IMPROVING CLASSROOM DISCUSSION

	DO MY INTERVENTIONS HELP OR HINDER?

	INTRODUCTION

	On 22nd February 1986, I wrote in my journal, 

	"I must write my feelings about yesterday's validation exercise. I did not find it very helpful." 

	I think this would be a useful place for me to start because out of these feelings of frustration, demoralisation and even hostility, I came to certain conclusions about the writing of this report.

	VALIDATION EXERCISE

	Why did I feel as I have suggested above?

	To begin with, I felt that the report ("Casting Long Shadows") was flawed in many ways. I had not spent my time particularly efficiently during the time I was writing it: in fact, I had become disillusioned with the research and with my work in school generally. On the Friday before the validation meeting, I spent some time with Jack Whitehead discussing the report and I made our feelings clear about its form. I did not expect the kind of slating that the work actually got and I remember leaving the meeting feeling violated, as though there had been other things going on in the session which were largely to do with personality friction. It seemed to me at the time that the report was criticised unhelpfully and I took some of the things said in a very personal way. Towards the end of the session, I felt unable to speak. At the time, I felt that this was outside the reasons for the exercise - I still do - but I was able to think more clearly about the events later and during these reflections I felt that I learned a  lot which has helped me in writing this present report. 

	What specifically happened which was helpful?

	First of all, I was irritated that the meeting ground to a start. It seemed that the participants were otherwise engaged and treating my report with only scant, secondary attention. Arrogantly perhaps, I felt that those invited should have treated my work with the rigour I felt it was due. It seems to me that this criticism of those who had been invited was not unfounded, despite the busy nature of all our professional lives. 

		Organisation of the report

	I felt that there were helpful things said about the organisation of the paper. It was suggested that the action-reflection cycle (i.e. Plan; Act; Observe; Reflect; Revise Plan; Act; etc.) could be used to inform the organisation of any reports as well as informing my practice itself. I have tried to make this more explicit in this report. The action-reflection is observable in the report in the form of the concerns I had about my interventions in classroom discussion and I have used these events, which occurred over four months of time, as the organising principle of the report. I found this a particularly useful way of writing about classroom events because it is close to the ways in which I experienced those events. Also, I have tried to include only those academic references which really helped my case. I have attempted not to show off the things I have picked up as I lhave read books, but have, where I have used such references, to interrogate them, to question and probe their usefulness and validity in terms of the meaning I have constructed about the events and my thinking about them. It is my commitment to improve practice, to developing my understanding of it and integrating the two that I have turned some of my attention in thinking about writing this report. I would like to think that my deliberations will bear fruit.

		Authenticity

	This last point above brings me to one of the central issues I have had to face and contend with as I have thought about and written this report: the problems of writing about classroom life in a way which captures the authenticity of my experiences. To recapture my feelings and bring them to life on the printed page (or the television monitor!) has been very difficult in the past. How can I improve on these past experiences? One way has been the development of the logic of question and answer - part of which was the idea of interrogating texts in the form of dialogue. I hope to include authentic dialogue during the course of the report. Because the report is the product of negotiation and dialogue with many colleagues, I came to the conclusion that I would include these discussions in the form of question and answer - I hope this idea does not violate the integrity of those whose words I have used. Some of the participants will be named, others will not.

	Another way of keeping to the authentic life of the classroom is the use of transcripts. There will be a lot of them in this report. This is for two reasons. First, the report spans a long time. A lot happened and a lot will therefore have to be reported. Secondly, this is what was actually said and it seems to me to be in keeping with a quest for truth, one of my educational values, that I present as true an account of what I saw happen as I can. I would like to prepare the reader now for the inclusion of long transcripts of important talk in this paper. Unfortunately, it does not have the vitality of the real thing but it is the nearest I can manage in writing. 

		Selectivity

	Even with a desire to present classroom life as it was, there are massive problems to be faced. It is not possible to record every single bit of talk and action and it would be a mammoth task, if it were possible at all, to reconstruct that. So, I have been faced with the problem of what to include and what to leave out. I have been drawn to Collingwood's idea that "the 'right' answer to a question is the answer which enables us to get ahead with the process of questioning and answering." The logic of this is that my report is only one question in a series of questions about my educational practice and that contained within the questions are answers which move me nearer the truth. But at the same time the truth becomes more elusive because there are more questions to find and to answer with each given answer. It is, for me, essentially the process of searching for the truth which is important. That has been the essential struggle of this work. To this extent, it ought to be seen as an interaction or a vehicle towards interaction rather than as a finished product.

	In my attempts to improve my professional competence, I attempted to enter the students' worlds. That is, i tried to find out and consider more fully, through dialogue, what they were thinking and feeling. I also wanted to share my feelings with them in a way which might allow them to see that my understanding of the world has been constructed over time, has changed organically and continues to be altered. I also wanted to allow the students more scope to voice their emerging world views. In this way, I hoped that they would begin to reflect on their experiences in life and in the dialogues of the classroom. This seems to me to be the very nub of learning - reflect and discuss and reflect and discuss and reflect and so on through and over time.

		Intervention

	Perhaps a few remarks at this point about what I understand by the term "intervention" might be useful. In "Casting Long Shadows" I spoke about the problem as it existed in my mind. 

	"it is a difficult thing to balance the activities of the classroom so that, while attempting to create an environment in which discussion may flourish, I may unwittingly cast them adrift and disorient them." (Larter 1986)

	The problem of intervention is not one of merely being involved in discussions with the students. For me it involves what I say when I am giving instructions for what I would like them to do, the things I choose to read with the students and the normative judgements I make about them, for instance. I formerly referred to the problem as a problem of "structures" and "frameworks" for the students' learning. These were useful ideas for me: a structure being in my mind inflexible, while a framework was flexible. I now think of the problem in terms of my frame of reference and fostering dialogue so that the students may make their learning their own using my ideas and lessons as sounding boards for their thinking. I leave you to consider the success of this in practice - I have my own judgements which will be apparent in the report.

	The essential concern of this research report will be with whether, in my day to day dealings with students, I put the lid on their learning or take the lid off. At the same time, because I think that James Britton is right when he says 

	"To embark on a conversational utterance is to take on a certain responsibility, top stake a claim that calls for justification: and perhaps it is the social pressure on the speaker to justify his claim that gives talk an edge over silent brooding as a problem-solving procedure." (Britton 1980)

	My experiences in life have led me to believe that this is so. But I also follow Douglas Barnes when he says,

	"How can teachers carry out what they believe to be their responsibilities when these include both control of pupils' learning and encouraging pupils actively to formulate knowledge. In one direction lies control so strong that school knowledge remains alien to the learner (whether he rejects or plays along with it); in the other direction lies a withdrawal of guidance, so that the learners never need to grapple with alternative ways of thinking." (Barnes 1976)

	It is to these two concerns that the present report is addressed.
	
DISCOVERING PROBLEMS

	After looking at some video film of my classroom practice, I began to realise that there was a qualitative difference in the way I approached and interacted with groups of students. This difference seemed to be coloured by, not surprisingly, my expectations of the students concerned. For example, I expected the group containing Frank to be misbehaving because they were either ribbing him or being ribbed by him. This at fist casual observation was reinforced when Alan Skelton acted as participant observer during a series of lessons. He felt that there was a problem with the behaviour of one particular group of boys - at first characterised in a short-hand way as "lads" (Willis 1977) - in that they were loud, unruly, spoiled other students' work: generally they were anti-social! At the same time Alan felt that I had a very good relationship with a particular group of girls. This "good" relationship was marked by warmth, friendliness and a preparedness to "have a chat." 

	Lots of questions began to form in my mind regarding these observations. Why did the boys behave as they did? Did all the boys in the classroom behave in similar ways? Was their behaviour anything to do with me? Why did I spend more time with the girls? Did I spend more time with the girls in the class generally? Was this a denial of my values about equal  opportunity? What is the role of literature in the classroom? How does my interpretation of literature interfere with my interest in students making their own sense of texts? These questions arose from two particular snippets of talk recorded on 25th September 1985. First of all, here I am talking to Frank. He has decided to do a piece of writing in which he intends to reconstruct the episode from "Of Mice and Men" where Candy's dog is shot as if he, Frank, is Candy.

	TRANSCRIPT

	F: I'll pretend I'm Candy you see.

	AL: OK.

	F: I'm an old fool. Smells a bit.

	AL: Do you reckon that Candy's an old fool?

	F: No. I'm just saying. Conversation sir.

	AL: I think you should be a bit more careful about what you say in that case. If you say that Candy's an old fool then that's what I take it as being your view of him.

	F: No he's not an old fool. Well he might be I've never met the man.

	AL: Well you have because you met him in the book surely.

	F: Yeah I reckon he is an old fool.

	AL: Why? What makes you say that he's an old fool?

	F: He's just an old fool that's all.

	AL: Come on then tell me what gives you that impression.

	F: No he's not an old fool sir. You go and see Bernard.

	ANALYSIS

	I could rationalise my behaviour here by saying that Frank is the kind of student who will take the easy option. He is not often prepared to take his initial thoughts deeper than the surface. His attitude to school work is one of "That'll do" or "Can I get away with not doing it." What I am trying to do is to push his thinking deeper. I do not think I had much success. How did I know that Frank's behaviour was so? The answer is that I didn't. I was imputing that it was, an imputation based on my previous dealings with him, his reputation and my opinion of him. I cannot say that I particularly dislike Frank, it is more a feeling that he is "one of the lads." Nell Keddie gives me help in understanding the situation:

	"The imputation of normal attributes to pupils by teachers does not tell us anything objectively about pupils.....the general effect of teachers' explanations is to recognise the situation as conflictual, but to render invalid the particular point the pupil is making and thus to delineate the extent of pupils' rights." (Keddie 1971)

	Thus when I said "Do you reckon that Candy's an old fool?" I was failing to show any concern for HIS understanding. I was rendering this particular point invalid by my pedantic interrogation of his understanding. Part of the reason for this approach was to point out to Frank that I felt he had not done enough work and to demonstrate the kind of thinking I felt he ought to be doing. Why could I not accept Frank's understanding of Candy? Because of the normal attributes of being "one of the lads" that I had imputed to him. I felt this to be unfair.

	And yet, the imputation of normal attributes can work the other way too. Here is Catherine on the same day. She has decided to write a piece about Curley's Wife.
	
        TRANSCRIPT

	AL: So you reckon that she gets a bad deal really then.

	C: Yeah. I think it's one of the weaknesses of the book.

	AL: OK. Well I think you ought to make that point in your character study of Curley's Wife. That's fair enough. Just jot down any bits of the book that you think you could use to make your points.

	ANALYSIS

	I accepted this as "fair enough" but what is there to suggest that Catherine has not merely picked up on a phrase of mine and regurgitated it? This just happens to be one of my own ideas about the book. I also made no attempt to wring evidence for her belief from her. It is likely that my behaviour is formed by my socialisation. It is one of our society's norms that girls are "sugar and spice" while boys are "frogs and snails." Of course, I do not consciously adhere to such simplistic notions of gender stereotyping but subconsciously ....? I am prepared to admit that this behaviour is patronisingly sexist, that I did treat the girl different from the boy. On the other hand, and it is this point which interests me most, the quality of my relationship with that particular group of  girls was significantly different from my relationship with the boys. The characteristics of that relationship are those of my relationship with Catherine, who is, in fact, one of "that particular group of girls."

	CONCERNS

	- I spend more time with this group of girls than other groups.

	- This group of boys "messes around" and there is a danger that they will undermine the activities of other students.

	- The quality of my direct intervention in classroom talk seems to depend on the normal status I give to different students.

	- The understanding I have of texts affects the way I respond to students' understandings.

	IMAGINED SOLUTION

	On 1st and 8th November 1985, I discussed these concerns with Jack Whitehead. Here is my response to his question, "What do you intend to do about these concerns?"

	"In attempting to answer my own question "How do I help or hinder these lads?" maybe I'm hindering them because I don't spend any time with them and perhaps I could help them by actually going and sitting with them and working closely with them for spells of say fifteen minutes at a time .... I need to try it and also analyse it. So there's also a kind of cyclic thing around there as well .... There's a group of girls who it seems to me can work fairly well on their own. Anyway they don't need much attention from me and yet I go and give them attention. One of the solutions I came up with this week was to actually physically remove them from the room - not because they're any problem but because they're getting in the way of what I think I ought to be doing. So that one possible solution is to remove them physically from the room and give them the same task to do but on their own and record and see what happens. Whilst at the same time remaining in the classroom and working very closely with these two groups of boys who I don't spend much time with and actually working with them through their problems or through the problems I think they're having and record what happens and see what happens and find out if that actually does improve the situation .... I've also then got to look at my own performance in terms of what I do in those discussions." (Taped discussions 1st and 8th November 1985)

	Here's what happened when I put this imagined solution into practice.

	ACTION AND OBSERVATIONS

	 TRANSCRIPT

	(This conversation took place on 12th November 1985 in my own classroom. Chris, Frank and Peter are a group of lads who normally work together. 5E and I had read "A Beating" by Sean O'Casey and "Escape From School" by Rene Cutforth from "The Receiving End", an anthology in the Ward Lock English Project series. After the reading I asked them to discuss for ten minutes and then write for ten minutes about these three questions:  1. How do you espond to "Unman, Wittering and Zigo"; "Escape From School" and "A Beating"? What do you feel about them? 2. Can you see any links between the three pieces? What are they? 3. How is school life shown in the three pieces?)

	Peter: Dobby / Dobby / did Geoff Carter write you a love letter?

	Frank: Is Trev gonna give 'im a bit of a beatin' ?

	F: Why not?

	Chris: He was gonna.

	P: Why not?

	Margaret (in background, from another table): I dunno.

	(pause)

	C: I knew that boy called Trev (untranscribable)

	?: (untranscribable)

	(pause)

	F: Condom.

	P: You don't know what a condom is.

	C: Con - dom.

	P: Do you know what a condom is?

	F: Cigar ennit?

	(sniggering)

	C: It's a condom ennit.

	P: Do you know what a condom is?

	F: Dildo?

	P: (Laughs loud) Do you know what it is? (Laughs loud again)

	F: No. (Peter laughs again) What is it then?

	C: (Untranscribable)

	P: Shush / shush.

	F: Vibrator?

	C: .....workin ent we.

	(laughter)

	F: I said cigar anyway (untranscribable)

	P: No. Don't you know what one is?

	F: I don't use sexual aids.

	P: What was that? Aids?

	F: Mm (pause) What is it then?

	P: Eh?

	F: What are they?

	P: It's a form of / it's a symmetrical / rubber item that / is / erm / applied over the top of your / erm

	F: A sheath.

	P: Yeah a sheath.

	C: Knife (laughs) sheath knife. He was forced to watch over a game of cards.

	(pause)

	C: It's borin' without.....[pause button on tape recorder pressed here].....butterfly's symmetrical ennit.

	F: No-o-o (C: Yes it is.) o-o-o it isn't. Not all butterflies.

	ANALYSIS

	There is a tough vitality about the talk here that I like and identify with. The joy shown by Peter as he feels, shows and enjoys his superiority over Frank is something that, in a human way, I have also experienced and enjoyed. Here are a group of mates having fun together. One of them is being ridiculed but the friendship is strong enough to cope with that - in fact, I think the friendship is strengthened by this behaviour: the playing strengthens the bonds between them. 

	"The ribbing or 'pisstaking' is ... rough and often directed at the same individuals for the same things. Often this is someone's imagined stupidity...Though 'the lads' usually resist conventional ways of showing their abilities, certainly the ablest like to be thought of as 'quick'. Certain cultural values like fast talking and humour, do anyway register in some academic subjects. In certain respects obvious stupidity is penalised more heavily amongst 'the lads' than by staff, who 'expected nothing better.' Very often the topic for the 'pisstake' is sexual, though it can be anything - the more personal, sharper and apposite the better. The soul of wit for them is ... the persistent searching out of weakness. It takes some skill and cultural know-how to mount such attacks and more to resist them." (Willis 1977)

	For me, Willis has captured the essence of what was going on in my own classroom here. Certainly the ribbing was directed at Frank for his "imagined stupidity" - he did not know what a condom was. As "the lads" are supposedly sexually experienced "men of the world", Frank exposes his knowledge as deficient when he suggests that a condom is a cigar or a dildo. It is a moment cuttingly yet brilliantly exploited by Peter. I have to admit that I share the humour of the situation. I also identify with the quick-witted repartee of the exchange. Peter was certainly demonstrating Frank's stupidity and his own quickness. 

	I am not entirely certain what Willis means by "ablest" in the above quotation. I assume that he means the quickest-witted of "the lads". I would certainly deny that any of these is more intelligent than another - they show their abilities in different ways. Peter certainly capitalised on a mistake and ridiculed Frank. However, Frank does not submit. His comment, "I don't use sexual aids" demonstrates his own quick wit. This is also an attempt to ensure that Peter does not get too much of the upper hand.

	All this, then, is for me an identification with the culture of these lads. Their humour, quick wit and friendship are all positive aspects of their culture which I would want to encourage. However, there are also elements of the culture which I do not like. First, there is their machismo. As Willis says,

	"The characteristic style of speech and movement, even in the absence of females, always holds something of the masculine spectacle."

