in the video is still one which would allow you to be labelled as a political teacher.

		ANSWER

	Yes. I can see that. With the benefit of having the video, I think it  is easy to say, with hindsight, that I might as well have gone the whole way and explained it in terms I would normally use.

	Another  important point mind you is that Keith has the confidence to say that he doesn't understand what I'm saying. This allows me to give the example in an attempt to clarify.
	TRANSCRIPT

	T: Right/well let me give you an example/in Bradford where I come from/

	(Teacher's stance changes from a standing position, arching over the desk somewhat threateningly, to a crouching position on the same level as the students.)

		DIALOGUE
		QUESTION

	Why did you change your position?

		ANSWER

	I have seen film of my classroom practice before and realised that standing over students like that is pretty counter-productive; it tends to make them feel uncomfortable, like Keith and Trevor were, I think. If you look closely at the video, you can see Keith shift his position too, relax and an expectant look comes over his face.If I want to promote the idea that talk and dialogue are important, then I must try to get on the same level as the students, otherwise it's a case of one rule for them and another for me. Also it means that we challenge each other's opinions.

		QUESTION

	Why is that important to you?

		ANSWER

	If I put myself in a position where my ideas are not challengable then I am doing what the teacher in the "transmission mode" of teaching does: namely organise things in the classroom so that only the teacher's ideas count and the students are expected to just absorb facts. So if I am prepared to discuss with the students and allow them the scope to challenge what I think, or form their own understanding of all that goes on in the classroom, then there is more chance of everyone having a say in a dynamic learning process rather then a passive one. This means that you have to be prepared to face racism when it arises in the classroom or sexism or whatever it might be that denies your values. I believe it is BECAUSE these situations arise that it is a better way to organise  things in the classrom. Otherwise they would only be raised on the teacher's terms and in a very controlled and sterile way. As you  can see, on this occasion this was far from the case. The issue of immigration was raised on the students' terms and discussed outside the terms of reference of the lesson - it would have been easy to suggest that the matter should rest until I had prepared a series of lessons on the subject!

		QUESTION

	Why didn't you do that?

		ANSWER

	The issue was a live one: I don't think you can afford to let things like that poem slip away. I believe that as an educator and as a human being you have to try to live out your values. This can sometimes be painful but if you don't do it, how can you claim that these are really your values?

		QUESTION

	That's a fair point.
		TRANSCRIPT

	T:...so first of all that meant that the mill owners could keep their factories going/for 24 hours a day/and it wasn't costing them anywhere near as much as it would if they/only employed white workers to do the same jobs.

	K: That's bad/that's exploiting foreign workers/(unclear:they won't put up with that for long.)

	T: Well course it is /a'course it is/yes of course it is/but what I'm trying to point out to you is that it seems to be unjust to do that /and then when times get rough/and you can't keep your factories going /to just send them back to where they came from.

		DIALOGUE

		QUESTION

	Do you think that's a good example to use?

		ANSWER

	Yes. I think this was a point that the lads took up on. In their interview with Alan, they said that they felt that all workers should have the same rights and that they should be allowed to stay in Britain. Quite honestly, in looking at the video, I don't think this was ever the real issue for the lads. They were concerned that too many foreigners were coming to Britain and taking jobs at a time when unemployment is at a huge level. However, I do feel  that they did at least see the injustice of using foreign workers and then shipping them back to their native lands when their usefulness is over. They began to see that the immigrant workers are no different  from other workers and that they deserve to be treated the same.

		QUESTION

	How do you know that?

		ANSWER

	In the interview with Alan, Trevor says that he had never thought of the  problem in terms of people being brought over to do the work that needed doing, for example in hospitals or on the various forms of public transport, but then sending them home as useless commodities when the work no longer needed doing and the white workers were prepared to do it.
		TRANSCRIPT

	K: I'm not saying we should send them back/we shouldn't let any more in.

	T: As far as I know that doesn't/'appen any more/the people who are actually allowed in  are people with political problems/like/er/ like the Tamils/and/ relatives of people who are already living in this country/now I think it's unjust that people/that families should be split up/because the whole way that our /erm/our /system is set up is based on the family/now if your dad suddenly said/I think I'll go and live in America because that's where the opportunities are/and America suddenly said I'm sorry but you can come in but your wife and your/children they can't /isn't that unjust?/what would think about that?

