DA project update

I have observed twice at my research site "Plan B" (the high school) since Sept. 22. This week brings my third visit to the school and -- finally -- an opportunity to record a full collaborative team meeting between core academic teachers. 

After consulting with my adviser, I have decided to request permission from the building principal to continue fieldwork indefinitely with hopes of turning this project into "something more." I am currently doing a research review for Dr. Allington on the ways in which collaborative dialog, distributed leadership, and shared decision-making support effective literacy instruction. We will see where this goes....

Other than an overarching concern about producing a meaningful transcript in time for the Oct. 13 data session, I would like to share some initial concerns and observations about the site and participants:

1) After listening in on two meetings, I am conscious of the fact that I am really attuned to the content of the talk between teachers and have not really been cognizant or deliberate about talk features and devices. I am growing a little antsy, I guess, because this weeks' chapters are all about pre-analysis and early analysis of discourse, and I am still at the front-end of transcription.  That said, the content of the collaborative team meetings is really interesting (to me) and covers a variety of topics and issues.  I am much more jazzed now about this research plan, than my original Plan A. Funny how things change.

 

2) During the first observation, I sat at the table and chose not to write notes or clack away on my computer because I did not want to put off the group.  Plus, in a way, that constitutes "recording," and I agreed not to record.  So, afterward, I went to the school library and typed up everything that I could remember, first impressions, questions, ideas, etc. On the second observation, I sat away from the table and tapped fieldnotes into my iPad and this proved to be effective, but I was less able to attend to all of the non-verbals, facial expressions, etc.

3) The perfect metaphor for this experience: embedded journalist with a military unit on the front lines of action.  That's how it feels. Some additional observations:

• lots of laughter, humor, camaraderie, "inside" jokes
• lots of micro-level discussion and problem-solving about specific students and student issues (absences, truancy, pregnancy, failing grades, tardies, school transfers, pressures related to family and/or work and financial obligations) So, the somewhat cliched image of educator as "triage expert" comes to mind, but that's my metaphor, not the participants'.
• The bulk of conversation focuses on grades, test scores, passing-failing -- issues of performance as opposed to issues related to actual teaching and learning. And I have heard zero dialog about literacy learning. Perhaps this is the natural outcome of interdisciplinary teaming at a high-needs school, where the problems of students are "shared" between faculty who are making deliberate effort to create a culture of caring. 

4) Some potential problems and challenges pertaining to transcription come to mind:

• lots of overlapping and latching speech
• lots of use of student names.  I can supply pseudonyms for the major participants on the team, but what do I do about the countless student names brought up in conversation?  Last week they probably discussed two dozen different students. Do I insert students' initials into the transcript? Do I use S1, S2, S3, etc.?
• environmental noise (from a photocopier in the meeting room as well as an open door on a hallway filled with students during the passing period) could potentially corrupt some segments of the recordings
• Zan, my pseudonymous friend and primary contact on the team, occasionally addresses me directly to fill in context or to include me in whatever joke is at hand. (I, in fact, know about half of the collaborative team already, so building rapport has proven not to be an issue).  Do I tell her just don't do that anymore?

DA project update