	I think this is evident in this very brief exchange. It is part of the desire not to be seen as a fool by your mates which leads to this amount of ribbing. Thus, Peter exploits the situation to exert his position, perhaps temporary, as dominant "lad", while Frank tries not to appear too foolish. But, for me, this represents a hollowness, an unwillingness (or perhaps an inability) to engage in deeper modes of human communication. Whilst recognising that there is a tough, vibrant shaping of meaning going on, I also think that there is an element where the relationships between the lads are reduced to ritual - and perhaps this  makes their culture stronger. It is certainly one of the aspects of the culture which I find unsavoury, cliquey and impenetrable. They never question the issues they raise, if they did I think they would risk ostracism, for 

	"status and identity are constructed informally and in the group, and from the resources of the working-class culture and especially its themes of masculinity and toughness." (Willis 1977)

	Thus, questioning their behaviour would probably lead to ribbing, fighting or ostracism. The power of the group can be understood in these terms.There are not many of us who wish to be left alone for a long time - or run the risk of being  so  treated  by straying from the orthodoxies of group behaviour.

	From this ritualistic conformity, I am led to my main concern with this fragment. The power of the informal group to close down the possibilities for discussion to occur is quite evident here. No discussion takes place. There is no examination of any statements, ideas or beliefs. The pressure is there to conform to group norms - "taking the piss" is the important activity, not discussing. And herein lies my concern: they are not learning anything. Learning is, for me, one of the chief elements of education. The definition of the word, "to lead out", implies that there must be a change of outlook. Here, there is only reinforcement of social relationships. I do not feel that I can call this "learning." Further, my concern at the time was that there was a lot of anti-social noise coming from the lads' table. I had also decided that I must attempt to penetrate the lads' culture. Willis, again, has some interesting suggestions on this point:

	"from this (i.e. Willis') research the best suggestion seems to be of a tactical withdrawal from confrontation with the counter-school culture but which avoids any simplistic expression of sympathy and maintains a degree of institutional authority ...Use techniques of group discussion."

	What I decided to do by way of taking Willis' advice was to try to get more involved in the lads' discussions. Here is what happened when I attempted to do just this in this lesson.

	TRANSCRIPT

	[There now follows a very lengthy transcription of the conversation I took part in with the lads. It lasts for some five pages.]

	AL: What's the problem now lads?

	C: Symmetrical. What's the word symmetrical mean?

	F: Is a butterfly symmetrical?

	AL: Usually yeah.

	C: Aah [as in "I told you so"]

	F: See, not every one is though is it.

	AL: Well nothing's perfectly symmetrical anyway.

	C: (sniggers) That haircut.

	AL: Chris, you're beginning to waste time again. This is important don't forget.

	C: This one's really hard to write about really.

	AL: Why? Come on tell me what's the problem.

	F: I didn't think we was actually meant to write about them.

	C: Yes you are. Responses to them. Yeah but if you write all this down see you might be have to come to write an essay.

	AL: That's right yeah

	F: (untranscribable)

	AL: (untranacribable) Frank. You're getting there at last Chris.

	C: Yeah.

	F: Only just.

	[AL deals with problems arising from another group]

	AL: What do you think of it? Tell me what you think of the extract.

	C: Not a lot (pause) It's pretty good I s'pose (pause) Not the sort of thing that's gonna happen is it?

	AL: Well look.

	C: Is it true then is it or summat?

	(pause) 

	AL: It's from Sean O'Casey's autobiography.

	(pause)

	AL: I can tell you from what I know of Sean O'Casey that he did have bad eyesight and he was very frail when he was at school.

	(pause)

	C: He should have smacked the headmaster down in the first place shouldn't he for caning him like that.

	F: He was justified for his punishment.

	(pause - snigger)

	C: What did you say?

	F: Nothing.

	P: (unclear - That he should have been caned.)

	F: I said that he was justified.....

	C: He was forced to.....

	AL: Well I think.....

	[The three previous utterances are made simultaneously]

	AL: .....there are a couple of points you need to bear in mind with that. I think yeah OK he was justified but why didn't he beat the others beat the other lads as well?

	F: Yeah that's right.

	AL: That's one thing.

	F: Should of got em.

	P: Cos he was scared of em. He's a wet.

	(giggle)

	C: He's not wet. It's just he was more or less a cripple wasn't he I suppose.

	AL: Who was?

	C: This chap.....

	P: No the actual headmaster.

	C: Oh.

	AL: Oh I see what you mean now. I'm getting confused here.

	P: Yeah he would have got (C: Oh cos he's.....) he would have got beaten. He would have.....

	F: (unclear - Are we supposed to be) writing all this down?

	C: Like most headmasters are. He's picking on.....

	F: He's a yellowbelly.

	AL: He's not a headmaster though isn't Slogan. He's just a teacher isn't he? Picking on him.....

	C: Yeah. Go on.

	AL: He's little isn't he, Johnny.

	C: (untranscribable) pick on the hard ones cos he's scared to.

	P: Simon got picked on sir.

	AL: He's not little though is he?

	P: Did you ever have didja?

	C: What?

	P: You heard.

	C: Sh!
	P: Mister Jefferies I think it was.

	AL: Mm.

	F: I think I'd pick on him if I was a teacher.

	C: Picks on Green.

	P: I'd pick on him if I was a teacher cos he gets on my nerves.

	C: He's immature.

	AL: Look anyway erm (P: Can't stand him.) Do you reckon that's why Slogan picks on Johnny?

	F: Yeah.

	C: He wants to make a mockery of him.

	AL: Why?

	F: He's pretty religious ennhe.

	C: He wants to show him up. He can cos the kid can't take the punishment and he gets all the other kids to hold him down and try and show him up but he wouldn't do it to the other ones cos they'd turn round and smack him.

	F: They don't do that in schools do they sir?

	AL: Why why does he wanna show him up though? I know he does wanna show him up but why do you think he wants to show him up?

	P: Cos he aint getting on with his work is he.

	F: He wants everybody to like him.

	C: No cos he caught 'em playing that game and he wants someone to blame so he put all the blame on him cos he don't wanna blame the other kids cos he's scared of 'em. You do get teachers scared of kids y'know. It does happen.

	(snigger)

	AL: Regularly all the time.

	P: Yeah.

	F: (drops something on the tape recorder) Sorry about that. Still having trouble with this point.

	C: Like Mister (untranscribable)

	AL: So w.... I mean if he's scared let's assume that Slogan's scared.....

	C: Teachers shouldn't (untranscribable)

	AL: .....why's he got such a reputation then? Why do they keep away from why do they keep an eye open for him if he's scared of them?

	C: Nicks their money don't he.

	P: Teachers shouldn't have the job if they're scared of the pupils though in the first place.

	C: No but it's their job not to be scared of the children pupils ennit it's their job to...

	(pause)

	F: Batter em.

	C: Discipline innit.

	F: Are you scared of any pupils sir.

	AL: You.

	(snigger)

	C: Everyone's scared of Nobby really. He's a bit of a .....

	F: He's a bit of an 'ard case ennhe.

	(snigger)

	AL: Is there I mean is that really what it's all about? Y'see I mean.....

	C: It don't seem to be any other reason does there really.

	AL: In the story no but I mean is that what it's like here?

	F: No.

	SOME THOUGHTS ON MY INTERVENTION

	Schon (1983) says,

	"Practitioners are frequently embroiled in conflicts of values, goals, purposes and interests."

	Thus, I was able to write in my journal that afternoon, before I watched the film and listened to the recording:

	"The video I shot today and the tape recording of Chris, Frank and Peter should be useful. It shows that they are intelligent and have loads of ideas but really only concentrate when I'm there. There's much fiddling with the tape recorder when I'm not there." (Personal Journal 12.11.85)

	The values, goals, purposes and interests which were in conflict in this instance were that I value the students making their own sense of their experiences; I value rational discussion and yet I had decided that these boys needed some guidance from me as a teacher. My goal was to encourage them to respond to each other in a discussion about the pieces of literature we had read as a class. The purpose of this was to further the very act of discussion itself - discussion was an end as well as a process in my mind. My interest was in improving the quality of the process of education for these students. Thus, my writing on the night of the episode.

	Why did I intervene at that particular time?

	I could see that they were messing about with the tape recorder and that they were behaving in a loud, anti-social way. Thus, the main reason for the intervention was disciplinary. However, instead of intervening with a disciplinary statement, I chose to use a "disguised" disciplinary statement: the question "What's the problem now lads?" I also sat down at their table. These two acts allowed me to become involved in their concern but also required some answer from them. The focus of attention for their talk had become me. In terms of my desire to work "with them through their problems or through the problems I think they're having," I had succeeded in entering their conversation. What I had to do now was work through their problems with them. I used a verbal jab to Chris when I said "You're beginning to waste time again. This is important don't forget." This was intended to effect a seriousness to their talk and to assert my authority. Again, I would like to suggest that in terms of my purpose, this was a correct course of action. In terms of Willis' advice, I had made some attempt to enter the informal group but had still maintained some measure of institutional authority. If I was to work through the activity with them, they had to realise that it was a serious one, that I was there to help and that the agenda I had placed on their thinking, a form of intervention in itself, was there because I felt it to be an important aid to their learning. This may sound inflexible. I do not intend it to do so and if the students had come up with their own agenda, I would have been ready to negotiate. Perhaps I could communicate this more overtly. My comment was, nevertheless, intended to achieve all this. I think there was an element of success too because Chris' next comment, "This one's really hard to write about really," took us back to the agenda, the text, his ideas and my expectations - he seemed to be having a problem with all of these which I wanted him to verbalise.

	How successful an intervention was it?

	I do not feel that this intervention was successful in relation to my educational values. I valuse rational discussion, critical reflection and individual rights within a context of working as a group.(What I am really getting at in this last point is that there should be a collective responsibility for the quality of classroom activities.) On the other hand, in relation to Willis' suggestions (see above) and my own statement to Jack Whitehead, I think that I can indicate some success in the talk.

	Some kind of clarification is in order. What I am saying is that I think this was BOTH a reasonably good AND a not so good intervention. Bearing in mind as Kemmis and Henry (1984) say

	"educational change is a slow social process not, an event."

	I think I can say that there is a qualitative difference in the boys' activities after I joined their conversation. However, when I came to examine the recordings further, I realised that there were some aspects of my performance which were not so pleasing. I was consciously trying to be helpful and to bring out their ideas. If I take my statement, "I can tell you from what I know of Sean O'Casey that he did have bad eyesight and he was very frail at school," I can see the same problem as I discovered in my two previous reports. This is the problem of "constituted" versus "constitutive" language, as Robert Hull calls it, after Merleau-Ponty (Hull 1985 ) Constituted language is 

	"...the language the reader brings with him, or language as an institution."

	It seems to me that we have an example of "constituted" language in my statement about my knowledge of Sean O'Casey's life. I do not allow   Chris   to  work out his idea in discussion but interpose my already made understanding. I do not allow Chris to see the making of knowledge, only the artefact itself. Chris' response is, quite understandably, a retreat, "a sterile confrontation with constituted language form." (Hull op cit)

	The features of "constitutive" language, on the other hand, are

	"those which 'establish a new signification in a linguistic apparatus constructed with old signs.'(Merleau-Ponty 1970) They do so moreover on two distinct levels: in literary language and in everyday speech. The latter emphasis is what seems particularly important here. If everyday speech has 'constitutive' features analogous to those of literature, such speech is a crucial source of meaning." (Hull op cit)

	I find this quotation very exciting. It seems to me to be correct. The power of discussion using everyday language to construct knowledge, make sense of experience, shape meaning has excited me for a long time. That we all have this capability, because we can all talk, is a very exciting proposition. The problem, my concern, is how do I provide a context in which this kind of process may occur?

	Is there any evidence that the students were able to use their own language to make sense of things?

	I believe there are hints that they are making sense of the pieces through anecdotes. Thus, Peter begins a story of a member of 5E being victimised by a teacher. Anecdote, an example of everyday speech, is a vital way of making sense of experience, shaping meaning, constructing knowledge. As David Jackson says,

	"[anecdotes] are a vital way of processing into coherence bearable representations of what we've lived through in terms of our current  mental  map  of  reality .... The value of these brain fictions ..... is that through them children can learn to make sense of new experience by translating the unfamiliar into terms that they can handle and understand." (Jackson 1983)

	Do these claims help me to understand this intervention with the boys?

	To help me answer this question here is some more transcript from the same conversation.
	TRANSCRIPT

	C: I dunno (unclear - often there's a kid like that) Like (lowers his voice confidentially) David gets picked on a lot cos of his ways. That's just like that kid is.

	AL: OK. Yeah I go along with that.

	C: Until Green stuck up for him.

	AL: Yeah I go along with that. I think....

	C: Keep an eye on him.

	AL: ...probably true that because I think people who are a bit peculiar, different yeah do get picked on.

	ANALYSIS

	It seems to me that this story helps Chris to familiarise himself with Johnny Casside's story: he is "processing into coherence." There is more evidence that the boys do anecdotalise their understanding in the following quotation from our conversation:

	TRANSCRIPT

	C: If you get any hassle at school from a teacher you go and tell your Dad don't you.

	P: This is an easy place to run away from innit. Hide in the toilets and nobody'd find you there.

	AL: Can you?

	(confusion of voices)

	P: We're not earning sort of respect like doing that cos people think "everyone's thick in that school."

	(confusion of voices)

	P: (untranscribable) when you know it's going on. It's still gonna be around the staff room that everyone runs over there cos no one does anything about it.

	C: When Mr. T...... wasn't gonna be in they were bunking off so me and S...... instead of going home we went into another lesson. We sat in there and it weren't until y'know way into the lesson that the teacher discovered us and S...... was in his own form class and he didn't even sort of realise we shouldn't have been in there.

	ANALYSIS

	Thus I think that the boys were quite capable of and willing to make sense of these particular extracts by internalising them through anecdote. I believe that this part of the conversation counts as an improvement in my practice because I actually brought the boys into this anecdotalising. When Peter said, "Teachers shouldn't have the job if they're scared of the pupils in the first place," I realised that we were not really getting very far in discussing the story in a "literary" way, by which I mean we were not discussing the merits of Sean O'Casey's characterisation or some such thing. My feeling that this was not going to happen was reinforced when Frank asked if I was scared of any pupils. So, after my attempt at wit in saying "You", I invited their anecdotes by asking if the story reflected life in our school. In this way, I tried to help them make sense of the story in their own ways.

	There was another part of the conversation that I liked.

	TRANSCRIPT

	C: Anyway you shouldn't cane the kid.

	AL: Do you think the other kids have got any respect for him?

	?: Who?

	F: That's what he's trying to get innit?

	AL: Slogan. This Slogan fella. Do you think they've got any respect for him?

	C: No.

	AL: No?

	P: No. That one has got some respect for him.

	F: No one.

	C: No one respects no one respects an headmaster really do they.

	P: It's only because of his job that he sat back down wasn't it.

	AL: What does respect mean to you? What d'you what does it mean to you?

	F: Look up to him.

	P: Admire him. To follow suit.

	C: Try to follow an example.

	AL: Combination of all three really I think. If you respect someone you kind of look up to them admire them and respect, hold in high esteem sort of thing. Follow example and things yeah. Do they respect him then? If that's what respect means do they do that?

	P: No.

	C: Cos if they did they wouldn't be playing that card game in the first place.

	P: They would have beat Johnny theirselves.

	AL: So really then what you seem to be saying is because he beats kids up he loses their respect.

	C: And when that George kid stood up he started threatening with all these other things but he didn't you know he...

	P: He didn't threaten him with the cane.

	C: ...threatening his career an' all.

	AL: Yeah.

	C: But he didn't threaten him with the cane.

	AL: Do you think that's fair?

	C: No it's not fair to do that. He was justified by standing up for that Johnny.

	ANALYSIS

	Here we have the boys sharing in a reconstruction of an event in the extract. I think that they make it their own because, although there are certain prompts given by me, the language they use is their own everyday language. I would like to argue that this is an example of them using "constitutive" language. 

	So they  assimilated and reconstructed the story. But have they learned anything? If an intervention is going to be counted as successful, then it is on this criterion that it must, ultimately, be judged. Have I managed to lead their understanding out from them?

	I am not so sure. I think that in the sections I have already quoted there are elements of success: I managed to enter their conversation in such a way as to get them to reconstitute the story in their own words, an example of "constitutive" language; they anecdotalise from the story, again an   example   of   "constitutive" language; they also share opinions about certain moral issues - fairness and respect. My claim here is that they would not have done this if I had not intervened - rather they would most probably continued their ribbing.

	However the reflective qualities I value do not seem to be present. The issues have been raised but not reflected upon. For instance, the quotation above shows the boys using their moral code to interpret the extract. When Chris says, "Cos if they did they wouldn't have been playing that card game in the first place," we are given an insight into his moral code and his understanding of the characters in the story. Similarly, Peter's sense of fair play is demonstrated by his indignant statement, "He didn't threaten him with the cane." And Chris adds his own moral weight to this argument. But this argument seems to become confused when, later in the conversation, there is this:

	TRANSCRIPT

	C: It's a bit bad actually, teachers like that. They can't punish you so they start punishing you in other ways.

	AL: But I mean is teaching all about punishment?

	(pause)

	C: No it's about teaching and you've got to have discipline to teach. If you haven't got discipline and kids don't want to learn you can't teach. Correct me if I'm wrong.

	ANALYSIS
	There was plenty going on in my mind at this point in time. First of all, I was fed up of this uncritical commonsense. Discipline in our society usually means someone imposing their values on an individual's behaviour. Chris is not unusual in his acceptance of these ideas. How could I get him to think more deeply about his ideas?

	What was REALLY annoying me was the arrogance of the way he presented his ideas: "Correct me if I'm wrong" offered a challenge to me which I could not resist. This is not my view of teaching or of discipline. I responded by, perhaps somewhat sensationally saying,

	"I think you're wrong."

	I really wanted him to think about what he was saying, to think more critically about his ideas. Knowing Chris, as I think I do, normal status and all, I felt that my reply might get us somewhere. My ideas were coming into conflict with his and I thought that this might offer us a way forward.  The conversation continued:

	TRANSCRIPT

	C: I'm wrong.

	AL: Yeah I think so.