	K:Well over 'ere /it's nothin' to...

	T:(interrupting) A/A/what woud you think about it?

	K: I can't think of it like that/my dad's not going to America.

	T: I know that /what do you think you'd think?

	K: I wouldn't want to go to America anyway. 

	(Laughter)

	T: Right /my dad lives in Bradford now still and I'm not very happy about him living there/I'd like to be nearer to him/OK?/if my dad went to work abroad/and the country that he went to wouldn't let us in/I know what I'd feel like /I know damned well what I'd feel like if that had 'apened to us/ I'd 'a' been a little bit /frustrated to say the least/ and what about my dad who's already over there and his family are back over here?

	K: (unclear:maybe he shouldn't have moved in the first place if they meant that much to him)

		DIALOGUE
		QUESTION

	So Keith didn't really ever think that immigrants should be sent back. But what's all this about America?

		ANSWER

	This is a very embarrassing part of the film for me. I was trying to keep the example at a personal level. It didn't work though. I was trying to get over the point that migratiion can split families  up. I was trying to get Keith to see this problem from his own point of view because it seems to me that our social system is based on the family and all the psychological ties that carries with it.

		QUESTION

	You don't think you were successful though?

		ANSWER

	No. Keith laughed at this bit when he was being interviewed by Alan. He felt that my argument was a strange one and countered it with a joky sort of reply. I came on strong in insisting that he answer my question about his dad's hypothetical migration to America but he had the strength of characteer to joke about the question, which I must say was a bit silly.

		QUESTION

	Why do you say that?

		ANSWER

	Well as I've just said, it was a tactic that didn't work. But not only that, it didn't work because it was a very indirect sort of question - if I was to think back to my own adolescence I don't think I'd have been able to think in those kind of hypothetical terms because I hadn't had the real opportunity to reflect on how much my father meant to me: in fact I seem to rememeber that my youth was punctuated with rows between my dad and me. My point was lost because I chose a pretty silly example to make my point. I think that if I was able to have another go at explaining my idea I'd not even use the personal notion in this part of the argument because it is TOO personal. It ought to be enough to quote Thatcher or someone from the government saying that family life is the main tenet of life in our society and then quote the ways in which this value is denied by racist immigration policies in which family life is dented. I think  I would attempt to expose the hypocrisy inherent in our government. I also need to say that I was beginning to lose my temper, as you can tell from the language I was using - "I know damned well" for instance reflects my frustration at Keith's unwillingness to co-operate with my idea as well as my frustration with myself for not making a very good argument: yes I was aware of that at the time.
		TRANSCRIPT

	T: That's question number one/ question number two is what happens if you do move back and unemployment is massive in the country that you've come from/and the /conditions are much worse/ why should you move back?

	K: Say that again sir.

	T: What happens if the conditions in the  country  that  you come from are worse than the country that you live in/ and you've already got a job in the country that you live in now/ you could support your family....

	(Tails off, implying that the rest of the utterance is taken as understood.)

	K: But that doesn't apply to this country does it?

	T: Of course it does/ of course it applies to this country/ there are people that emigrated to Australia because they felt that Britian was in a/ a terrible state/ why should they come back?

	(pause)

	K: Say that again sir.

	T: People who moved to / I know people who moved to Australia because/ things were just pretty bad in Britain for them/ they were being paid low/ Australia presented a land of opportunity /all right so they emigrated to Australia.

		DIALOGUE
		QUESTION

	What's all this got to do with immigration?

		ANSWER

	I was trying to make the point that Britons emigrated to Australia and were therefore immigrants of Australia. Their reasons for going to that country were the same as those of Asians coming to Britain. I was trying to establish whether Keith thought that it was all right for white people to seek work in other lands but not for blacks.

		QUESTION

	And did he? 

		ANSWER

	I think his thinking is more complex than that. In the interview with Alan he seemed to think that it was all right for British people to go to Spain for  work,(because they took money with them and therefore didn't damage the economy!) although he thinks that Australia does  not  have similar economic problems to those experienced in Britain. He did not seem  to  realise  or know that the economic crisis was one of world capitalism. I was trying to point out that the motives which took people to various parts of the world were usually the same: i.e. the quest for work or for ideological sanctuary.