	C: All right then.

	AL: Cos I don't think discipline necessarily has to come from outside. I don't think somebody has to discipline you. Nobody does it ... well yeah it does happen but I think the best kind of discipline is the discipline you impose on yourself. That's the best and most rigid form of discipline that I've come across.

	C: What about that other kids impose on you?

	AL: No I don't think that's necessarily.

	C: Ennit?

	AL: Not necessarily no.

	P: Yeah but if you get kicked in the ear you're bound not to do it again are you.

	C: Like Simon. Every time we have a stand in teacher he always plays up.

	AL: Well not necessarily.

	P: Yeah.

	AL: Not necessarily.

	C: Until he turns round and hits him then he's quiet.

	ANALYSIS

	I felt that Chris, and Peter too, were of the opinion that violence, in the form of beating or a"kick in the ear," was discipline. I wanted them to reflect, through discussion, on their thinking. It didn't work! There seemed to me to be a real mismatch between what was said here and whatwas said earlier: it was a "bit bad" that Johnny was beaten but there is an implicit acceptance that Simon ought to be beaten. This was an ideal opportunity to enter into discussion about this garbling and to construct a new view of the issue. I tookthat chance but in a very challenging way. I tried to explain my views but by then it was too late. There is hardly any scope for them to see how I arrived at my opinions and there is no evidence to suggest that I was prepared for them to come back at my statement. Actually, i was, and they do, but that they do is a tribute to them, to me. Also, the statement is made in a conflictual, argumentative fashion not in a way which would lead to reflection - both our positions are there and fixed. I am taken back to my analysis of the racist poem incident [see "What Ought I To Have Done?" (Larter 1985)]  where I did exactly this before: allowed little room for the students to manoeuvre their ideas.

	This problem of reflection on ideas and discussion is highlighted even more when I consider other missed opportunities. For instance, there is Frank's statement,

	"He was justified for his punishment."

	This statement is almost totally overlooked. It is left as an unexplored understanding which we failed to interrogate. I did make an attempt to summarise what I thought Frank meant but the effect of my attempt might well have been to alienate the boy even more: to offer support is to ask him to conform to the norms of the classroom. In fact Frank's idea is ridiculed by the snigger immediately after it and Chris' supercilious, condemnatory pseudo question, "What did you say?" His tone of voice here is ready for a "ribbing": in this sense it is not a genuine question. He is not interested in Frank's idea but in having a laugh at his expense. My feeling about this short exchange is that it had developed from the earlier part of the conversation when Frank is "ribbed" about the condom. 

	The main problem, it seems to me, is that the peer group pressure imposed by the informal group was so strong that Frank succumbed to it and said "Nothing" in response to Chris' pseudo-question. I would suggest that my attribution of normal status to Frank (i.e. that he is a bit of a "clown" and ultimately not that intereested in school work) plus the intensity of peer group pressure led to a non-discussion of Frank's point. 

	There is one final point of interest in this conversation. I gave the transcript to the boys and asked them to respond to the queston "How far do you think we got in this discussion? Have we been sidetracked? What ideas would you have liked to have followed up? Can you say why?" Only Frank replied but his reply is interesting.

	"I don't think we got on all that far in the story because Chris' got  ideaand Ive got another Idea. We got sidetracked at the start with Dobby but then we all got on down with the work but still not desciding. I would have like all three of us to get down to if the teacher was Justified with canning the pupil. Because I belive he should have canned the kid."

	Frank sees the problem as being one caused by there being two ideas. It appears to me that the climate of our society militates against the view that discussion is a good thing for it's own sake. For me, having two opinions as in this instance would be a good thing. The achievement of consensus is viewed as the ratioanl end. Perhaps this is reflected in my own classroom where maybe the message that gets across is that discussing is important but that writing - the product of preliminary discussion - is seen as the end: thus to succeed in school you have to write good essays in exams. This is a cynical view but one which pervades schooling. 

	How did all this help me to reformulate my concern about these boys and the process of education?

	My desire to encourage discussion in my classroom as something I value was still as strong. I could see that there were certain things I had begun to put right, as it were, but others that needed more attention. Thus, I thought that my participation in their discussion had had positive effects - they had been led away from their talk about condoms to focus more clearly on the ideas they had about the pieces and certain moral ideas they had. However, I felt that there was still some way to go before I could say that they were engaging in discussion. 

	What did I do to attempt to resolve this problem? 

	Before answering this question, I would like to turn my attention to the group of girls mentioned earlier. It  was  their activities, as well as those of the boys, that influenced my thinking. My imagined solution came from the tension in my mind between the performances of the two groups.
	THE GIRLS

	I had attributed to a particular group of girls (Belinda, Denise, Sukminder, Catherine and Kate) a high level of commitment, a high level of interest and a willingness to cooperate with my teaching style: I typified them as good students. I had also experienced a very powerful episode with them a short time before. They had been working in a room on their own, ostensibly discussing some work on the novel "Kes". They had tape recorded their discussion on two occasions, the second being a "shambles" - in short, they "messed about." Here is an example of what happened.

	TRANSCRIPT

	[There follows a lengthy transcript of the girls talking. It lasts some three pages.]

	B: So Mr. Larter, please excuse us but we can't do our essays.

	K: So that's the end of that.

	C: Where's the other tape?

	S: Talk about the tape on the other side.

	K: That one.

	C: What's on there?

	D: I dunno.

	C: Let's play a tape.

	S: Have a look.

	K: (reads) Talking about "The Gamekeeper". 2DS.

	D: (indistinct - How's that meant to help us?)

	(confusion of voices)

	C: They're second years.

	B: No. It was in the envelope so it's a spare one.

	(pause)

	C: Oh is that for us to talk on if we need it? 

	B: Tuesday night.

	K: Have we spoken on the other side of this one?

	B: Oh this is from last year. (indistinct - we must sound awful)

	S: He'd most probably lay that in his (unclear - filing cabinet) wouldn't he.

	(laughter)

	C: You prick.

	B: I didn't think of it like that.

	(laughter)

	C: Shut up Belinda.

	(laughter)

	K: Turn it off now.

	C: Why?

	S: Why?

	D: Just for a minute.

	K: Just for a moment.

	C: No.

	S: Why? Do you want to eat another crisp then?

	(laughter)

	K: Just for a second.

	C: Why?

	(background noise)

	D: Oh Cathy. Don't be so awkward.

	S: Oh god. Just sit

	K: We've got to listen to the other one.

	S: We're just listening to what's on the other tape.

	S: We've seen what's on the other tape and...

	K: It's not very good.

	S: Yeah.

	(confusion of voices)

	K: They're a bit stupid.

	C: Immature second years. Just like us.

	S: Anyway....

	K: It's getting really hard to speak about the book now.

	S: What shall we talk about.

	(confusion of voices - someone shouting "Yeah Sir Yeah" Laughter)

	S: How about talking the tape we done on the other side?

	K: What the second year....

	D: If you can call it that.

	S: The one we just listened to.

	C: We've already talked about that ent we?

	B: Yeah how many times ....

	S: No. Cos we only done it yesterday. Last lesson.

	D: Yeah but you just said that you didn't think it was very good.

	(confusion of voices)

	S: I thought it was quite good.

	C: Well it was OK.

	S: Do you think we were working well.

	C: (In a silly voice) No.

	All: All right.

	B: Give me nine.

	K: No it's not it's (inaudible)

	(laughter)

	B: Give me five.

	?: Whoo.

	C: Yeah all right all right. Carry on with the tape.

	K: Oh this is getting boring I reckon.

	S:Oh think of some questions.

	C: What're we going to ask ....

	K: Belinda, wake up.

	(laughter)

	K: Don't go to sleep on us.

	B: Yeah well. What are we talking about?

	(laughter)

	C: What else does it say on that bit of paper?

	B: It doesn't say anything else. Read it yourself.

	(sound of paper being screwed up and torn)

	C: Oh Belinda!

	(laughter)

	C: Belinda's getting very agitated.

	S: There there there.

	All: (Sing) Zip-a-de-doo-da.

	(laughter)   

	(Recorded 10th June 1985)

	ANALYSIS

	I was not very pleased to receive this recording. I replied to them on the same tape that night.

	TRANSCRIPT

	"Hello. It's half past twelve that's half past midnight on the tenth well it's the eleventh of June really and I've just listened to the tape that's gone before this. (pause) I find it really difficult to say anything about it to be quite honest because (pause) I'm not really sure what I ought to say. On the one hand, I'm disappointed because I think I expected more than you actually did and on the other hand I can quite understand that you found it difficult to do the kinds of things that I wanted you to do and your natural response was to (pause) not understand what you were doing and try to fill the time in in some way. So I can understand what you did but I'm still a bit disappointed to be quite honest in the sense that I thought that the kinds of motivation that you've got to do well in English lessons would have helped you to attempt to overcome the problems that you'd got. And I don't think there's much evidence on the tape for you to show you actually trying to overcome those problems of not understanding and so on. Because even if you didn't really understand the kinds of things that I wanted you to do you could understand the writing. And I think that you could have at least switched the tape off and started doing some writing or something. You know the kinds of deadlines and the kinds of requirements for fourth year work that you've got. I felt that you were the kind of people that I could have trusted to get on with that kind  of  thing (....) So anyway I hope you take this seriously this writing (sic) that I'm doing cos it is very late and I'm extremely tired and I've done a lot of work this evening but well tell what you think. You know write to me or stop me on the corridor and tell me what you think about things cos I'm always pleased to hear. I'm always ready to hear those sort of comments (....) So I'll see you. Tara." (Recorded 11.6.85)

	[I have edited this transcript by taking out bits which seemed repetitive to me. They are short and are marked by (....)]

	ANALYSIS

	I felt deflated when I heard the recording they had made. It seemed like a breech of my understanding of them as students and people and in my ideas about the capabilities of this group as independent learners. I tried to put my feelings into the message. The main thing that comes across to me as I hear it now is a very strong sense of the effect the incident had on me as an individual. I think I conveyed this to them: it was certainly my intention to do so because I wanted them to realise that I had responded to their activities as a human being, with conflicting emotions, and not as "an angry teacher". It seems to me now that this was an episode when both my stereotyped view of them, the "normal status" I had assigned to them, and their stereotyped view of  me  was  broken down so that there was a possibility of a deeper understanding of each other. I had certainly realised that my expectations of the girls had not been lived out and that my belief  in their motivation was rocked. Thus, my disappointment that they did not start "doing some writing or something." On the other hand, as I said to them in the taped message, I did accept a certain amount of responsibility for their boredom or lack of interest in the activity. I did want them to realise that I feel that education involves a shared responsibility for what goes on. I think I achieved this. When I asked them to go and listen to the recording, here's what they said in reply: (A colleague was working in the room at the same time)

	TRANSCRIPT

	[Here is another lengthy transcript.]

	All: Hi.

	S: Hello, sir.

	(pause)

	K: Well.

	C: Didn't really think that he sort of thought about it like that did you?

	B: No.

	C: Didn't sort of realise that he'd be taking it so seriously.

	S: (unclear - yeah bit upset)

	C: Yeah he took it to heart a bit didn't he.

	B: Mm.

	C: Didn't think it'd upset him that much.

	?: No 

	S: Talk of the devil.

	[Interruption from AL - omitted from transcript]

	S: Who was it said they didn't want to do a piece on "Kes"?

	D: Yeah.

	(confusion of voices)

	K: I didn't mind doing it.

	B: I didn't mind but it was just a bit abrupt you know the way he said....

	D: It would have been better if we'd done it earlier cos....

	B: ....yeah we had to do a lot. It takes a bit of time.

	(confusion o voices)

	C: I don't think it's the right time to be doing it.

	S: Cos we've got a lot of things on our minds.

	D: I think we should have done it straight after "Kes" cos then we'd have known what we were talking about.

	(C?): No I think we should do it now.

	D: Else we forget about it.

	K: After the exams.

	(confusion of voices)

	B: After the exams yeah because then we've got more time.

	K: We won't mind doing it then.

	C: And we're not doing this piece we're doing in English now.

	B: We can do it. We can do the piece. All we wanted was a bit more explanation about it.

	(pause)

	S: Yeah.

	C: Yeah it's not that we don't want to .. I want to do it sort of thing.

	(confusion of voices - It's pretty good.)

	K: Cos it goes into our folder that's why I want to do it.

	S: Yeah that's why (inaudible)

	(confusion of voices)

	K: If he says it's going to show our  skills  in  English, then I'll definitely do it.

	S: I'm doing it.

	(Omission from transcript)

	B: He thinks that he expected too much of us (?: Yeah) but he didn't.

	C: No he said that ....

	K: It's just cos ....

	(confusion of voices)

	B: We need more time.

	K: He didn't explain what we had to do the second time.

	C: On that last tape, that one we've just done, it was really terrible but we didn't sort of have any ideas did we.

	(confusion of voices)

	C:...explain what we were talking about.

	S: And it was like because we didn't have anything to talk about we just sat there and started mucking about.

	B: (unclear - Yeah but the paper of that transcript.)

	D: I wasn't here then.

	B: That's all we wanted.

	K: Yeah but you made the transcript didn't you. You were here then.

	D: Oh yeah but not the very first tape.

	K: I think that's why we messed about though because we didn't know exactly what we had to do.

	D: Because everybody was butting in on that one.

	B: And we didn't know what the rest of the class was doing so we couldn't do any sort of big work.

	S: Like now because Mr. Smith's here we're not mucking about are we.

	(giggle)

	B: I don't think we would be anyway though after listening to that tape.

	(chorus of "No")

	K: No cos it makes you feel guilty.

	(chorus of "Yeah")

	C: Cos we didn't think you know that he'd....

	S: Pretty upset.

	C: Yeah he was wasn't he.

	?: Yeah well.

	(sound of a small falling object)

	S: That's it Denise break the tape.

	(laughter)

	K: Oh no don't start that again.

	C: And erm what else did he say?

	(Omission from transcript)

	C: Sort of I didn't realise he was so disappointed about it, y'know. He said that he thought we was capable of doing better than that y'know he thought... wasn't very pleased with us was he?

	S: Yeah 

	D: (Inaudible)

	(pause)

	C: I didn't realise he was sort of...

	K: Emotional.

	(giggle)

	D: It was bad though that tape wasn't it.

	B: Yeah but we had good reason.

	C: But it made him feel like he's wasting his time didn't it really.

	B: Not if he'd explained it to us.

	S: We didn't do too badly on the other tape though did we?

	C: (inaudible) he's done what he's done sort of thing. He thinks he's done all he needs to do and we've let him down.

	B: Yeah.

	S: Now he he ....

	K: Cos I think he thinks he don't have to give us questions to answer all the time. We should be able to er ....

	(confusion of voices)

	K: Yeah but that was the first one the second time...

	C: He thinks we're capable of sort of talking through it on our own you know without having any ....

	K: Any questions.

	B: We might have been if we'd been given the piece of paper to say what he wanted us to do. Because we didn't understand that we couldn't really go about it in our own way.

	S: Yeah because he wasn't here we couldn't have asked him.

	(pause) 

	S: But next time we'll most probably do a better one because we know he feels bad about it.

	(confusion of voices)

	C: Just want to say we're sorry right.

	All: Sorry.

	K: In this talking now he didn't ask us any questions.

	?: Mm.Yeah.

	ANALYSIS

	It seemed to me that the message I had wanted to transmit had been received. They had responded to the message as both students and as people. When Catherine says  "Didn't think it would upset him that much," there is, for me a real sense of realisation that my response was a genuine, human one. This, for me, was an indication that my message had been taken seriously, had been internalised and a response was there - all the girls I would say feel sorry for upsetting me as a  human being. I feel quite moved by the first few of Catherine's utterances actually because they do respond to me as a human rather than as a stereotype - I get a feeling of genuine human warmth from the  words. Perhaps I noticed the beginnings of a dialogue here about relationships in the classroom, a dialogue which would be about the hidden curriculum, only here the agenda would be "How can we understand each other better?" It is difficult to remember because the incident was so highly charged.

	Similarly, when Belinda says, "He thinks he expected too much of us but he didn't," I feel that my recording had opened another field of interest for me and the girls in which there was a genuine concern about expectations and evaluation of work. They responded to my comprehension of the "mucking about" tape in a very positive way and  their rejection of my idea that I had expected too much of them was made on very sensible grounds.

	I think, therefore, that we had all come away from this incident with a greater degree of understanding of each other.  Our feelings about the incident had been aired and I certainly felt more confident that the girls would be more anxious to show their capabilities as independent learners. I was certainly more anxious to provide them with a context in which their talk could flourish. In this way, I felt that our shared responsibility for learning was a focal point of our work. The main thing to say, as far as my own thinking was concerned, is that I felt that I was now in a position to say that the girls would try harder to cooperate  with my approach to learning.

	As I have already said, it was my intention to spend more time with the "lads" and to ask this group of girls to work in a more independent way. Activities in the classroom between the incident I have just described and the end of October certainly led me to believe that this would be possible. I felt that I was beginning to spend an inordinate amount of time with the girls, talking things through with them, while the "lads" were left to work more on their own, with little to no help from me. So, I decided on a course of action which involved the girls working in a spare classroom. 

	On the same day as the conversation between myself and the boys, reported above, took place (12th November 1985), I asked the girls to do the work the rest of the class were doing but I asked them to work in an adjacent classroom, which at that time was not being used.

	TRANSCRIPT

	[Another lengthy transcript follows]

	K: In the first story the boy changes into summat different. Because he's weak at the beginning isn't he because he's scared.

	B: Yeah what about ....

	C: (untranscribable) scared isn't he.

	(confusion of voices)

	K: The one in the first one in the first story when he comes back at the end he's OK.

	Several voices: He changes yeah.

	S: Yeah. What about the other one? He was weak wasn't he, before, then he goes and hits the headmaster.

	Several voices: Yeah.

	K: I reckon that was a spasm kind of thing.

	(laughter)

	S: What do you mean?

	K: Right it's because he was so angry.

	C: Yeah but it's the same sort of transformation.

	S: Yeah. Yeah.

	K: It only lasted for a little while. Cos when he got home ....

	B: What about the children? The children in "Unman, Wittering and Zigo" change because when the police are drawn in they all change don't they.

	(confusion)

	K: They went from strong to weak the others went from weak to strong.

	S: But the first one wasn't strong at the end. He goes, "Oh you can apologise to the teacher." And he didn't did he.

	D: No.

	S: And then the second one he got strong because he's got the guts to hit the teacher.

	K: Well done Suki.

	(several inaudible utterances)

	C: Not much more to say is there?

	(laughter)

	S: What other links could there be?

	K: (in a tired voice) Oh I don't know.

	(laughter)

	S: What about schools cos ....

	B: That's rather a defeatist attitude to take isn't it Kate.

	S: Schools. Couldn't they be a bit of a thing? couldn't they be a bit of a thing? 

	(sniggering in background: inaudible utterances.)

	S: What about the schools? Oi! Do you reckon schools have anything y'know same about them?

	B: All schools?

	S: Mm. Schools.

	K: They were all influenced by the headmasters because in "Unman, Wittering and Zigo" ....

	(confusion of voices)

	S: Every school's influenced by the headmaster innit.

	B: We don't know who the headmaster is.

	(D?:) Shut up Belinda.

	K: But when the headmaster comes along they all start working don't they. Ow! That aint funny.

	S: Yeah but all schools are influenced by their headmaster aren't they.

	B: Yeah but we don't KNOW who the headmaster is.

	D: Oh shut your face.

	(confusion of voices)

	S: Not headmaster but teacher.

	C: Because they're all set around the same period ....

	(Giggles)

	S: Sixties.

	C: Oh I don't mean menstruation period.

	S: You've got dirty minds you lot have. Right go on Cath.

	(Giggling continues)

	S: Come on Belinda, you're being immature.

	C: because they're all set around the same time.

	(Giggling)

	S: Mm.

	C: Oh shush.

	B: (untranscribable) similar in proportion to each other.

	S: Go on Catherine.

	C: A lot of schools around that time were like that weren't they so (indistinct - they're bound to be the same.)

	S: Yeah you was allowed to hit the pupils yeah.

	?: Denise's crying.

	K: Looks like she's going to cry any minute.

	(confusion of voices)

	C: That was the way they all sort of were.

	S: Like in ........ Junior School we had the dap there didn't we.

	K: Did you?

	B: Yeah.

	K: Did you have the dap?

	(confusion of voices)

	K: We had the ruler.

	(confusion of voices)

	?: They're not allowed to hit you.

	K: We had the ruler didn't we. We were in Mrs. Furlong's class.

	S: So was I in Furlong's.

	K: Not many people got it in our school.

	S: I nearly got it once ....

	(confusion of voices)

	S: .... cos we went over to the shops at dinner time.

	K: I used to open the tuck shop.

	S: Anyway. Sorry. Let's get back to school.

	B: Let's get back to the (untranscribable) yes.

	?: (inaudible)

	S: The main characters. In the last two stories it's got a main character ennit. And in the other one it hasn't got a main character that's a kid has it?

	C: That's the whole point of the story innit that there wasn't a main character in "Unman, Wittering and Zigo."

	S: In this one it has got a main character.

	K: I agree with Cathy on that.

	S: But no in erm no in that one in Unman and that lot (laughs) John's the main character I reckon.

	K: Who?

	S: John.

	B: Yeah cos he was ....

	S: Yeah he was wasn't he.

	(confusion)

	B: Yeah well he's a teacher isn't he and that's what we're talking about : teaching and that.

	K: That's the story though.

	C: Twist in the play isn't it.

	K: Oh.

	S: The stories are different aren't they. Y'know they're about the same things but completely different.

	(inaudible utterances. Laughter)

	K: Suki, you're making that look like a bun.

	C: yeah it does don't it. Can't think of anything else to say about this can you?

	ANALYSIS

	I felt unhappy about this recording for several reasons and happy on very few counts. To start with the happy feelings, I did think that the girls showed that they could offer ideas to their colleagues which were occasionally taken and thought about. For instance, there was the part of the conversation I have just quoted where they talked about the characters changing. I was pleased with Sukminder's performance here. I felt she offered her ideas to the others in a way which challenged the simplistic early statement, "The boy changes into summat different," which I would suggest Catherine offers as a way in for their talk. Sukminder really interrogates the idea that the "transformation" of the boys in the two extracts is as straightforward as Kate seems to suggest when she says, "They went from strong to weak the others went from weak to strong." Sukminder's challenging response, "But the first one wasn't strong at   the  end," is a very insightful response which could open a train of thought. My feeling is that it was made in too challenging a way - she supports her idea but it remains unchallenged. The image of a pool of ideas like water comes to mind. They all seem prepared to throw a bucketful in but seem unprepared to take a close look at what is in the water. They are content to look at what is on the surface, but are missing the chance to delve deeper.

	Still, I could see that they were at least prepared to pool ideas and that there was some faltering attempt to think them through in the group. I was also impressed by the way they marshalled each other into participating in the conversation. Here again Sukminder was quite impressive with her "Oi!" at one stage. The role of chair was taken by Catherine several times, an important role for the purposes of organising discussion. They try very hard to stick to the task I had asked them to do, even though there seems to be some "mucking about" going on. In fact, it seems to me that they see anecdote as being "illicit" talk - not an unusual state of affairs I think. They show similar awareness as the boys in this respect but I would expect them to have stories to tell about something like corporal punishment.

	All these are indicators that the girls can think their ideas through, or at least I felt that they were beginning to exercise their capabilities. However, there were aspects of the whole experiment which I felt very uneasy about. I felt that the tendency to "muck about" was caused by a possible belief that they were being neglected: even though someone, or a group of people are successful, that does not mean that they should be denied access to the teacher. I was overlooking the notion of negotiation which is so important for learning. By this I mean that even if students are to make sense of things in their own ways, they need to have the security of knowing that this is an acceptable thing to do. Also, even though I deemed the girls "good students" that should not mean that they are left to their own devices. I felt even worse when I remembered Sukminder's words, "Because he wasn't there we couldn't ask him."

	There were other things which were worrying me. During this period of time I had been focussing on just two groups out of the whole class. What had been happening to them during this experiment? If these two groups did have good ideas, and I have just indicated that I felt that they had, it was a pretty good chance that the rest of the class had similar good ideas. If I could come up with some way of allowing all these ideas to be shared, then the possibilities for discussion to take place could be tremendous. Anyway, it occurred to me that with my ideas about discussion that there was some need to put different kinds of demands on the students' language and thinking. To bring the ideas and talk of the whole class together seemed logical. 
	CONCERNS RECAST

	1. I felt that I was focussing on the two groups of students to the possible detriment of the rest of the class.

	2. I felt that the ideas the groups had shown needed to be brought into the context of the whole class so that all the students of 5E had a greater chance of discussing these ideas.

	3. I felt that I needed to integrate an investigation of the learning of the whole class into my understanding of my practice.

	4. I felt that there was not enough demand being placed on the students' language.

	5. My experiment with the girls out of the room had not been satisfying.

	How could I change my practice so that I could attempt to improve it in light of these concerns?

	On 13th November 1985, I went to a meeting of the Oracy in English group. This is a small group of teachers of English who meet twice termly to share ideas concerning our practices. At this particular meeting, Alan Howe, the Project's Director, suggested that we should take a look at whole class discussion. It emerged from the talk that followed that all those present felt discussions with the whole class were highly problematic. However, we all felt that it was an aspect of our practices which we had neglected. I felt that this might be a possible solution to my concerns, mentioned above. 

	What are the problems of whole class discussion?

	My experience as a teacher told me that the size of the group was unwieldy. The discussion could become a shouting match across the classroom; lots of people who have valid points to make become disillusioned and begin conversations which run contrary to the discussion; some people are not interested in the topic of discussion and they can "muck about," again spoiling the discussion. These are all discipline problems for the teacher which make whole class discussion too tiring and difficult to organise. There are also the problems to do with learning. Who learns what in a whole class discussion? The Bullock Report (1975) is very helpful here. It says,

	"In many of [the students'] specialist subject lessons in the secondary school the experience is likely to give him much less scope for exploratory talk. There is a greater probability of direct teaching, with the teacher controlling the lesson by question and answer, and the pupils' responses shepherded within defined limits."

	There is an implicit negativity in this  statement.  Why do I view this form of question and answer as "bad"? 

	I would not necessarily see  it as being purely "bad" - it obviously has its place. Mind you, it is often actually what Stubbs refers to as "conversational control." (Stubbs 1976)  I do think, however, that talk is a vital part of learning. The precise relationship between language and thought is unclear but it seems to me that if we have the opportunity to enter into dialogue with others we can negotiate our understandings and meanings, thus probing our thinking and taking it deeper. It seems to me that meaning is constructed in the tension between dialogue and reflection. Support for this view comes from Nicholls and Wells (1985) who say 

	"Acquiring knowledge and making it one's own necessarily involves two kinds of interaction: interaction between the new and what is already known and interaction between the learner and the teacher. It is also increasingly being recognised that the process is greatly facilitated by interaction amongst groups of learners, as they explore a topic together, evaluating each other's suggestions and trying out alternative formulations."

	Do you have to have a whole class discussion to facilitate this?

	No. The sequence of lessons, as they were planned (see below) utilised small groups as well as the whole class because this seemed to be a way of placing a different demand on the language of the students, and thus on their thinking. There was also  a felt problem in whole class discussion - the Oracy in English Group without exception felt that this was one area of their work which was unsatisfactory. 

	How did all this lead to an imagined solution to my concerns?  

	I felt that I was leaving the students in their small groups for too long without much further demand being put on their talk: I felt that there needed to be a sharper focus on what they had come to understand. I wanted to try something which structured  lessons more. I felt that, although there was possibly a lot being said and believed in the small groups, there was the dimension of the public audience missing. The idea of the whole class as a kind of clearing house for points of interest became alluring. I did not hold much hope of there being deep and meaningful discourse in this context because of the problems of group size, peer group pressure, embarrassment or whatever. But it did offer in my mind a possibility of there being a different forum for the students' ideas and language. To me, this was a "good thing" because it was potentially fulfilling ideas about interactive learning, as expressed in the work of writers like James Britton, Douglas Barnes and Gordon Wells.

	What was the imagined solution?

	Alan Howe suggested that he would come in to observe a series of lessons in which there was a whole class discussion. Together, we planned a sequence of lessons about a controversial issue. This idea arose because it seemed a logical way of fostering discussion of any kind - there is a good chance that the students would have opinions about an issue. We decided that it would also be a good idea to ask the students what they would like to have a discussion about. So we came up with a list of topics, which were: nuclear weapons; the food we eat; age related laws; school; television; crime and punishment. These seemed to be "live" issues, in the sense that they were things that the students had expressed opinions about or had recently been dealt with in the media. We also felt that the students would have diverse views on the issues, if not with each other then at least  authority or prevailing attitudes.

	I also remembered reading the work of Lawrence Stenhouse. He had a lot to say about "procedural neutrality" and I felt that it was important that I allowed the students to make their own decisions about issues before I furnished them with mine. I had learned this from my understanding of the racist poem incident. I wanted the students to learn from the discussions they would have so I felt it to be important that I acted as a guide more than an instructor. 

	What is "procedural neutrality"? 

	Let me say to start with that I do not view this as a simple concept. It is very complicated because of the value-laden nature of the process of education. How can a teacher be "neutral" in the classroom? To be more specific, how can a teacher be "neutral", thus hiding her/his values, about specifically controversial issues? I find this a very difficult thing to do or even to contemplate. Perhaps this is because I tend to hold very strong opinions about controversial issues.

	But is this what Stenhouse meant?  

	I actually think not. The neutrality that Stenhouse intended was to do with the way teachers organise and chair discussions in the classroom. We are in very strong positions in schools and it would be very easy to use these positions, based on, say our supposed wisdom of age and experience, to attempt to indoctrinate students into a particular way of seeing and interpreting the world. Stenhouse, in line with the interactionist perspective I have been referring to, felt that students ought to have the space and time in schools to make their own judgments and statements about things. In this way, teachers were asked to take the role of questioner, attempting to encourage rational argument rather than to inculcate a particular world view. I felt that this was something I would like to try - especially after my previous interventions had been so unsatisfactory to me. It seemed like a way of bringing the students ideas together without that "contrived accident" feeling that I often have about their work - for example, I have tried to put together some of their ideas in the form of extracts from their journals but this has always smacked of being tailored by me. I wanted them to have a chance to come into contact with each others' ideas in the raw state for a change.

	Anyway, they decided that they would like to discuss age related laws. So, Alan and I came up with the following plans for two or maybe three lessons. 

	PLANNING FOR DISCUSSION 

	Alan and I were intending to keep a "shared observation diary", in which Alan would make notes during the lesson, jot down questions and thoughts about the  action both during and immediately after the event. After this, he would pass the diary to me for my responses to his jottings, questions and thoughts. I would also have the opportunity to make my own observations. These would be based on the fieldnotes I kept in my own journal as a matter of course. The idea comes from "The Ford Teaching Project." (Adelman, Elliott et al. 1974) In line with this project's thinking, we intended to interview students to obtain their perspectives on the lessons.  All these things were accomplished in our attempt to facilitate a dialogue about my practice with a view to improvement. We also made tape-recordings of events in the classroom, using whatever equipment was available: in this case, we used portable audio cassette recorders with built in microphones. For the whole class discussion, we tried to use a "pressure zone" microphone. Unfortunately, this did not function so we had to rely on the built-in condenser microphone in the tape-recorder. The resulting soundtrack is not crystal clear but is nevertheless audible. Video cameras were not available at this time. Alan sat in a corner of the room where he was conspicuous though not a focal point. The class were accustomed to his presence, as he had been in on several previous occasions in connection with his work as Director of the Wiltshire Oracy Project. We felt that issues would arise more naturally in using this form of enquiry, although we were both aware of the thinking of various writers in the field of classroom   interaction (e.g. Barnes) so our thinking was bound to have been influenced by this.

	Here is a starter sheet we compiled to provide the students with some initial thoughts:

	HOW OLD DO YOU HAVE TO BE:
	IS          SHOULD BE
	SEX AND MARRIAGE
	Get married with parents' consent
	--------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Get married without parents' consent
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Have sexual intercourse
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	DRINKING AND SMOKING

	Go into a pub
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Buy an alcoholic drink in a pub
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Buy alcohol in a supermarket
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Buy cigarettes
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	DRIVING
	Drive a moped
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Drive a motorbike
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Drive a car
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	MONEY AND HOUSING
	Take out a mortgage
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Get a council house
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Buy something on hire purchase
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	EDUCATION
	Lowest age at which you can leave school
	--------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Highest age at which you can leave school
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	VOTING
	Vote in a local elections
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Vote in general elections
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------

	THE LESSON PLANS.

	WHOLE CLASS DISCUSSION: HANDLING AN ISSUE

	Session one.

	1. Hand out the "How old do you have  to  be to:" sheets. [see above] Students fill one in on their own first.

	2. Come together in pairs to discuss their answers. Argument here.

	3. In groups of 3/4 they make a "Teenage Charter," using five of the items from the list as their basis. (They can add their own.) "We believe that ......" or "What we would like to see changed is ......" should form the underlying ideas of their charter. These are to be written/drawn on big sheets of sugar paper for display. 

	4. When the students are happy with their efforts, display the charters and encourage them to look at each others' work.

	5. Journal writing. What did they think of the activities? How did it help them to think about the issue of "Age Related Laws"? What do they think about the items on the handout? 

	6. Vote on which part of the issue is most important, to clarify where we go with the discussion next lesson.

	Session two.

	1. All of us sit in a circle and I'll tell them about the purposes of discussion. (To find out what others think; to organise your own thoughts into language; to re-organise your thoughts in light of what others say; to help other people to re-organise their thoughts.)

	2. Explain motivations for doing this and why Alan is sitting in the corner. (M.Ed. research; Oracy Project)

	3. Explain that for discussion to be fruitful there has to be a certain amount of procedure - so, any mucking about and we'll have to do something about it; try not to talk when others are talking; (listen - think - respond.) I'm going to attempt to be equal in terms of my power in the discussion - I'm not going to chair it formally [hence the circle] but I will step in as the teacher if necessary; it's OUR discussion. I don't want name-calling because that leads to disorganisation but I do want to find areas of disagreement and to really argue it through.

	DISCUSSION (I'm going to play this as    a    tactical,   
	exploiting situations as they arise activity.) First look at their posters again.

	ACTION

	26th November 1985

	Alan Howe was in the classroom acting as a participant-observer. He sat in the corner of the room making notes on my performance as well as those of the students. He decided to concentrate on a group of girls who were sitting close to him: Marjorie, Mary, Karen and Baljit. At the same time he was jotting down random observations about the life of the classroom.

	[I am going to try to present this work in the form of question and answer. This will be formed from a combination of Alan's comments in our "shared observation diary", my own comments in the same document, comments by me now, in answer to the questions and ideas formed in the diary, plus the thoughts of the students in the form of transcribed interviews. It is an idea which comes from a paper written by Lomax and Whitehead (forthcoming) written for BERJ]

		QUESTION

	After introducing the charter, "AL goes straight over to the group with Kevin and Peter in it to get them to actually share ideas.

	Raises an important issue. If the skilful intervention of the teacher is necessary to help kids extend, question and develop their ideas, then is it fair on the others to spend so long with a "difficult" group? 