		QUESTION

	Did Keith accept this point?

		ANSWER

	I don't think so. The next bit of the video will perhaps bear me out but just to say that he felt that Australia really does offer opportunities not available in Britain.
		TRANSCRIPT

	K: ( interrupting) It is though.

	T: No it's not /it's just as bad as Britain/ unemployment's just as bad as Britain in fact.

	K: Yeah but it's got less people there and it's such a big country (inaudible)

	T: The majority of it is vast areas of desert/ you can't farm kangaroos.

	K: The population of London is the same as Australia so there must be more room.

	T: No the population of London isn't the same as Australia.

		DIALOGUE
		ANSWER

	You see, Keith felt that Australia offered more opportunities because of the amount of space left unsettled. I couldn't believe, and still can't, that Keith was making this argument. I probably felt like he must have done during the bit about his dad emigrating: could he really expect me to accept his idea that you could emigrate to the deserts of Australia? I was trying to make the point that Australia was in the business of stopping immigration. In this sense it is the same as Britain.
		TRANSCRIPT

	K: And Australia's part of the commonwealth anyway.     

	T: Yeah /so is Pakistan and India.

	K: No they're not.

	T: Yes they are.

	K: They can't be.

	T: Yeah they are/ they're part of the commonwealth.

	K: Was/ not now/ they won their independence years ago.

	T: Australia's independent as well.

	K:(unclear: It's difficult to explain/ they've got their own government.)

	T: So what.

	K:(unclear: It's still got its own sovereignty hasn't it)

	T: So's India.

	K: They're INDEPENDENT though!

	T: Yes/ I know.

	K: Australia isn't.

	T: Australia's independent/ it's got its own national anthem /it's got its own government.

	K: Yeah but that's not the independent I mean.

	T: What do you mean then?

	K: I haven't got a clue.

	(laughter)

	T: India and Australia and/ Canada are all part of the commonwealth.

	K: Yeah but India fought a war against Britain.

	T: So did Australia/ so did Canada.

	K: Yeah but they lost.

	T: So did Canada.

	K: (unclear So you say that) Pakistan and Australia are still part of the commonwealth.

	T: They are yeah.

	K: Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and all that lot.

	T: Zimbabwe isn't part of the commonwealth I don't think no. I'm not sure. But India is still part of the commonwealth.

	K: I'm confused.

	T: What happens is that countries can opt in or out of that/ they sever links/ commonwealth links /OK?/ India hasn't done that.

	K: They've severed something though haven'tthey.

	T: Well yeah/ they've got independence /they've got their own independent government /that happened in 1947/[NOTE: it was 1948 actually.] all right/ in Australia their independence came earlier /but they're still an independent country /they're not a republic /but they're independent /there are /there are for instance people in Australia who think that Australia should be a republic /and should sever all links with Britain /and be totally independent but it's not /it's not yet (pause) the commonwealth games /y'see/ you've heard of the commonwealth games.

	K: Yes/I've heard of the commonwealth games.

	T: Right/ Australia takes part in that /so do New Zealand so do India /I think some of the West Indian islands do /I can't remember exactly but I'm sure that places like Barbados do.

		DIALOGUE
		QUESTION

	You've come a long way from talking about the problem of immigration and unemployment.

		ANSWER

	Yes we did stray from the point a little. I can't really say why. It seemed to start when Keith said that Australia was part of the commonwealth. I'm not sure just what he was getting at here - except that maybe he was implying that they had accepted British imperialism whereas India had fought it off, which would, by implication, make Australia OK in his eyes. Therefore Indians had even less right to migrate to Britain. That's my assumption which is based on experience of similar arguments to this one in various places: a factory where I worked before qualifying as a teacher for instance.
		TRANSCRIPT

	K: They have their independence yet they've still got British passports (inaudible) they aren't actually British / I think that's ridiculous.

	T: They've still got a right to it because of the commonwealth ties / that's why India kept those links.

	K: Well that's unfair.

	T: No no not at all/ they negotiated that in 1947.