		ANSWER

	Your question is a very good one and raises yet another dilemma faced by teachers. I've worked on spending longer with each group. This is because I felt, after looking at a video, that I spent just a few seconds really getting control statements out and then moving on. So I disciplined myself to stay for 5 or so minutes. This raises the problem you mentioned - what about other groups? Well, I do try to get round & distribute my time more effectively but a) I get drawn to naughty boys b) someone asks a question and c) I just don't do it that efficiently. Of course, all groups (& individuals) should have equally easy access to teacher and I think we should be in the business of finding ways of making it happen BUT some students ask more questions than others, both explicitly and implicitly. (I mean asked by them directly and asked by their manner) My feelings are that by spending more time with one group you a) give them more of your time but b) exclude other students who may need help.

	This is just another aspect of the dialectic art of teaching:

	- to intervene or not to intervene

	- how to intervene

	- when to intervene

	- reasons for intervention

	-different kinds of activity need more/less intervention.

		QUESTION

	By going over to Kevin and Peter's group, is AL still failing to get the group to talk to each other - their comments still seem to go to him, rather than to each other.

	What was your impression of what was happening during this time?

		ANSWER

	I agree with what you say. I felt very frustrated by this episode. It seemed to me that I had not succeeded and that Peter was not trying. I felt I had to make the attempt to show the activity was intended as a serious one: ignoring them might a) have the effect of them thinking "this doesn't count" b) allow them to think that I didn't care about their behaviour. Another dilemma. I don't think they really cared anyway!

		QUESTION

	Doing the charter - I get the impression that the technicalities of organising ideas onto sugar paper are replacing discussion of the issues - concerns over stencils, which felt-tips work, who's doing what. The group I'm sitting near to are now almost totally obsessed by designing the charter. What we want is something closer to the lads by the window who only now (37 minutes into the lesson) have got up to get the wherewithal for their charter. 

	How did you feel about this stage?

		ANSWER

	Remembering that the purpose of the lessons was to facilitate better discussion, I was worried that the activity was coming to dominate. Perhaps it would anyway. I could see the care with which they were making the things (product-oriented minds?) and not only the girls with neat handwriting, but as I went round I thought I heard a degree of "fine tuning" sort of discussion. They were still engaged. I wanted them to speed up. There was no chance.

	Your observation about the way I presented the activity was extremely useful. Had I placed the emphasis on the discussion of points for inclusion rather than on presentation I'm sure that the lesson would have gone differently.

	However, just because the lesson goes off in a different direction to the one planned doesn't mean the lesson's failed. I think they've had a chance to "tidy up" their ideas plus a chance to mull over in a second short session. Now, this might have allowed them scope for reflection and continuity which could otherwise have disappeared in a week's time. It's  possible. I  did  feel [and I have no evidence for this, except my professional integrity] that their approach the following morning was more serious and considered. 

		QUESTION

	So it's really a question of learning a lot about your students as they are working and being flexible.

	What was your impression when you first "visited" the window group? Up until 45 minutes into the lesson they've just got on, from my perspective, with considerable enthusiasm.

	My impression is that, together, they swapped ideas but there was quite a lot of rubbishing going on as well.

		ANSWER

	When I first visited the window group, I saw Simon writing "sex at any age" on a piece of paper and I thought that was stupid. I asked him why he was doing that and he said "cos they told me to." I felt that Simon ought to have asserted his ideas better. I asked him whether he agreed with the statement. He said that he didn't.

	Now, I had felt that they'd been working well but obviously there had been some elements of it that had not been working well. Articulation of thoughts, considered reflection and rational argument was not going on. Why? Were the boys being silly because of the mention of sexual intercourse? Was there an element of physical persuasion of Simon? I entered into a discussion of the issue with the boys and found that had some well-considered views but that they could not underpin them with evidence or reason and that they did have a tendency to "show off" to each other. ("I think I'm responsible enough to have it off." Victor) Am I right in this or am I being over-sensitive? I really wanted them to express their views openly, honestly and in a thoughtful way. I found that difficult. They had obviously been discussing their ideas in a semi-flippant way. So I thought anyway.

	My role is to create a wider space for a fuller exploration - but also, interestingly, flattening out the enthusiasm, perhaps also to throw spanners into the works:

	"Come on you still haven't really suggested why there should be an age limit."

	"What do you mean by 'Getting into trouble?'"

	"So the law's there to protect people is it?" were just three of the questions you asked.

	So it seems to be a question of impetus and direction - and to encourage the hypothesising and speculation that ought to characterise this stage of the lesson plans - the questioning of each other, the ability to see the logic or illogicality of ideas, or "What would be the consequences of that be?"

		QUESTION

	How did you feel at the end of the lesson? How do you think the students felt?

		ANSWER

	At the end of the lesson I felt disappointed because they hadn't completed the poster & hadn't looked at the things, written in journals or voted. I felt as though I'd failed because of this - it felt worse because you were observing. What had gone wrong? I think this is one reason why some kind of reflection is necessary. I can now see something positive emerging from the "failure" of the lesson.

	As for the students....I'm not sure. I think some of them possibly felt they'd had a chance to air their views and make a poster. I'm not sure that they could see the point of it.
		QUESTION

	OBSERVATIONS ON A.L'S ROLE

	- To set the group on task/keep on task.

	- Monitor groups - teacher on red alert.

	- To get pupils to explain their decisions - to ask   incisive questions - those which further the   discussion.

	- To help pupils listen to each other.

	- To create a safer place for these activities.

	- To develop ideas (e.g. Why do you think that?)

	- To see the consequences of adopting a point of view.

	- To help speculation (extension of thinking e.g. What   would happen if....?)

	- To take the issue seriously.

	-To introduce ways of talking about the topic, a   vocabulary, a way of putting things

	-To administer doses of admonishment, support,   suggestions, encouragement.

	How much of each of these activities depends on - what?

	On where the teacher perceives each group is at. How do

	you make that decision?

		ANSWER
	Teachers' perceptions are based on a great many very spurious judgements, according to Nell Keddie (1971) Interventions are made on this basis. So, I think I know studsent X because I have taught her for 3 years. Are my judgements correct? NOt always obviously. I think the more time you spend actually talking to students the more you get to know them. That may sound obvious, a truism. It's problematic for me, in that I can't prove that X is a nuisance, Y is OK, Z can't cope with this or that - I have little or no evidence. I can only put my hand on my heart and say "I think this is true." Really that isn't enough. But you do build a complex picture of people by your dealings with them in classrooms, in the corridor etc. Are the judgements we make rigorous enough? My feeling is very firmly that they certainly are not. But it is on the basis of these that we do intervene, write reports, mark writing, talk to, discuss, talk to parents.

		QUESTION
	How do you get better at this? Is it possible to know students better?

		ANSWER
	Yes, we do believe we know, when, perhaps, it might be more honest and more useful in practical terms to accept that we can't know, can only say - under these circumstances, given these opportunities, student X revealed this, that or the other.

		QUESTION
	Is there any other evidence to indicate the success or failure of the first lesson? 

		ANSWER
	There is this transcript. (Unfortunately, the actual bit of conversation was recorded over during a later lesson. This bit had already been transcribed. / in the text indicates a pause in the speech of the person, not quite a full stop.)

		TRANSCRIPT

	KAREN AND BALJIT TALKING ON 26TH NOVEMBER 1985

	K: What have you got for "with parents' consent" - getting married?

	B: I think it is sixteen now.

	K: Right right.

	B: Erm I think it is sixteen, but they should really get married when they're / nineteen.

	K: Well I thought about getting your parents' consent - you should still have your parents' consent at eighteen, but then it would, if you didn't want your parents consent you could wait till you're twenty. Cos at the moment it is eighteen, I know that much.

	B: Mm. I put without parents' consent / Well I think, you know, you shouldn't have sexual intercourse until you're about over twenty.

	K: No, I said / it / I know it's sixteen now but I think it should go up till eighteen. Well I'd prefer to wait till I'm married but the law says you got to be, you have to be sixteen. Right now, erm, "going into a pub."

	B: Yeah.

	K: I put you have to be sixteen. No you have to be fifteen to go into the pub, but only, erm eighteen to buy the actual drink. You can, you can't drink in there until you're eighteen.

	B: No. Eighteen. That's what I put, yeah.

	K: And I reckon it should, to go into a pub it should be sixteen, to buy alcohol inb a pub you could be eighteen.

	B: Eighteen, yeah.

	K: "Buy alcohol in a supermarket" / eighteen, which it already is anyway and to buy cigarettes, sixteen but I reckon it should be eighteen.

	B: I reckon it should be nineteen.

	K: Eighteen. (laughs)

	B: I won't argue

		ANALYSIS
	Baljit's comment here, "I won't argue," is significant. In view of the idea behind the lesson plans and the value I place on discussion, this is a disappointing statement. My instructions to the students when they began to share their ideas, remembering my intention of opening up discussion of the issue of age-related laws, was "Try and agree on what you've put on the paper (....) Have a look at what you've written, think about your reasons for writing it and then agree. About five minutes discussion OK." It seems that this actually causes problems for this pair of students - the emnphasis is on agreeing, on consensus. The girls, particularly Baljit, are at pains not to allow disagreement. She seems to be very tentative, not wanting to come into conflict with Karen, who manages the conversation, controlling the pace and the content. She elicits passive agreement, in the main, from Baljit.

		TRANSCRIPT (cont)

	K: That's allright then. Right, erm, drive a moped. It's sixteen.

	B: Yeah.

	K: But I reckon it should be eighteen.

	B: Eighteen yeah.

	K: "Drive a motorbike"/ it's sixteen but I reckon it should be nineteen.

	B: I think it should be eighteen.

	K: Nineteen.

	B: Cos you you I mean eighteen, it's quite old, innit, it's not too young is it?

	K: No, you're right. Er, "drive a car."

		ANALYSIS
	This is the only time that Baljit takes issue with Karen. The disappointment is that it does not really result in any elaboration. Again, I am inclined to think that my instruction at the start of the activity caused this, to some extent. I am not surprised that Baljit does not argue or that Karen was doing the leading - I would have expected that. Perhaps this is a case of being justified for my beliefs about the students!

		TRANSCRIPT (cont)

	K: Er, drive a car, I said twenty. But it, I know that It's sixteen / erm not er eighteen, drive a car, but erm I said wait till you're twenty.

	B: I think eighteen would be all right.

	K: Twenty. No right. Take out a mortgage, it's eighteen I think, if I'm right it's eighteen, and I said it should be twenty cos you're probably sort of sorted yourself out a bit and that, by then, by the time you're twenty.

	B: Yeah that's right.

	K: Now, getting a council house. I'm really sort of stuck on this one. If you're, if you're sixteen right and you're pregnant, a pregnant woman, she can get a erm a council house at sixteen, so really you could say sixteen. But apart from that I think it should be eighteen, but with that exception.

	B: Yeah, yeah.

		ANALYSIS
	On this issue of council housing, as her tone  of  voice throughout the conversation shows, Karen shows a real interest. Her lack of understanding of the issue, "I'm really sort of stuck on this one," highlights the need for background knowledge so that she can argue her case through. 

	TRANSCRIPT

	K: Right, erm, "leaving school." The lowest age is sixteen which I think it should stay and eighteen I think should stay anyway.

	B: Stay yeah.

	K: Right, what do you think on voting in local elections?

	(Three second pause)

	B: I think erm that I think it is sixteen at the moment, or is it eighteen?

	K: Eighteen I think.

	B: Yeah I think eighteen. Erm, but I think it should be sixteen.

	K: Yeah. 

	B: Yeah?

	K: Give us a bit more / thing / but with local elec. / What about general elections?

	B: Well I thought, you know, I think it is eighteen.

	K: Yeah.

		ANALYSIS
	This is an interesting moment. Karen has asked a direct question of Baljit. The effect seems to be to throw her mind off balance, as it were. Perhaps she is merely unaccustomed to having her views on a subject asked for, My feeling is that this could be the case but I am inclined to think that my initial instructions have contributed to this kind of consensus-seeking talk: Baljit is thrown because she has no desire to be controversial and upset Karen. Look at her tentative statement next.

	TRANSCRIPT

	B: But I think you should be nineteen.

	K: Yeah.

	B: And you think?

	K: Well I put eighteen because erm I just thought, you know, I mean, when I'm eighteen I don't think erm I would want to vote.

	B: No, nor me.

	K: Yeah, or nineteen. I reckon it should stay at eighteen.

	B: At eighteen or nineteen.

	K: Yeah.

	(Nine second pause)

	K: Sir.

	AL: Yes?

	K: We've finished and we've discussed it.

		ANALYSIS
	There is an indication of how strong the urge to agree is in this bit of talk. When Baljit says, "At eighteen or nineteen," I think she is wanting to assert her own idea but to accomodate Karen's perspective as well. Baljit seems very dependent on Karen all the way through the talk so that when she is asked for her opinion, she is thrown. Allied to my instructions, this leads to a very high degree of seeking agreement.

	At the end of the transcript, when Karen attracts my attention, they were certain they had "finished." Really, they had hardly even started! There was no recognition of this - partly my fault but not, I  feel  entirely. Encouraging students to feel dissatisfied with their own work is something that I would say I am striving towards but this seems to indicate that I am some way from achieving this.

	Robert Hull could be helpful here.

	"When tasks are timed - time itself being now a commodity rather than a context, and the orientation being to that commodity - task orientation appears to be wasteful and lacking in urgency. Saying this topic takes two weeks and this course a term, presupposes a relation between time and task that is opposed to that reconciliation between human needs and the temporal demands of work that the term "task orientation" was coined to describe." (Hull 1985)

	The small units of time that we are expected to work in militate against really reflective learning. By this, I mean that the urge to "finish" is heightened, as Hull suggests, by the short time available in which to work and thus any need to revise is not even felt because of the urgency of the temporal.

	PREPARING FOR THE WHOLE CLASS DISCUSSION
	The class decided that they wanted to discuss the issue of driving and age. I felt that this would limit the discussion somewhat but I was attempting to work in a way which allowed them to make some decisions about what they talked about.

	I tried to impose certain restrictions on myself. These were: 

	1) strategic/procedural neutrality (Stenhouse 197?) i.e. I would try not to make value-laden comments. My role was to be a "neutral" chairperson. I saw this as a way of participating in the discussion without using my status and authoritative knowledge in a constituted way. (Hull op. cit.) 

	2) questions limited to the open variety [e.g. "What would be the consequences?"]

	3) if I was asked my opinion, I would try to show my doubts and uncertainties, with the hope that this might encourage a deeper exploration of the issues rather than turning to me for the "right" answer.

	4) allowing the students to impose their own agenda on the discussion. I felt that because they had done some thinking on the subject of age-related laws, they ought to be able to tell me where they were in their thinking. I was prepared to sit and wait for them to start. (I had some tactics up my sleeve if this did not work!)

	I  also  wrote  some points in my journal the night before the event: I hoped that this might help me to perform as I intended and avoid saying things like I had done in the previous lesson - "agree" when I meant "argue." Here are my notes:

	Things to avoid saying

	-"That's a good point."
	-Repeating a student's statement.
	-"Does everyone agree with that?"
	-Interrupting a contribution to pass moral judgement. (e.g. "Shut up, Kevin, you pratt.")
	-"Yes!" or "Oh no!"
	-Use my factual knowledge.
	-Ask closed questions (e.g. "How old do you have to be?")
	-Steering them to a generalised moral standpoint.
	-Personal opinions.

	Things I may use

	-What would be the consequences of ....?
	-Does anyone want to take issue?
	-Step in a "teacher" if name-calling or similar starts.
	-As a last resort say something controversial to move the discussion on.
	-Fairness - allow everyone space.
	-Use circle in clockwise and anti-clockwise directins.
	-Bring as many as possible into discussion.
	-Show doubts, misgivings, uncertainties.

	I'm feeling pretty anxious about this lesson. It's not something I particularly relish because of the real hurly-burly that goes on. I'm not sure about the implications of my attempts at "procedural neutrality". We'll see. Will it improve the process of education? I'm also very uncertain about the effects of social status on the discussion and the quality of social relations in the group.

	I'll try to be less deadpan serious about it and I'll try to play the whole thing by ear and not express my own values too often. If the discussin doesn't get under way, I'll have to try some of the strategies I can draw on (e.g. note-making, pair work, [as a last resort] a controversial statement from me.)

	Before the class came in, I arranged the chairs in a circle and took the tables to the sides of the room. I took a seat in the circle to symbolise my attempt at participation rather than authority.

	ACTION
	I began by explaining what we were going to try to do and the reasons for doing it - the research angle and what I wanted my role to be. I said, 

	"I don't want to be the chairman but I will take the role of teacher if necessary." (Tape- recording of lesson 3rd December 1985)

	After this, I asked the students to circulate and look at each others' posters, making notes, where they thought necessary, on the issue of age-related laws, not on the quality of the posters. 

	I allowed about five minutes for them to investigate and then we returned to the circle. My first tactic was to ask the deliberately wide open question, "Who wants to start off then?"

		QUESTION
	Why start off in such a way?

		ANSWER
	Because I wanted them to realise that this was their discussion and that I meant what I said about them imposing their ideas and structure on proceedings. I wanted to see if anyone would start the ball rolling - I doubted that they would. I expected exactly what happened - there was silence, tense, embarrassed silence. I lived with it for what seemed like minutes, (it was in fact 1 minute and 42 seconds, with a four second interchange between Simon and I about how he should make his comments public. The spell after this interchange lasts for 1 minute and 11 seconds.) tightening the tension, to see if someone would break it, and to test myself: would I be the one to break this impressive impasse?

	I was but in a way which quite impressed me. I said that they should write down what was in their minds. As soon as I spoke, I sensed the relief and release. This was a recognition that they had plenty to say but needed the security of "speaking to themselves" first as a kind of rehearsal. I also recognised that for any of the class to speak up in such circumstances would be a very risky thing to do - ridicule was a very large threat to them all, as were uncertainty about what I wanted of them, uncertainty about what to say how to say it and social embarrassment to name but a few. Without mental preparation, guiding framework or motivating force, the students were unwilling to break the silence by saying a thought. Offering the time and space of writing for two minutes, allowed them to visualise what could be said, and how to say it.

	Anyway after this brief piece of writing had been done, we came together as a group again. Here's what happened.

		TRANSCRIPT

	AL: All right. Who'd like to start off by reading out what they've written on the paper?

	(pause)

	Peter: Me.

	AL: Go on then Peter.

	Peter: Right I'd like to drive a car at the age of sixteen but I think the law should be sev.... eighteen or nineteen. Because if you were younger, if you let people drive younger you'd have loads of kids piling into cars, which could cause accidents.

	(pause)

	(....)

	AL: Would anybody like to take issue with what Peter's said, about young people getting in a car and everybody piling into them?

	(pause)

	AL: Is that true? (pause) You think it is true Simon. 

	Simon: Yeah.

	AL: Can you tell us why?

	Simon: Cos erm sort of (untranscribable) racing doesn't it.

	Margaret: Tut. No.

	Peter: Yes it does. They're racing ent they.

	(inaudible utterances in background)

	AL: Is that what you meant Peter?

	Peter: What?

	AL: Is that what you meant?

	Peter: No.

	AL: Can you explain what you meant then?

	Peter: Loads of kids shouting round in the car and the driver wouldn't know what he's doing and couldn't concentrate on the road. Might go across traffic lights that are on red.

	Margaret: Most kids at the age of seventeen or eighteen they're going in pubs ent they drinking and they're going home and have an accident.

	AL: Is that what you meant Simon?

	Simon: What?

	AL: What Margaret's just said.

	Simon: Sort of. They go sort of tearing round the streets ent they. Roadhogs.

	Frank: Going round the place like posers.

		QUESTION
	Discussion needs a "magic" ingredient to move the focus away from the teacher's stage managing / ring master role and onto the issue itself - there seem to be little bursts of this happening so far. What is the magic ingredient?

		ANSWER
	I think it is a very complex situation. There were some students there who were just too shy to say what was in their minds. There were others who were probably intimidated by the whole thing. There were those who felt that they had something important to say and said it. There were those who had something important to say but needed help to say it. I feel that a big factor influencing the decision to say or remain silent was/is social confidence and an awareness that you know how to clear the ground for yourself to make a statement. There are the verbal markers that Peter and Simon put down before they speak: "Me," and "Yeah." It is however only on rare occasions that they showed any real capability to do such things. 

		QUESTION
	Most of the group did not employ any strategies which would give them talking space. The great majority of this tactical work you did for them - quite justifiably in one sense because you want to make space for them to keep some semblance of discussion. You were still on "red alert" in order to orchestrate the discussion. Do they feel lost in discussion perhaps, losing track, unable to think straight, bemused, bewildered?

		ANSWER
	I like the notion of the conductor - it does seem to be something like this. There is no score, only a vague idea about the theme, an orchestra who are not accustomed to playing in that particular way but who have played together in small combos, quartets and trios, although only very rarely in a group as large as this. The result may not be harmonious but I did try to impose some form to the piece, some rhythm and direction. 

		QUESTION
	Can you give us some examples of this?

		ANSWER
	There was this moment in the lesson:

		TRANSCRIPT

	AL: Let me ask you a really sort of direct question then. If you had to wait until you were eighteen to do all these things that you've got listed on your sheets, if the law suddenly changed and it said that you can't do any of these things here (....) until you're eighteen. Eighteen's the magic age you can do anything you like then you go from being a minor to being an adult (....) So at one minute past midnight on your eighteenth birthday you suddenly get all these rights. Do you think that's fair? (pause) You don't Simon. Why not? It makes sense to me.

	Simon: It's funny.

	AL: So you can't leave school until that time and all  that kind of stuff.

	Simon: People might want to go out and get work. Get money, earn their money, and they've got to stay at school until their eighteen. (pause) It costs the state more money as well.

	(32 second pause)

	AL: OK let's have a two minute break.

		ANALYSIS
	I felt that the lesson was beginning to lose its purpose. There were very few of the group contributing and I seemed to be doing all the procedural things like deciding who should speak. The context was intimidating so relaxing the tension by having a break (in which they worked in pairs to come up with one statement on any of the topics on their sheets. These would then be made public to the rest of the class, in the hope that they would spark off some discussion.) seemed to me a valuable way of proceeding. There was another long, tense silence in this quoted section. I felt that they were waiting for me to respond to Simon's point, which is the usual teacher role, but I was determined to sit it out, to alter the form and rhythm of "normal" practice, so that they would engage with each other. They did not probably because the subject did not mean enough to them and because, as a language context, the circle and the whole group seems to discourage what they are so good at - recounting anecdotes and talking issues through with their mates. This seems to me to be another good reason for breaking out of the whole group into smaller ones. 

		QUESTION
	So why bother with whole group discussion at all then?

		ANSWER
	It is a form of discourse that is not unusual in our society. Trade union meetings, school staff meetings or public debates take this form. It seems reasonable to offer some kind of experience in school as preparation, if you like. But this is not my main reason for the whole class discussion. In fact, I would say that this is only one possible spin-off of the activity: it has only a minor preparatory role to play. Let me outline some of the reasons I think whole class discussion may be useful.

	First of all, I do not think that we should aim at "having a whole class discussion" and leave it at that. I think it is important to alternate between whole class and small group work. I felt, for instance, that in the second transcript above, there was going to be no further contribution from any class member. Yet I could sense that a lot of the students had something tentative to put forward or some completely unrelated point to relate. What is the point of creating even more tension by waiting? Or of putting someone on the spot by asking for a contribution? Breaking into smaller "buzz" groups seems logical at times like these because the students will be working in a much less tense atmosphere, with mates and with a specific job to do in a specific time. Thus, ideas or conventions can be tried out in one and brought into the other. The process, it seems to me, can work in either direction, from whole class to small group or vice versa.
QUESTION

Did the tactic of breaking the whole class into smaller groups help the students to make sense of either the
issues of age-related laws or the poem?

ANSWER

To answer this question, we need to look at what happened later in the two lessons. 

In the lesson dealing with age-related laws, after I had asked them to come up with one issue that they felt
strongly about, there was this discussion about smoking and drinking:

TRANSCRIPT

Marjorie: If you're old enough to smoke when you're sixteen you should be old enough to drink when you're sixteen cos they're both as bad as each other anyway.

Frank: That's true I reckon. That's good.

Margaret: Yeah.

(Confusion of voices)

AL: (voice cutting through the confusion) Just a minute. Just a minute. Let's try and have one person at once. What was that Kevin?

Kevin: I said you can't get a hangover after smoking can you?

Karen: No but you can die of lung cancer.

Frank: No but you don't get as bad ...

AL: Come on say something about that. Come on you want to say something. 

Margaret: (laughing) I don't.

Bernard: I'll say something.

(pause)

AL: Go on Margaret think it through.

Margaret: It's not as if hangovers are bad for you, Kevin. They only give you an headache.

Frank: Well they are bad.

(Confusion of voices including: Peter: So is lung cancer. That's really bad; Margaret: ....stupid ...; Karen: ....lung cancer ....

Margaret: ....live through it though has he.

AL: Hang on a minute.

Margaret: Drinking and smoking aren't very / not (inaudible)

?: They're both pretty bad.

(laughter)

Kevin: You've got to drink a bit first though aint you. You've got to have a bit to drink.

Margaret: I know but it aint gonna kill you is it.

Bernard: Drinking kills.

Simon: Don't be stupid.

Margaret: Drinking can kill you: not an hangover.

Frank: An hangover can kill you. If you had a lot o' drink you got a bad hangover.

Margaret: Yeah.

Peter: Yes you can.

AL: Kevin, you're making points to Bernard, Victor and Trevor not to the rest of the group. Now come on.

Simon: Say something to the rest of the group.

Frank: Can't.

(pause)

AL: Peter wanted to say something a minute ago weren't you Peter.

Peter: All this fighting and hooliganism at football matches aint caused by smoking is it? Drink has the worst effects on you.

Karen: Depends on what you smoke.

Simon: Some people go to football just to cause riots though.

?: What about lung cancer.

(confusion of voices)

Frank: Smoke does kill you. Kills you in the end usually. More people die of smoke than do of drink.

?: Yeah.

Victor: You can get addicted to smoking.

Simon: You can get addicted to drinking.

(confusion of voices)

AL: Hang on a minute. There's three or four things going on at once here. Let's try again. Erm Start with Margaret, Simon's got a point, Victor and then I think Frank and Peter have got something to say as well. Shut up now Simon. Margaret.

Margaret: You said about drinking didn't you, right, gets you drunk. Smoking dope is just the same thing as that ennit.

AL: OK. Simon.

Simon: Yeah.

(laughter)

AL: Is that all you want to say?

Simon: Yeah.

AL: Right, Victor. What are you saying?

Victor: Erm, smoking is more of a long an effect on us. It has more long effect and you get more addicted to
it easier. You know, if you just had one then you'd want another one after. Drinking's not really as bad. You know you feel as if you can have it anywhere and your parents don't normally mind. So it's not as bad.

AL: Hang on a minute. We'll come back in a minute. Now Frank and Peter. One of you two was saying something.

Frank: Yeah. Smoke. 

(laughter)

AL: You first and then Peter.

Frank: More people die of smoking than they do of drinking.

AL: Peter.

Peter: It's not true I don't reckon it is. Drinking's worse to more parts of your body than smoking is.

AL: Can I suggest that you look and try and find out which one of those is true. Whether it's drinking or smoking that kills more.

Peter: Drinking because drinking can be a killer for accidents.

AL: Can you find out whether that's true or not.

Margaret: Victor said you can get addicted to smoking. You can get addicted to drink as well and turn alcoholic. And that kills you.

Victor: Not as easily.

Margaret: It does doesn't it, in a way. It all depends on how much you drink. Look at that girl. She had a vodka.... (Frank: That was her Mum's fault though wannit.) ...drinking competition and that killed her. That
was just one night.

Frank: Yeah that was a bottle though wannit.

Margaret: So.

Frank: Not many people have a bottle a night do they.

ANALYSIS

This transcript begins with a very direct and controversial statement from Marjorie. I doubt that she would have made such a statement under normal circumstances. It seems to me that the tactic of breaking the group into smaller groups worked in this case. Of course, I am quite aware that Marjorie was working within the confines of the structure of the lesson which I had initiated but I think that she had made it her own in that she was able to use the situation to make a rare statement. 

The group takes the idea that both smoking and drinking are similarly bad for your health and there follows an interesting discussion of that issue. Kevin's statements seem to suggest a different view of health from,
say, Margaret's and there is a sharing of views. I think that they are still concerned with personality but,
nevertheless, they make their statements. I am not sure that Margaret convinces Kevin that health is not something that happens in the here and now but his long-term vision of what drinking can do to your health seems restricted to the here and now problem of a hangover. He does seem to have experience of the effects of excess of alcohol but not of the kind of report which Margaret has obviously seen: her remarks about the girl involved in the vodka drinking contest would testify to this. At one point, Margaret makes the admirable distinction "Drinking can kill you: not an hangaover." Unfortunately, Kevin never comes back on this point - perhaps I should take this as being an acceptance on his part of the strength of Margaret's argument. The argument is considerably clarified around this time - the point that, as Bernard says, somewhat 'sotto voce' "Drinking kills."

There are a number of utterances in the transcript which can be termed "long turns" - that is an utterance which is more than just a brief statement of opinion or fact but which is supported by instance or reference. Victor's first utterance I would say is a long turn. He tells his audience of his thinking and reasons his argument through. Whether he is right or not is another matter for now and we must not lose sight of the fact that it was I who brought him in, made his talking space for him. Still, he manages to hold his ground and speak for a considerable time. In this context,  this is no mean feat. He also opens up a new avenue of argument - which is worst, smoking or drinking? It is a part of the issue which is taken up by the class and leads to Margaret's long turn about the girl involved in the vodka drinking contest. These long turns are indications to me of significantly confident talkers - they are able to think on their feet, to reason as they speak and feel confident enough to do this in front of their peers. This is no mean feat. There were only fifteen people in the class on that particular day but even so the difficulty we have already seen students having in discussing in smaller groups seems to be overcome by those who speak in the context of the whole class.

QUESTION

It seems obvious that these are very confident students. What about those students who are not as confident and said nothing?

ANSWER

As the lesson progressed, Alan was keeping a tally of utterances against the names of each of the students. Only one failed to make one single utterance in the course of the lesson. Many of the group made one or two utterances but I am not sure what this indicates. It may mean that they are too shy to make a contribution. It may be that they are totally bored by the whole proceedings: I doubt it. It is my feeling that there is an intimidation in the context which prevents some students from saying what is in their minds. Added to this is my feeling, shared by Alan, that Peter and Margaret, for instance, showed signs that they had participated in discussions before. For example, Peter waited his turn with patience while Margaret put her hand up before she spoke and made notes: in other words, they showed knowledge of the ground rules of discussion. It would not be true to say that those who did not say much had failed to take part in a discussion: by just listening they could have come into contact with the ideas of others. But they would have failed to make their thoughts public in a way which would subject their own thinking to scrutiny and argument. This, for me, is a very strong argument for "buzz groups."

QUESTION

What about your own role in the discussion?

Going back to Stenhouse's ideas about "procedural neutrality", my understanding of the ideas and the things I wrote in my journal to avoid saying, I felt that I had been fairly successful. Looking at the part of the discussion I have quoted above, there is evidence of me: 

 -drawing students into the discussion, making their space for them, encouraging and facilitating their participation. (e.g. "Come on say something about that. Come on you want to say something." )

 -seeking clarification of meaning (e.g. "What was that Kevin?")

 -disciplining, controlling (e.g. "Shut up now Simon.")

 -gear changing, altering the pace of the discussion (e.g. "start with Margaret, Simon's got a point, Victor
and then I think Frank and Peter." I was using the order of individuals round the circle in an anti-clockwise direction.)

 -handling a controversy without imposing my constituted knowledge (e.g. "Can I suggest that you look and try and find out...?")

There were other parts of the role which occurred in other parts of the discussion (extending, developing or
probing meaning [e.g. "Can you tell us why you think twenty, Bernard?]; steering the direction of the discussion [e.g. "To change the subject slightly then."]; providing a model [e.g. "So would you advocate lowering the age then?"]; provoking response [e.g. "Let me ask you a direct question."]; personalising [e.g.
"I'm not sure I'd be too happy with that."]; reviewing [e.g. "Can we go back to Marjorie's point?"]; loudspeaker [e.g. "I think you should say that a bit louder..."]; handling silences.) I felt that, in comparison with the "racist poem incident" I had allowed the students to air their views without imposing mine on them. I was not entirely happy with the way they seemed to rely on me to create their space for them, to look into my eyes as they spoke. But I did go into the lesson with the intention of being a "neutral chairperson" and one of the implications of this role is that I  organised   the  talk  to  a large
extent. I was very pleased with the way I kept quiet during silences, despite having a lot I wanted to say! On the whole, I felt quite satisfied with the way the discussion had gone, even though out of roughly 120 contributions, 91 were made by 5 students! I really do not seee this as a valid way of looking at whole class discussion. For me it is more a clearing house for coming into contact with more people's ideas than are available in small friendship groups. Drawing on personal experience, the "agitation" which goes on before, for example, a staff meeting or trade union meeting is often more important than the discussion which goes on in the meeting itself. But the ideas which get aired are often provocative, unforeseen ideas which can have some effect on the way you think. I think it is the same here. The thinking which had gone on
before the whole class discussion affected and was affected by the event itself. Even if the student said nothing or very little in the discussion, they would have been thinking it all through.

QUESTION

How can you be sure that this is so? They may have been just sitting there bored or disinterested.

ANSWER

Of course, this may well be the case. I would say that this state of affairs would exist in other classrooms
too. However, I have evidence that this is not necessarily the case here. Alan came in and interviewed four students from the class. Between us we decided that he should interview four because of the time scale involved. (one lesson of one and a quarter hours) This would give him about fifteen minutes to interview each student. We felt that this would be a suitable time to bring them to their ease and encourage them to talk fairly freely. We decided to choose two girls and two boys because we wanted to be "balanced." And we chose two students who had contributed a lot, one of each gender, two who had contributed a little, again one of each gender. We made an agenda of topics we wanted the students to talk about but the intention was to "freewheel" in the sense that the discussion was to be given its head and allowed to go its own way, interesting lines of thought raised by the students would be followed by Alan and they would be given every opportunity to talk.

The agenda was as follows:

What do you remember about the two lessons?

What did you think of it as a discussion? Why?

Which bits went well? What did you find useful?

What were the problems / difficulties?

Who contributed most? What can you remember about their contribution?

What about AL? How did he handle it?

What helps in discussion? (ADVICE TO US)

What is a good discussion?

What is the use of whole class discussion?

We wanted to interview Bernard and Mary, as quiet students, and Peter and Margaret, as those who participated a lot. Unfortunately, Margaret was away from school so we interviewed Denise instead. She was also a high contributor. I will now try to present some of the things they said which have made demands on my own thinking about discussion, whether in small groups or in the whole class.

MY OWN ROLE IN THE DISCUSSION

Each of the four interviewees had interesting things to say on this issue. 

TRANSCRIPT

Bernard: He was asking us questions on what we thought. 

AH: Hmm.