	K: (Inaudible)

	T: No not at all/ cos/ cos/ if you think about it/ England was in India for 200 plus years/ exploiting all the wealth of India/ which is still there/ so why should England negotiate that away? / don't make sense does it/ if you're/ if you're in the kind of position the British government was in/ why should they negotiate it all away? / so in return for keeping some rights to go into India and exploit the wealth there / i.e. cheap labour and so on/ they allowed Indian people to keep British passports/ if they wanted them / and in keeping a British passport /they then have the right to / migrate to Britain.

	K: (inaudible) unemployment / we've got enough over here as it is. 

	T: Right/ THAT'S dead right/ yeah /but it just/ what I'm trying to point out to you is that it seems totally unjust to me that when their ten year stay here is done/ and their use/ in inverted commas/ is done that we just shove them back.

	K: I never said that /I just said that we shouldn't let any more in.

		DIALOGUE
		QUESTION

	I think you've just used the same argument as Keith here.

		ANSWER

	It certainly sounds like it. This is one of those occasions when you need more than just words. There's more to conversation than words. Keith didn't pick me up on that and that's because that's not what I meant: my body language told him that. What I meant was that there is more than enough unemployment in Britain but that it's not immigration that causes the problem or makes it worse.

		QUESTION

	You didn't say it that clearly though.

		ANSWER

	No. I think I was getting carried away with the repatriation idea. I was hasty in making that kind of assumption about Keith's views. He did say though that he didn't hold the view that repatriation was the solution.

		QUESTION

	Were you pleased with that?

		ANSWER

	Yes.I would be even more pleased if Keith could see that it was the very nature of our society which causes unemployment.

		QUESTION

	You're getting very close to indoctrination in saying that aren't you?

		ANSWER

	Yes and that's why I didn't say it. I almost did but I shied away from it. For me the evidence is overwhelming that capitalism is corrupt but I neither want to be misunderstood nor ridiculed for these beliefs; to say nothing of being labelled as a political indoctrinator.

		QUESTION

	You've mentioned that before.

		ANSWER

	I think it's difficult to hold the values I hold and work in a school. This is simply because schools are so closely linked to the official ideology of the state. I don't think that this was a suitable opportunity to offer more than a criticism of the poem on humanitarian or moral grounds. As I've already said, that poem offended a lot of my values and beliefs.
		TRANSCRIPT

	T: But they're not/ there are very rigorous immigration controls that people have got to go through.

	K: (indistinct: There have to be don't there?)

	T: For instance/ people/ women who want to come into this country/ only black women not white women incidentally /black women who want to come into this country have to go through very humiliating tests /to find out whether they are in fact virgins/ because if they're not virgins then obviously they're not married to the person that they claim to be married to/ why can't British immigration controllers just accept that these people are telling the truth/ why do they have to subject them to that sort of ridicule?

	K: If they didn't test them then everybody'd get in.

	T: Yeah but they only test black women not white women.

	K: I don't know about that.

	T: Right well/ see these are the kinds of things that in that poem /it doesn't actually explore those kinds of things at all/ it doesn't explore the economics of it and the politics of it / it just seems to me to be a blind racist attitude that's coming through there /like the Germans exploited in Germany in the nineteen thirties in Germany.

	K: (indistinct: Yeah it probably is but it still makes [inaudible] partly true.)

	T: It depends which point of view you take you see /my point of view is that the British state is entirely corrupt when it comes to India / totally corrupt / everything the British have done in India is corrupt /that's my own point of view /I did study Indian history /British raj and stuff when I was in college /and that's/ that's the view that  I came up with /that everything they did was totally corrupt /and exploitative / they didn't go in with any good intentions at all/ just went in there to rip India off.

		DIALOGUE
		QUESTION

	That's a bit strong isn't it?

		ANSWER

	Yes and I will admit that I was deliberately trying to wind Keith up there. My argument stands, largely, but the way I expressed it was to make Keith come back at me - he didn't but that was probably because the argument was unfamiliar and he couldn't really counter my evidence - and to stress that Britain had done more then its share of exploitation in the past. I could see that he was taken aback, maybe even slightly angry with my statements. I think that's evident from the way he makes his next utterance.
		TRANSCRIPT

	K: They weren't too good to us though were they /I mean they had that black hole thing.

	T: Right/ absolutely /but when/ when/ when you read about the sort of things the English /the British people were doing in India you/can totally understand this/ like for instance getting 500 Sikhs/ tying them up and laying them on a railway track with their necks on the track and then driving a train over them.

	K: Did they do that?

	T: Yes/ they did/ made them for instance/ vegetarian people/ people who refused to eat meat on religious grounds /they forced them to /a particular kind of cartridge that they had to bite and they smothered in pork fat/ and then forced the Indian army to do it /to bite these cartridges / that sparked off the Indian Mutiny /that strikes me as being totally stupid /as well as being corrupt.

	J: We did a lot of good out there.

	T: Like what?

	J: Made them a bit more civilised.

		DIALOGUE
		QUESTION

	What has the Indian Mutiny got to do with that poem?

		ANSWER

	Well on the face of it not much but this argument conforms to the normal characteristics of informal discourse in that it spirals around the initial subject matter, going from one subject to another in what is usually a logical manner, although often it is possible to stop and wonder how you came to be talking about a seemingly  irrelevant subject. Think of the number of times you have said or heard the words, "How did we get to talking about that?" This is what has happened here. I think we got to talking about the Indian Mutiny from Keith's assertion that India had "fought a war against (the British)"

		QUESTION

	What about all these stories about Sikhs and cartridges?

		ANSWER

	Actually, I'm quite perturbed by this. I'm certainly guilty of attempting to use my knowledge of the subject to overpower Keith. Again, it's a common enough tactic in normal conversation but I'm not sure that's enough justification for doing it in this context. And anyway there are certain factual inaccuracies in what I said - like the stuff about the cartridges: they were rumoured to be smeared in dripping. I can't remember now whether this was ever proven to be the truth. Still, I reckon that the Raj was corrupt but I need to check on my evidence to support this view.

		QUESTION

	What about John's statement at the end there?

		ANSWER

	What can I say? We're back to this arrogance again. I think it's appalling that anyone can think that the British in India did any "civilising". I don't want to say any more about that at the moment. It makes me very angry: this is what I felt at that point in the conversation. Look.....
		TRANSCRIPT

	T: India was the first country /one of the first countries in the world/ according to ancient history /to have any kind of civilisation at all/ they were the first nationality to have written language /their religions are far/ are/ as far as philosophy is concerned India /has got a /is still very influential on any kind of thought in the world.

	J: In economics?

	T: Eh?

	J: In economics?

	T: No philosophically / economically they're just the same as Britain.

	K: People starve out there.

	T: Well/ that happens in Britain doesn't it?

	K: Not much.

	T: Still happens /look around this school you can see kids that are under nourished.

	K: They're not starvin' though.

	T: I accept that /I think that India is actually a pretty corrupt place /but I think they learned that from Britain.

	K: (indistinct: It's nowhere near the same scale in Britain.)

	T: No but I think they learned it from the British / that's what I'm saying /I mean they've only been independent forty years /I think they learned all that from Britain.

	B: Sir.

	T: People that are there now are very British influenced / educated in Britain / I'll talk to you about this a little later on ...

	TRANSCRIPT ENDS

		DIALOGUE

		QUESTION

	How do you feel about the way the argument ended?

		ANSWER

	Well I was conscious about the time and I did have something to tell the whole class. I did genuinely plan to have another chat with the lads later and to get involved in a written dialogue through their journals. At present this is in an embryonic stage - we've exchanged a few comments in writing. 

		QUESTION

	Why in writing?

		ANSWER

	I think this will prove more fruitful because it will allow us to be more thoughtful about what we say and how we say it. For instance it will allow me to keep calm in the dialogue - a problem I experienced in the original chat. It will also allow us to put our views more clearly so that confusions about what we are actually discussing could be cleared up. In writing I hope to be able to suggest things that the lads could look at by way of investigation into the issue of immigration and racism. I hope that this mode of discourse will enable me to probe and actually carry on the argument in a more fruitful manner. Stenhouse thought that this was a better way of tackling controversial issues, you know all that stuff about "procedural neutrality".

		QUESTION

	No. Tell me about it.

		ANSWER

	Well Stenhouse argued that if a teacher was to adopt a neutral role in relation to the construction of meaning, there would be more chance of the students making sense of issues. It would also leave the teacher the space to be a facilitator, a guide: she would be able to pose questions like "What would happen if all immigration to Britain were to be stopped?" This would then enable the student to investigate the issue in a more meaningful way, turning to the teacher for guidance and advice. 