B: Then the people who wasn't talking he asked what they thought and they just say thought of same as what he did. But I think he done it the best that he could I mean discussion because he's not gonna tell everyone
what to say. They just say their own opinion. So he ran it quite well but it was mainly the pupils, us, that
didn't get that good result - well it was quite good at the end but if someone started straight away then more ideas and it would have gone on longer.

AH:  So you're saying it's not actually Mr.Larter's fault if it fails or neither can you say it's due to Mr.Larter that it was a brilliant discussion. It's up to you.

B: Yeah.

(Tape recorded interview with Alan Howe 10th December 1985)

ANALYSIS

I think these are very shrewd ideas about the way whole class discussion works. Bernard is to some extent correct when he says that it is the group's performance which matters. Of course, what he overlooked was the
organisation of the starter sheets, the bringing out of their ideas via the posters as well as the orchestrating role I took in the actual discussion, which he did recognise. It remains true that the success
or failure of a discussion depends to some extent on the participants themselves, in this case the students in 5E. I also feel that it is very important to stress the preparatory work done by the teacher, in this case me with the ample assistance of Alan Howe. 

TRANSCRIPT

AH: Just tell me a little bit about the way Mr.Larter handled the discussion last Tuesday. (pause) Cos he was in charge wasn't he.

Mary: Yep.

AH: What did he actually do? Can you remember some of the things he did?

(pause)

M: He talked at the beginning and he said he weren't gonna say anything he weren't gonna be a leader we just
had to carry it on from there but nobody would speak.

AH: Hmm hmm.(pause) So what are you saying he did? 

M: He was trying not to be the leader of it all.

AH: Did he succeed do you think?

M: No (both laugh)

AH: Why was that then?

M: Nobody would speak so he had to try to think of other ways to do it.

(Taped discussion 10/12/85)

ANALYSIS

Three important things emerge from this: first of all, Mary was correct in her judgement that I had failed in my intention of being a mere participator in the discussion - I chaired it very forcefully, as we have already seen. She also recognises that some of the reasons for that failure lie in the students themselves: "Nobody would speak," she says. Another important part of this interview is her shyness - I get the feeling of Alan really struggling to bring her to say anything without putting words in her mouth, and here is the third notable thing, he spends much of his time in the interview asking questions which elicit one word answers, following these up with the question "Why?"  

TRANSCRIPT

AH: Mr. Larter had an interesting job to do I think because he didn't actually give you his opinions at all.
I bet if I asked you what Mr.Larter's opinions about age-related laws were you couldn't tell me.

Denise: No he didn't say nothing.

AH: No. Well he did say quite a lot but he didn't say anything about that so what did he do? Can you remember?

(pause)

D: He asked people what they thought before he said something. He wanted to know what their point of view was before he said what his was.

AH: I don't think he ever even said what his were actually. What do you think Mr.Larter was trying to do, last Tuesday?

D: Get more people to talk up.

AH: Hmm hmm.

D: Say more things than they would normally do if he run the lesson.

(Recording made 10/12/85)

ANALYSIS

There is a recognition here, after a fairly obvious push from Alan, that I had not given my own opinions about the topic under discussion. I also think that Denise is right when she said that my reasons for doing that were to give the students more room to express themselves. I would say that she recognises that because
I had not offered my own views, the students did "talk up." I feel that I could go as far as to say that she
understood that I wanted them to share their views with each other, that they would "say more things than they would normally do if he run the lesson." Despite the small number of participants, I feel that this did
happen. 

TRANSCRIPT

AH: Tell me a little bit about your view of Mr. Larter's erm way of handling the discussion. (Peter: Well it
worked) Cos it's not easy. I mean how he actually did it.

Peter: It worked didn't it.

AH: It worked you think.

P: Yeah. Well after the paper then I started talking and everyone did. It's just once you get someone talking at the start then other people start arguing with you.

AH: Right.

P: Then you get going.

AH: You get it going. So once it's going what's Mr.Larter doing then? Can you remember?

P: Sort of keeping the ball rolling really, wasn't he. 

AH: Mm.

P: And it was just going round and round.

AH: And you think it worked.

P: Yeah. It was good. 

ANALYSIS

Again, there is the understanding that the students were responsible for the discussion, "after the paper." Peter recognised that I had played the role of "keeping the ball rolling."

(Recorded10/12/85)

QUESTION

It seems that they have all picked up on your role in the classroom. But does that take us any further? Have
they internalised anything about discussion and learning?

ANSWER

I think it does take us further because the very thought of them having internalised that I wanted to take a
"back seat" means that they are becoming aware that their ideas are important to me. That I chaired the discussion indicated to them and to me that there was a need for practice in the art of discussion. That I did not offer my own value position at that point indicated to them that there was a space which needed filling and they filled it with their own arguments and values. I think that there was a basis for further development. I was pleased with the performance and began to plan to use the whole class discussion and "buzz groups" idea as a possible way of discussing     literature.

There were other reasons for this confident feeling. The students had said some very complimentary things in
their interviews. Perhaps they were confused by some of the things that went on in the discussion lesson, (Denise, I thought, seemed to be confused when asked by Alan about the reasons for not putting forward my own opinions) but I felt that literature offered a possibility of opening up the issue of making sense of things in a shared way.

Having said that, Peter did have this to say,

TRANSCRIPT

Peter: I think discussion is better because when / well from that time I was taking in other people's views and that and seeing how they compared against my own (....) so it was good to compare. And then you sort of come across with an average of which one it was. 

AH: So by listening to other people in the group you're picking ideas up as well.

Peter: Yeah.

(Recorded 10/12/85)

ANALYSIS

I was very pleased with this statement. This is the same lad speaking as took part in the "dildo" conversatin earlier in this report. How different is his attitude! It seems to be down to his professed interest in the subject of age-related laws. Not only that but he seems to have internalised that by coming into contact with other views, you are going through a learning process. I was still concerned about the students'  lack of reference in the form of material they could use to reinforce their ideas. Thus, we have Peter and Frank arguing about whether smoking or drinking claims more lives without any real knowledge. I tried to suggest that there could be a way of solving the problem. I do not think that they ever did the research I suggested. This was one area I wanted to improve. Here again, perhaps literature may offer a solution. The evidence they would need would be on the page and in the meaning they had constructed from their own reading and the conversations they would have in their small groups. I decidedto try out the tactics with an approach to "Blackberry-Picking" by Seamus Heaney.

I felt that I had not really integrated the learning of the whole class into my understanding of my practice. This was still something I needed to come to terms with. Although I had now seen the possibilities available for learning in the whole class discussion, I felt that I had failed to bring some students into the discussion. In some cases, like that of Mary for instance, I was not confident that I would ever be able to bring about a context, apart from the small friendship group, where she would feel confident enough to make a contribution. There was, in this concern, an added concern: the whole class would be present for the lesson on "Blackberry-Picking" including those who had been out on the O level course. Would it be possible to utilise the techniques I had developed in the previous lesson?

CONCERNS RECAST

- Were the techniques for whole class discussion I had found useful in discussing a controversial issue transferrable to the discussion of literature?

- How could I encourage the students to use evidence to back up their ideas?

- Could I encourage more students to air their views in the public arena of the whole class discussion?

-  Could  I integrate my investigations of the  learning processes in a whole class discussion into my understanding of my practice as a whole?

- Would the sheer size of the group intimidate me or the students?

I was very attracted to a quotation from Chilver and Gould, who said,

"It is the shared internalizing of everybody's point of view, of the various riders and refinements and reservations, by all the participants, that distinguishes discussion....a discussion seeks to utilize the riders and reservations, to incorporate them into everybody else's thinking." (1982)

QUESTION

I'm not sure what this means. Could you explain it?

ANSWER

Here is  a brief transcript from the whole class discussion of the poem "Blackberry-Picking" by Seamus Heaney. The recording was made on 18th February 1986. I had asked the class to form pairs and organise a reading of the poem which they would share with the rest of the class. (However, they became engaged with the meaning of the poem because when I was giving the instructions for the activity, I said that to arrive at a reading, they would have to discover a meaning for the poem so that they could form appropriate inflection.) I felt that we needed to  move  them away from a quest for hidden meanings into an engagement with the poem itself. We came together in a circle. It was my intention to take suggestions about the meaning of the poem and move quickly to preparing readings. However, here is what happened.

TRANSCRIPT

AL: What is the poem actually about? (Pause) Belinda.

Belinda: About an individual people growing up.

AL: You need to explain that a bit. Chris.

Chris: Me?

AL: Yeah, Chris, explain it if you can.

Chris: It's about people going round picking blackberries. Right. And er it's a description of how er about how they grow. Then what happens is the blackberries have gone sour. Anything Belinda can say? Is that wrong then?

AL: Is that what you meant, Belinda?

(Belinda shakes her head)

AL: Can you explain what you meant then.

(pause)

Belinda: [inaudible] as he does. How the blackberries evolve is how we evolve.

AL: Can you explain to everybody how you arrived at that conclusion because I think er there seem to be a few very confused looks around the circle at the moment. I must admit I'm a bit confused as well. And can you listen.

(pause)

Belinda: I was talking to one of the girls from another class and they've done it.

AL: Come on you still need to explain what it means. You still need to explain to us how you arrived at that.

(....)

Belinda: Well the blackberries are growing aren't they. He's explaining how what they're like.

(long pause)

AL: Right let's hold it there then.

ANALYSIS

This was very unexpected. I certainly did not expect Belinda to say anything about the symbolism in the poem - even assuming that she was right, it was not what I anticipated. I have a feeling that this was one of those incidents that Chilver and Gould refer to when they say that "personal friction and antagonism" interfere with the emergence of discussion. Belinda made a statement about the poem which was a "received" notion: she did not appear to know how the blackberries were intended to represent people. She had been told by a friend from another class but had not thought the idea through, merely accepted it as a "correct answer." I would even go as far as to say that she wished to be seen as "intellectual" for knowing this "fact" about the poem.

Chris had a strong desire to put a counter argument, I suspect because it was Belinda who said the thing about the poem's symbolism: there is a certain amount of animosity between them. The rest of the class were divided on the issue - some respected Belinda's point, others did not. There was certainly confusion. I sensed that there was a struggle going on in many minds - my own included - as to  what   Belinda  could  use from the poem to support her views so I decided that this would be an ideal moment to break into smaller groups to tackle the problem. I asked them to work on their own and write down one question they needed answering about the poem. I felt that this might help them to untangle the "riders and reservations" about the issue. If they disagreed with Belinda, they now had a chance  to sort out their reservations. If they agreed, they could add any riders they may have to their understanding. They could, of course, have decided that the issue was irrelevant and could ask a question about something totally different in the poem. 

What was exciting for me was that I had an example of people's ideas coming into contact with each other and forming new knowledge. It was tinged with personality clashes but nevertheless it was happening.

Another important point to raise again is the importance of how the instructions for activities are given. In stressing, unwittingly, the meaning of the poem, I hinted that there was a "hidden" meaning to the students and many of them looked  for  it.  I  felt  that any meaning they were going to make from the poem would emerge over time and the idea of reading the poem aloud was a vehicle to this end. I destroyed any chance of this happening by not choosing my words more carefully.

There was the other  issue of Belinda not having enough support for her idea. This is a difficult thing to encourage students to do but I felt that the situation of being in a public place where your views are under the scrutiny of participants in the discussion, you must provide support for your opinions. The consequence is that, like Belinda here, your views are not accepted, indeed they are unacceptable.

Here is what happened when one small group began to discuss the poem together. It is a long transcript. 

TRANSCRIPT

(Sukminder, Catherine, Denise, and Justin discussing "Blackberry- Picking" on 18/2/86)

D:What is it that makes you think it's like people?

J: Well it's just where he says...

Chris: (a student in another group) Being told by another class.

D: Shut up.

S: Go on.

D: Did he get told by another class?

C: Carry on.

J: Just that the fruit fermented on the bush went sour it went sour and then he was on about blood so I was thinking if things come off the bush [unclear: it wouldn't be quite the  same  cos it'd be dying.]

S: Y'know Bluebeard's a bad person then he links us on to other bad people.

C(?): Yeah it could do.

D: It's a good idea. 

S:  No you picked it up from [unclear: her and Jo then.]

?: (untranscribable)

S: Yeah.

J: Sticky covered palms sticky as Bluebeards.

S: He felt as if he was one of those bad people. 

J: What'd she say? (a reference to Belinda)

S: Forget it. Come on Denise. Have you got any ideas on it?

J: Come on Denise.

D: Erm no.

S: What's your question?

D: It's about Bluebeard. Why is he always crying?

S: Hang on I'm gonna read the thingummyjig again.

D: It doesn't make sense.

C: I said why does it affect the boy in such a way that he feels like crying about the sourness of the blackberries?

D: That's what I mean.

(Confusion of voices.)

C: You don't just cry because blackberries are sour.

D: (untranscribable)

S: He's thinking about human people why are they so bad some of 'em. An' he feels like crying.

C: I think he's crying cos he ate too many blackberries.

(Laughter)

C: He's thinking...

S: Could be couldn't he because some things have that effect on people.

C: He's thinking that some people are like...

S: Like Bluebeard.

C: ...I don't mean like blackberries.

(Laughter)

C: The same way that you said.

S: Like Bluebeard is horrible.

J: What?

S: The murders.

C: I don't think it's got anything to do with Bluebeard.

J: No it's just sort of er...

C: It's just sort of...

D: I think it might have something to do with people cos he wouldn't cry over picking blackberries. You wouldn't be crying would you?

J: You wouldn't cry over spilt blackberries.

D: No so it's gotta be some / it can't be anything to do with blackberries.

S: It's gotta  be something more deeper than that ennit.

D: Yeah it can't be nothing to do with blackberries.

S: But I mean if he's / we get the impression that he's only a boy so he won't be crying about why people are so bad will he?

C: Could be erm...

J: How do you know it's just a boy? What makes you think that?

C: It might be a girl.

J: Pardon.

S: All right boy or girl. Young person.

J: All right then how do you know it's a young person?

D: How do you know it's a young person?

S: I mean they go blackberry picking.

D: So do old people.

S: All right all right. So he could be thinking why are people so bad then.

C: He could be relating it to people yeah.

D: Yes.

S: He might have had a bad experience so he could be crying about that.

C: Because they found this rat grey thing in their erm byre.

(laughter)

C: In their bit of erm bath.

J: Yeh.

C: He's erm...

S: I don't think it's gotta do with a rat it's just about the colour of a rat.

C: He's crying about...

J: (untranscribable)

C: Hang on.

D: He's got a rat grey fungus.

C: He's nearly crying because he thinks god that that thing that rat grey fungus is making the blackberries go sour. There's things like that in life that make people go sour.

J: Mm.

C: See what I mean.

D: Yeah.

S: Yeah but I thought the rat grey fungus was just erm I don't think that had anything to do with it.

ANALYSIS

It seems to me that what happened here is that the group had taken Belinda's idea and talked it through, pooling ideas and chipping away at why the blackberries represented people. For example, there is Sukminder's thought that the mention of Bluebeard "links us on to other bad people." There is Catherine's statement that "You don't just cry because blackberries are sour," which is picked up by the group and mulled over. They work on the problem they have had posed  in a cooperative way and even the witticisms like Justin's "You wouldn't cry over spilt blackberries," seem to help them in their joint quest for meaning. Their discussion circles and spirals round the issue of how they can support their view that the poem is a metaphor for the human condititon. As an example of small group discussion it is a good example. They challenged and were challenged, they were working collectively and cooperatively,  the  talk  spiralled back and forth so that they leave one issue and return to it later (e.g. Bluebeard keeps cropping up as if they cannot quite rid him from their minds.) and they are, in James Britton's words, "shaping at  the point  of  utterance." (1980) By this I mean that they are making sense of things as they say them, internalising the ideas of others and reconstructing the meaning for themselves but in a very collaborative way. They are exploring the poem together, evaluating each other's suggestions and trying out alternative formulations. (Nicholls and Wells 1985)

I must also add that this friendship group is completely different in performance to the "lads" quoted earlier or the performance of the girls, three of whom were discussing the poem here. It is gratifying to note this and I could explain it in terms of their greater acceptance of my teaching methods, the approaching public exams or the desire to talk about the poem: whatever the reasons, the chemistry was right on that day.

After this discussion, the group asked me to listen to their ideas, which they suggested were tentative and not agreed: there were shades of meaning they had not quite worked out.   

QUESTION

How did any intervention from you affect this discussion? It seems to be self-generated.

ANSWER

I think of intervention in a much broader sense than the purely direct intervention. I was not present at this discussion but I had influenced it by an earlier intervention in classroom events. When I told the class that to discover what the poem meant to them before reading the poem (an error on my part in the sense that it took them away from reading the poem and coming at their meaning incidentally, as it were) I had already influenced their thinking about the poem because they were now looking for clues to tell them what the poem meant. Also, bringing them back to the circle to discuss the meaning, with the intention of getting back to reading the poem, brought Belinda's amazing contribution. My intervention in their learning processes had again influenced the way they were thinking about the poem. 

Here is what happened when I joined in part of their discussion at their request - still nevertheless an intervention in their learning processes. Again, this is a long transcript.

TRANSCRIPT

(The group is as before + AL)

C: We reckon...

S: It is to do with humans.

C: Because (untranscribable) this rat grey fungus thing.

S: I don't reckon this has got anything to do with it.

C: Suki don't agree with this anyway.

AL: Go on tell us anyway.

C: It's polluting sort of polluting the blackberries innit cos it's making em rot. It's turning em sour.

(Distraction while AL tells another student off.)

C: So that fungus thing is turning the blackberries sour and he's crying because he thinks 

J: Different [unclear: style] 

S: (unclear: It's not the fungus thing it's the sun.)

C: Hang on a minute. He's crying because he thinks there's some people in life like that and things like that rat grey fungus there's people like that.