		QUESTION

	So this is what you intend to do.

		ANSWER

	Something along those lines. I'm not sure that the role Stenhouse saw as "neutral" is all that neutral really. For instance, in asking a question you are demonstrating some involvement in the issue and therefore some value position. Also I'm not sure that I'd want to remain totally neutral. What if the students come up with ideas like those expressed by nazis? I think I'd have to get involved in the investigation at some point by suggesting certain books to read, or by pointing out that questions have to be asked about all that appears to be known. For example, I felt so insecure after the argument and looking at the film a couple of times that I looked up whether  I  was  right  about India and Australia being part of the commonwealth.

	I also thought that it might be an idea to raise the issue again by using a story by Farrukh Dhondy or someone in which some of the problems facing immigrants and black people born in Britain were raised. The idea would be that the notion of prejudice would be called into question. This I will try to do when we study the book "Of Mice and Men" in the fifth year.

	Perhaps at this point I ought to say that I don't hold much hope for changing attitudes about race in school. I think  that all  I can do is take a small step forward but it is only a very small step in what I think requires to be done. I think that the problem of racism will remain as long as the power relations between ethnic groups remains the same as it is at present. This is not to say that I feel race ought to be left alone as an issue in school: on the contrary, as you see in the film.

		QUESTION

	You seem to be assuming that the class generally hold racist views. 

		ANSWER

	No not at all. What I feel I ought to do and what I feel literature has a unique power to do is to open up issues which might remain dormant or not explored in school.

		QUESTION

	If you intend to explore the issue of prejudice with the whole class, why did you restrict the argument about the racist poem to just these four lads?

		ANSWER

	Let me say that the notion of prejudice might not be the main focus for the whole class. I'd like to think that they will find their own understanding of the book through dialogue , personal writing and thinking as they read the text. I think that the issue of prejudice will be raised because it is such a large part of the book. When I've read the book with students in the past, both Crooks and Curley's wife have been the  source  of  much prejudice and discussion. I see no reason why this should not happen again with 5E. Then again I may be wrong.

	My reason for conducting the argument with the four lads only is fairly straightforward: they were the ones who raised the issue by producing the poem. It was THEIR issue, raised in THEIR way. To have taken it to a wider public would have been unproductive because I would have been making a public exhibition of their views. I think I would have possibly hardened their racism. By keeping it on the small scale I was able to interact in a more "normal" way and deal with points as they arose without all the control devices a teacher uses when conducting a debate with the whole class. I find those to be quite unproductive when it comes to attempting to change people's minds because in a debate they usually have their minds made up to start with. I mean look at the House   of   Commons,   it's having the majority that counts not the quality of the arguments in achieving that majority. 

		QUESTION

	OK I accept that it could be through argument that opinions are changed or understanding is made possible but is it usual for teachers to get involved in arguments with their pupils?

		ANSWER

	Yes I think so. The subject of the argument may be different from the one I've shown you - it's usually about something to do with social control. In this case it was to do with understanding. I feel that is different in school. In fact, when Alan interviewed the lads they talked about this. Here's what they said:

	"AS: Why is it just in English lessons then? / is it something about Mr.Larter / or just English?

	T: Well in the other lessons you don't get chance to talk to the teachers very often / Mr.Larter's always wanderin' round the class askin' what you're doin'.
	 
	AS: Is that why then?
	 
	K: Yeah / I s'pose.
	 
	AS: I s'pose?
	 
	K: Yeah / yeah it must be (pause) I dunno some o' the other teachers you just couldn't sort of argue with like that you don't think they'd get into an argument about that sort of / well English is the sort of subject where you've got your own views on things isn't it whereas other subjects there's a / always gonna be a set answer."

	I'm both pleased and interested in these statements by the lads. It seems from what they say that their reality of school is that English is an area of the curriculum where there is the possibility of making your own understanding of things whereas other areas of knowledge offer only "a set answer" - meaning presumably that you cannot make your mind up about say history or a design problem. This, plus their statements about other teachers not entering into arguments with them indicates to me that the view of knowledge they have picked up is the "transmission" view, as Barnes and Shemilt call it. I am very flattered that they do not think of me or my lessons in this way because I do not think of there being an absolute body of knowledge to be transmitted from me to the students. It is one of my educational values that I want the students to form their own understandings of what is offered to them in the classroom as this comes closer to my ideas about how meaning is constructed by each of us. There is a bit in the Bullock Report  which 
	says "In order to accept what is offered when we are told something, we have to have somewhere to put it; and having somewhere to put it means that the framework of past knowledge and experience into which it must fit is adequate as a means of interpreting and apprehending it." Now that strikes me as being a sound statement of how we make sense of school knowledge as well experience in general. It interests me that Keith and Trevor seem to have picked that up and also enjoy that way of making sense. Keith did tell Alan that he enjoyed the argument.

		QUESTION

	Did you?

		ANSWER

	At the time yes! Having looked at the film and thought about it all, I find bits of the film quite embarrassing. Still, I suppose it would be possible to say that there is something about the conversation which I find quite aesthetically attractive. I mean, we were both telling the truth as we saw it and using the form of the argument to attempt to express our views in a way which would convince the other that we were right. I think that conforms to my expression of what I felt to be aesthetically beautiful before. I'm still impressed by the way Keith keeps coming back at what I say and saying what he thinks. 

		QUESTION

	Do you really think that you achieved your value about critical reflection?

		ANSWER

	Partly, yes. I felt that the poem was a blindly racist one and told untruths - I think there is a lot of justification for believing that. I wanted the lads to at least think about the ideas expressed in the thing because I reckon that if you are prepared to think about such racism - probably any form of racism - its fallacies become apparent. I think I was partially successful in this because the lads said to Alan that the argument had slightly altered the way they saw things. Trevor said,

	"Before (the argument) I thought it was wrong that they were lettin' 'em in / afterwards I think that / the ones that are 'ere / they should be allowed to stay 'ere 'n' treat 'em like anybody else."

	That is NOT what the poem  says. There was also this in the conversation with Alan:

	"K: Just can't seem to win any arguments with Mr. Larter that's all.

	AS: 'n' is that wrong?

	K: No I don't s'pose / it just makes you / kinda like makes you think more about what you're sayin' I think."

	I could claim that this indicates that, with these two lads, I've made some sort of ground in fostering critical reflection. I'm not saying that I've been totally successful because Keith was not able to see some of the points I made as having some truth, for instance he did not see that Australia is one of the most urbanised countries. It's a start and I think there are grounds for hoping that they will be open to some of the reading and research I intend to ask them to undertake.

		QUESTION

	Why do you  say that?

		ANSWER

	They have begun to think about the implications of the poem and the argument. This shows that they will probably be thoughtful about any reading they will do on the subject because they have a context from and within which to operate. However, there are many instances of me closing down the opportunities for reflection, of me hectoring the lads with my view of things of me dominating the argument. I think this demonstrates that I was NOT living out my value as you asked. In future, having seen this film and heard the lads talking with Alan, I will try to shut up more and let the students the chance to offer their point of view. Perhaps then I will be able to claim that I have engaged in rational discourse aiming at critical reflection on ideas. The whole thing is complicated by the fact that the argument was about immigration and racism. I found it very difficult to hold on to two values at the same time, namely my ideas about classroom discourse and my notion of anti-racism. Because of these two values, I became a living contradiction. I must attempt to live with this and resolve the problem, at the same time attempting to improve the process of education for the students. In this instance, I felt that improvement meant challenging their racist views. I am trying to hold on to that view because it is very important to me, and I believe to society, that racist views are challenged.

		END OF DIALOGUE

	I would like now to make a few concluding remarks regarding my claim to know my own educational practice. This claim to know is based on the video of the argument I had with the lads. However, I am aware that this provides insufficient ostensive evidence because the sound quality on the film is extremely poor - thus I have to offer you a transcript which I had to work very hard using headphones to achieve. The film is there  for  you to see. Taken in conjunction with the audio recordings, I feel that I have sufficient evidence to make a case. It is this which I offer to you as my unit of appraisal. 