J: (untranscribable) there's gonna be bad people. They could turn others bad.

AL: All right. What do you think Sukminder?

S: I think the same it's just the rat grey thing that erm I don't think that's not what makes...

J: That's just a way to express it.

AL: What is this rat grey fungus anyway?

S: It's just a fungus / which was grey / like a rat.

C: Just sort of a...

AL: Is that causing the sourness or is it the sourness that's causing that?

C: It's causing the sourness.

AL: OK and that's why you think [unclear: it's about human beings?]

C: Yeah because there's sort of some things that do cause sourness.

S: Are you gonna tell us now what erm what you think of the poem?

J: Now we've made sense of it we've got to read it out.

S: No we've told you our ideas now you go on tell us yours.

D: Cathy's gonna read it out.

AL: Is she?

C: Suki can read it out.

S: No I'm not being a pratt any more.

D: Look right it's got...

AL: I think that it's about the fact that he's picked all these blackberries and now they've gone rotten.

C: That's all. 

D: No.

AL: Yeah.

J: No meaning to it.

AL: I think in one sense there is more to it than that. I think he is talking about human beings but I think there is more to it than that. I think there's more to it than just that.

S: What, what we said?

AL: Well I think you're getting somewhere very important and I think you should continue.

ANALYSIS

I felt that my intervention was going quite well in that they were telling me what they thought and I was adopting a role of listening to what they said. Their meaning was what I had been asked to listen to and  it  is one of the things I value in learning. However, Sukminder also asked me for my thoughts about the poem. Interestingly, she did not ask me if she or the group were right in their thinking but asked me for my ideas. This was very difficult for me. Should I tell them or not? I felt that to do so would be to impose my understandings on theirs and perhaps confuse them or have them believe that because I had said it there was truth in it. The problem I was concerned with was that the lesson had gone a completely different way to my plans - not necessarily a bad thing but not necessarily a good thing either. I felt that I had lost control of the situation and thus did not know what to say. I tried to tell them that I felt their ideas were interesting and that they should pursue them: by this time I had lost all hope of ever getting back to my hopes for hearing several readings of "Blackberry-Picking"!

There follows a lengthy transcript of what happened after I had left them.

TRANSCRIPT

S: (reads) "Leaving stains upon the tongue and lust for / Picking." So if you get a bit, if you get something a little bit you want more and more.

(inaudible utterances)

S: "and lust for picking." He wanted to do it more.

C: (inaudible) blackberries.

S: And then they wanted more and more and more. Yeah. 

C: Yeah. And that made 'em want to do it more cos they liked the taste of 'em.

S: Yeah and that might make 'em think about people wanting more and more and more. What's the next bit? (reads) "Then red ones inked up (inaudible) Then they ran out.

C: "Then red ones inked up and that hunger / Sent us out." They were so hungry they went out.

S: They're getting more greedy and greedier (inaudible)

(pause)

S: What's briars?

C: (in a funny voice) Briars.

S: (mimicking Catherine's voice) Briars.

D: What's that? Briar?

S: B-r-i-a-r-s.

C: I'll have a look in my dictionary. Briar. What's that? It ent got it in mine.

S: Hey shall we get him here and say that bit we said again? Shall we?

C: Yeah.

S: Will you come here afterwards please.

D: No. He'll hit me one. (This refers to some banter between Denise and Justin)

J: (unclear - We can't all be right. Did you follow that?)

C: We've got a new idea haven't we Suki.

(laughter - refers to something other than the poem)

D: Don't!

S: Sir. We've got a bit of a thingummyjig here right. I read out erm 

(laughter)

S: "Summer's blood was in it / Leaving stains upon the tongue and lust for / Picking." So is that like a bit like people once they get something they'd like more and more? And then it says erm "the red ones inked up and that hunger erm sent us out" erm you know they're getting greedier and greedier, to get more and more. Is that like are you saying that's like people? They get greedier and greedier.

AL: For what?

C: Oh yeah.

S: For different things ennit 

(J and D laugh)

C: Like erm...

S: Money.

C: Money yeah.

J: Yeah y'know.

S: And you want to get higher and everything.

D: (to Justin) Will you stop doing that?

C: In er the hierarchy.

S: That's gonna thingummyjig it up. Oh typical.

J: It's just to do with it.

C: Suki. It's goona thingummyjig it up. 

(laughter)

AL:But why are they getting... what's this... He talks about what is it this "and lust for picking" right so they've got this desire to go out picking. Right I'm with that. Now you're on about....

S: Then they start...first of all they're just picking them for themselves to eat. And then they get more cans and want to get more and more and then once they've finally got it all they've turned all sour. And they think god I ... you know what I'm on about don't you?  

AL: No I don't.

C: That's what life's like. They're picking more and more and more...

S: And when they get it... 

C: When they get it...

AL: More what?

C: Blackberries in this case.

S: Money and...

AL: What you on about really? You're not on about that.

S: It could be anything couldn't it like... 

C: It could be anything yeah like 

S: ...like power and some people want money.

AL: So the poem's about greed.

J: Yeah I think so.

S: Could be.

AL: Not about humans at all.

C: Yeah.

S: Yeah human's greed. Greed for power and greed for money and power things...

AL: So his experience of picking the blackberries relates to other kinds of experience that maybe you've had.

S: Yeah. Thanks for utterly confusing us.

AL: I don't mean to. I was just trying to follow what you were thinking that's all.

ANALYSIS

I was very excited about this discussion when I participated in it and when I heard it afterwards. The group, particularly Sukminder and Catherine, interrogated the poem and their thoughts about the poem. The result was a slightly different slant on their meaning. The exciting things about the discussion were that they had actually gone through this strenuous exercise where you can hear and feel them struggling with the construction and negotiation of meaning, even when I joined in. The matter is not settled by the time the transcript is finished - and I have a suspicion that it was not settled by the end of the lesson. Also exciting for me was that the girls had put a new slant on the poem for me. It was not a poem that I knew well but I had my ideas about it before the lesson. However, I had never associated it with being about a human desire for power. When I said my bit towards the end of the transcript, I was doing what they had been doing all along - namely shaping at the point of utterance. I had collaborated in the making of meaning with students! A real change from a few months previous when I had badgered Keith to see that the poem he had shown me was racist.

I think I can say that in this instance my intervention had helped these girls to understand the poem. From a confusion in my mind after my over- zealous instruction about searching for a meaning which would inform a reading of the poem, I had arrived at a situation where my interventions had helped some students and myself to a clearer understanding of "Blackberry- Picking". On reflection, I am not sure whether the girls were right about the "power" meaning. That, however, is different story: on that day we took part in a meaningful discussion.
	There was one other incident which I would like to relate concerning the effects of the whole class discussion and my intervention in the learning processes of the students. Chris, one of the group of boys characterised as "lads", was struggling with his own understanding of the poem "Blackberry-Picking." I felt that he needed help but that the help he needed was not necessarily to do with the meaning of the poem but with encouragement, to keep him going. He had taken exception to Belinda's idea that the poem was about humans but he believed that there was some deep, obscure meaning. It was this he was looking for. Here is what happened on 26th February 1986.

		TRANSCRIPT

	Chris: What's a byre?

	AL: A byre?

	C: Yeah. 

	Al: A cowshed.

	C: They left them there and went for more (inaudible)

	(long pause)

	AL: I think what / tell me if I'm wrong. I think you're beginning to suss out that this second short stanza is different from this first one. Am I right?

	C: Maybe. Maybe.

	AL: How is it different then?

	(pause)

	C: I dunno. That seems to be where the berries are growing right. And that's where the blokes go round picking 'em, where the grass bleached their boots and that. And they're going on picking 'em. And then they're erm (long pause) erm (further pause) this thing here when the bath's full (inaudible) "the rat-grey fungus glutted on our cache." That's their hiding place innit (inaudible) where they might go and sit down afterwards or summat. (indistinct - So would you after stealing) all those berries sort of start smelling. "Once off the bush the fruit fermented." Starts going once you've picked 'em. (pause) This is where they started that bit about people innit, "the sweet flesh had turned sour." They think it's people.

	AL: But you're not convinced. So what's the flesh referring to then? In your opinion.

	C: The berries' skins and they're full of juice inside.

	AL: You can talk about the flesh of fruit can't you.

	C: Yeah.

	AL: OK. So what's he really getting at then?

	(pause) 

	C: How they grow, get picked and then wasted.

		ANALYSIS
	Here is Chris, a participator in the dildo conversation earlier in this report, tentatively feeling his way towards his own meaning. He is, once again,"shaping at the point of utterance" and using my interventions and my presence to probe his thinking. I was trying very hard not to fill the very long silences: I could see the struggle on Chris' face and did not want to interrupt a train of thought. Apart from that, I had learned that questioning incessantly (see "Casting Long Shadows" Larter 1986) only serves to confuse the students and really it often serves to play the game of "guess what is in Teacher's mind" - right-answerism. By waiting for Chris to answer, I was hoping that he would realise that I considered his reply important and to allow him time to mull his thoughts over more thoroughly. Mind you, he seemed to be searching for the "hidden meaning" in the poem, a throwback to the previous lesson where he had taken issue with Belinda and her idea. He did seem to be struggling with his thoughts. Perhaps I should have heeded Britton's words,

	"Perhaps it is the social pressure on the speaker to justify his claim that gives talk an edge over silent brooding as a problem-solving procedure," (Britton 1980)

	and urged him to speak. But that is not what I think Britton meant to happen. He did not intend that teachers should interrupt trains of thought but that they should provide contexts for talk of the kind that we have already seen the previous group engage in. I was trying to provide a similar context here. Chris was not talking but brooding.

	Later in the lesson, I returned to him to see how he was getting on. I had suggested to him that he ought to write his immediate thoughts on paper (inviting him to "shape at the point of utterance" in a written sense) The transcript of this next meeting is a long one.

		TRANSCRIPT

	AL: Have you got that done then Chris?

	C: Yeah. Well I'm just working out (indistinct: a suitable one.) Ther's got to be a moral.

	AL: A moral or a theme?

	(pause)

	C: (inaudible)

	AL: Sorry.

	C: I said the berries are taking all that time to grow and along come some people and pick those berries and a lot of em are wasted.

	AL: Right so what's the moral? (pause) Why were they wasted Chris?

	C: There were so many taken from the bush they all started to well when they got (inaudible) juice started to ferment and they were useless then. So when (indistinct: they're useless) because they're all starting to go off y'see and they'll slowly rot. Cos they do y'know.

	AL: Oh yeah.

	C: Especially when it's hot and it's late August so it's gonna be hot. Late August.AL: Go on. So why is it a waste Chris? (pause) I think you're right.

	C: Well nobody's going to do anything with 'em. Someone else could have had them see. Erm...

	(long pause)

	AL: One last question then. It says in the last line it says,
	"I always felt like crying. It wasn't fair
	That all the lovely canfuls smelt of rot
	Each year I hoped they'd keep, knew they would not."

	C: Yeah.

	AL: What's the significance of that? "Each year I knew they would keep knew they would not."

	(pause)

	C: Well every year they would go round picking 'em (inaudible) every year half of 'em just go rot.

	AL: So what's he trying to tell us then? What's Seamus Heaney trying to tell us?

	C: Erm...

	(pause)

	AL: Go through it again. Go through the whole thing again. Right. Forget about the last three lines and come to those last three when you've gone through the whole thing again. Tell me again now.

	(long pause - AL dealing with other issues)

	AL: Have you got there yet? (pause) He goes through all that stuff about picking right and enjoying the picking. Then he hides them in a baht in a cowshed.

	C: He got disappointed when they all rotted when he's gone through all that trouble to grow he's gone through a lot of trouble to pick 'em / trekked round the fields (inaudible) and then most of it's wasted.

	AL: And he knows they're going to be wasted because he does it every year he says.

	C: That's not actually true though is it. If you ever go blackberry picking (indistinct: you use 'em.)

	AL: When I pick 'em we eat 'em in pies or make jam out of 'em.

	C: You put 'em in bags in the freezer can't you.

	AL: Yeah you can do now yeah.

	C: It's a pretty exaggerated poem.

	AL: Y'see when he wrote tht poem they probably didn't have freezers quite as much.

	C: Yeah. Erm. (pause) It's only once a year they grow.

	AL: Yeah.

	C: So it's only once a year they get a chance probably seems to him as if it's all a waste of time most of it.

	AL: And yet he knows it's going to be...

	C: Yeah but it's summat to look forward to.

	AL: Right so why does he feel like crying then?

	(pause)

	C: Cos erm (long pause) he'd rather (inaudible) and unless he's got them off the bush they'll start rotting. And there's nothing he can do about  it.  He  wants 'em to stay fresh (indistinct: instead of wasting 'em.)

		ANALYSIS
	I offer this transcript to you not because of the incisive nature of the talk - it is far from that. What I was impressed with was my own silences. I tried to speed things up but Chris wanted to think things through in his own time. I sat next to him trying to keep my lip bit so that I would not answer my own questions. I think I was successful at this. The problem with the whole of the conversation, as I see it, is that Chris wanted to find the hidden meaning. At one point in our talk he said, "usually when the poem's about something  else  the title is a sort of misleading title." So Heaney's simple title had perhaps caused some problems for Chris. Nevertheless, I was pleased with the seriousness with which he had approached his work on this occasion and, as I have already said, with my own riding of the silences. 

	On 12th March 1986, Alan Skelton came in to school and interviewed Chris. Alan and I had watched the video recording of my conversation with Chris and decided that, because it contrasted with his performance in other lessons, that we would like to elicit his views about the conversation. Here is what he said.

		TRANSCRIPT

	AS: You seemed to be really struggling and erm to get something but you were really thinking hard and you spent a hell of a long time talking to Mr.Larter. In the end Mr.Larter said it was a really good piece of work. What I wondered was y'know why at certain times you seemed to put a lot more effort into it. I mean is that true did you put a lot more effort in in that particular week?

	Chris: Yeah. Well that poem see when they all thought it was to do with people / y'see one person said it and the rest being like sheep just followed, cos it said "eyes" and "flesh" and they just thought and said yeah it's about people. I didn't think it did I weren't that easily fooled. So I had to really think hard to get enough evidence to say that it wasn't about people and sort of work out my own understanding of the poem. But I didn't understand it much anyway.

		(....)

	AS: Are you saying that it was the actual type of poem or the nature of the poem itself on blackberry picking which made you work harder towards it?

	C: Yeah that was hard too cos other pieces we've done we've like read a book, we've wrote a bit from chapter to chapter then we've got about four pages of work then we've just done a character study and you've got it all there in your notes. And there's nothing to it really. But this piece here we just sort of read the poem then we was talking in a group y'know in a circle, sometimes you achieve a lot in that sometimes you don't, but that's when someone said it was about people. Then I had to go away and really think well it's not about people no matter what they think (inaudible) 

		(....)

	AS: Why did  he spend so much time [with you in the last lesson]?

	C: Cos I was struggling I didn't understand it. I don't know how the other people wrote their piece on "Blackberry- Picking" (....) but I needed a lot of help. He could see I was struggling and he wanted to see me right by the end of the lesson. (....) If he wouldn't have seen me that lesson I doubt if I would have done anything cos I would have just given up I reckon after a while. But when he's there makes you think that extra bit more. (...) You need a teacher's help.

		ANALYSIS
	There seems to be a certain bloody- mindedness about some of the things Chris said. For instance, "the rest being like sheep just followed." He seemed intent on making his own sense of the poem come what may. There is something very admirable in that. His view of his own performance matches my view of it too in the sense that we both recognised the struggle to make sense of the poem and that my intention was to help him. He also recognised that the help he needed was a cajoling kind of help to help him maintain his struggle. There was also the sense I had of him not being "right" by the end of the lesson - he had not written his piece on the poem. I also think it was his bloody- minded  independence and determination, allied with my intervention, that kept him working during the lesson - he would prove that the poem was not about people if he possibly could! In the end, I do not think he could do so and this was to do with a received understanding that poems have obscure meanings which are intended to baffle ordinary people. Of course, I added to this mystification with my advice to find a meaning for the poem.

	      CONCLUDING REMARKS

		QUESTION
	Where does this all leave you in terms of understanding whether your interventions helped or hindered the students' learning?

		ANSWER
	It  seems to me that, for the purposs of analysis there are two kinds of intervention: a direct kind and an indirect kind. The direct kind involves me actually working closely with the students, discussing, having conversations, marking work, cajoling etc. This is the hurly- burly of the classroom. The other kind involves me seeing that things are not quite right and thinking of ways to attempt to put them right. Donald Schon calls this  "Reflection-in-Action". He says,

	"Stimulated by surprise, [professional practitioners] turn thought back on action and on the knowing which is implicit in action.... It is this entire process of reflection- in- action which is central to the "art" by which practitioners sometimes deal well with situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict." (Schon 1983)

	This is exactly what I did in the occasions I have described and analysed above. I particularly like Schon's "sometimes deal well" - that seems so perfectly correct because, as you can see from the incidents in this report, there are times when I dealt with situations not so well! Still, it is the very recognition of concerns, the imagined solution and the actin upon that solutin which makes reflective practice. I do not expect to be perfectly successful because in a social situation which is as value-laden as the classroom, there can be no such thing as perfection.

	I think that I will take away from these incidents certain ideas to refine and some things to consider when talking to the whole class, particularly in relation to the giving of instructions.

		CONCERNS RECAST

	- Can I find ways of taking less dominant roles in discussions?

	- How can I integrate and coordinate the learning going on in whole class discussions with the learning going on in individual students' heads or in small groups and vice versa? 

	- How can I place demands on language without encouraging students to merely step into my frame of reference?

	- How can I encourage students to see  that the meanings available in literature are complex and open to negotiation?