	The standards of judgment present  another  problem. I do not wish to claim objectivity, rather what has been referred to as "inter-subjectivity", where your judgments of the value-laden account of my claim to know my own practice are crucial for us to understand the knowledge generated. To do this, I would  like you to consider Don Foster's ideas: that the standards of judgment ought to comprise the following-

	"DOES THE EXPLANATION

	1) INDICATE THAT THE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN TACKLED IN A SYSTEMATIC, AND SELF-CRITICAL MANNER?

	2) HAVE A CLEAR LOGICAL FORM?

	3) DEMONSTRATE AN ETHICAL FORM OF LIFE IN WHICH THERE IS A STRUGGLE TO LIVE CERTAIN ETHICAL VALUES? AND

	4) APPEAR TO BE PRESENTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE VALIDATION GROUP CAN SEE THAT THE FORM AND CONTENT OF THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE INTREGITY OF THE AUTHOR OR OF HIS OR HER FELLOW MEN.(sic)"

	With regard to the first of the criteria, I would like to draw your attention to the action-reflection cycle described above. It is this which allows me to approach the task of explaining my own practice in a systematic way. By using the stages in that cycle, I have attempted to be systematic in analysing the events of that particular moment in that particular classroom. I have been aided by having a video of the events, which has in turn allowed me to be self-critical. In viewing the film, I have been able to see my own attempts to live out my values in practice and to explore what those values mean in practice. In other words, the video and the audio tapes have led me to see myself as a living contradiction in that the values revealed in practice conflict with the way I like to think I conduct myself in the classroom. I would like to know if this is the way you see the account.

	As far as the clarity and logicality of the piece is concerned, I like to think that my writing is so. I have the problem of being perhaps too closely involved in the work to offer real criticism of this aspect of the piece, except to say that I have tried to live out my value of the aesthetic. 

	The film and the description of the events clearly shows me trying to live out some of my educational values. Those values are discussed in the text above but let me share them with you again. They are:

	I sincerely hope that I have not violated anybody's integrity. As I wrote the piece, it was my intention to present the truth as I saw it, the complete understanding of what happened as I saw it, see it on the film, hear it on the tapes and wrote about in my journal and in the paper. 

	But what use is the piece? For me, it is a bit like the use a slow-motion replay must be to a batsman: how can I  improve my technique? With the aid of  film, a batsman can, for instance, see that the problem for him is in his stance at the crease. In realising this he can attempt to change his stance with a view to scoring more runs. It is similar for me. I have visualised certain problems with my own teaching technique and to improve the process of education I must do something about these technical problems. For other educators, I would like to think that what I have offered is useful in the same way that our film of the batsman could be of use to fellow cricketers. In an illuminative way it may be possible to look at and listen to the protagonist with a view to gleaning insights which may be of use in improving one's own practice. Thus, it would be possible to say, "So that's how he stands at the crease - perhaps that would work for me too." Similarly, I hope, with my offering: perhaps it might illuminate a colleague's practice in a small way.

	But there's more to it than this. Teachers attempting to live out certain values, which I contend have a   universality to them, could give heart to the profession. This, and the self criticism, may sound arrogant but I offer it as a struggle rather than a show. In the climate in which we live - a rainy summer, salary problems and cuts - I find it heartening to know that other colleagues are involved in the same struggle and attempt to improve the process of education.

	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

		POSTSCRIPT

	It seems to me that there is one thing I have not made adequately clear: the reasons for using the form of question and answer in the explanation of my claim to know my own practice. The idea comes from Collingwood who suggested the "logic of question and answer" in his autobiography. His idea was that through this kind of logic, you are able to present not only the answers to your problems but also the questions which gave rise to the problems. In this way, Collingwood claimed that we could provide a fuller picture of what was going on in the enquiry. The questions should be the ones which push the enquiry further along. There is also, for me, the notion that talk is the primary mode of discourse and the question and answer dialogue is an attempt to show this at work. However, I feel now, having returned to my writing again, that I have not made this discourse sufficiently problematic. For instance, there are times when a question is posed to merely move the text on as in a play. at other times, a question has been used when another would have moved the discourse in a different but valid direction. Why did I use these particular questions? Where did they come from? Briefly, they are the questions asked by colleagues who saw the film and by myself as I looked at the film. Does this satisfy what Collingwood suggested? I will have to probe further in his writing and in my own understanding to find out.