Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published online by De Gruyter Mouton July 13, 2020

Affiliation and negative assessments in peer observation feedback for foreign language teachers professional development

Jaume Batlle ORCID logo and Paul Seedhouse ORCID logo

Abstract

The growing use of peer observation in teacher professional development has created an interest in understanding how it is carried out and what the benefits are. Post-observation feedback is a crucial component of peer observation practices. This study seeks to contribute to a better understanding of peer observation feedback in foreign language teacher’s professional development. Adopting a conversation analysis perspective, we aim to establish how the interactional infrastructure is developed between observers and observees after a negative assessment during peer observation feedback. The results show that, when the observer is assessing a specific teaching action negatively and the observee expresses alignment with the observer’s position, the observer adopts an affiliative stance through the use of his/her epistemic expertise in two ways: either putting his/her self in the shoes of the observee or, in other cases, expressing the affiliative stance by appealing to the epistemic community to which they both belong.


Corresponding author: Jaume Batlle, Educació Lingüística i Literària i DCEM, University of Barcelona, Passeig de la Vall d’Hebron, 171, Barcelona, 08035, Catalunya, Spain, E-mail:

Appendix Transcription conventions

Shift to high pitch on next syllable

?

Rising intonation on previous syllable

.

Falling intonation on previous syllable

=

Latching

.hh

In breath

hh

Hearable aspiration (e. g., exhale, laughter token). The more ‘h’s’ the longer the aspiration.

[

Top begin overlap

]

Top end overlap (when relevant)

[

Bottom begin overlap

]

Bottom end overlap (when relevant)

<word>

Slower than surrounding talk

°word°

Softer than surrounding talk

word

Emphasized talk

£word£

Smiley voice

wo-

Cut-off

:(:::)

Stretching of previous sound (the more colons, the longer the stretching)

(0.2)

Length of pauses in seconds

(.)

Micropause (less than 0.2 s)

(word)

Uncertain transcription

*

Time when the nonverbal action happens

References

Bell, Maureen. 2001. Supported reflective practice. A programme of peer observation and feedback for academic teaching development. The International Journal for Academic Development 6. 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440110033643.Search in Google Scholar

Bell, Maureen. 2005. Peer observation partnerships in higher education. Milperra, NSW: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.Search in Google Scholar

Borg, Simon. 2003. Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching 36. 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903.Search in Google Scholar

Copland, Fiona & Helen Donaghue. 2019. Post observation feedback. In Steve Walsh & Steve Mann (eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education, 402–416. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315659824-32Search in Google Scholar

Copland, Fiona. 2008. Deconstructing the discourse: Understanding the feedback event. In Sue Garton & Keith Richards (eds.), Professional encounters in TESOL. Discourses of teachers in teaching, 5–23. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9780230594173_1Search in Google Scholar

Copland, Fiona. 2010. Causes of tension in post-observation feedback in pre-service teacher training: An alternative view. Teaching and Teacher Education 26. 466–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.001.Search in Google Scholar

Copland, Fiona. 2011. Negotiating face in feedback conferences: A linguistic ethnographic analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 3832–3843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.014.Search in Google Scholar

de Lange, Thomas & Line Wittek. 2018. Creating shared spaces: Developing teaching through peer supervision groups. Mind, Culture, and Activity 25. 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2018.1544645.Search in Google Scholar

Dobrowolska, Dominika & Kristine Balslev. 2017. Discursive mentoring strategies and interactional dynamics in teacher education. Linguistics and Education 42. 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.09.001.Search in Google Scholar

Donaghue, Helen. 2018. Relational work and identity negotiation in critical post observation teacher feedback. Journal of Pragmatics 135. 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.002.Search in Google Scholar

Donaghue, Helen. 2019. ‘Time to construct positive identities’: Display questions in post observation teacher feedback. Classroom Discourse. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1581626.Search in Google Scholar

Dos Santos, Luis Miguel. 2016. Foreign language teachers’ professional development through peer observation programme. English Language Teaching 9. 39–46. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n10p39.Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, Nicholas. 2008. Common ground as a resource for social affiliation. In István Kecskes & Jacob Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and egocentric speaker-hearer, 223–254. Berlin: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Engin, Marion. 2015. Trainer talk in post-observation feedback sessions: An exploration of scaffolding. Classroom Discourse 6. 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.919867.Search in Google Scholar

Farr, Fiona, Angela Farrell & Elaine Riordan. 2019. Social interaction in language teacher education. Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Farr, Fiona. 2003. Engaged listenership in spoken academic discourse: The case of student-tutor meetings. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2. 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00035-8.Search in Google Scholar

Farr, Fiona. 2011. The discourse of teaching practice feedback. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203846742Search in Google Scholar

Fasulo, Alessandra & Chiara Monzoni. 2009. Assessing mutable objects: A multimodal analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42. 362–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296481.Search in Google Scholar

Gosling, Davis. 2002. Models of peer observation of teaching. London: LTSN Generic Centre.Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Kerri-Lee, Kelly Farrell, Maureen Bell, Marcia Devlin & Richard James. 2008. Peer review of teaching in australian higher education: Resources to support institutions in developing and embedding effective policies and practices, Final Project Report. Australian: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.Search in Google Scholar

Hayano, Kaoru. 2011. Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 58–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511921674.004Search in Google Scholar

Hepburn, Alexa & Galina B. Bolden. 2017. Transcribing for social research. London: SAGE.10.4135/9781473920460Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in action: Interaction, identities and institutions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444318135Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68. 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103.Search in Google Scholar

Huma, Bogdana. 2015. Enhancing the authenticity of assessments through grounding in first impressions. British Journal of Social Psychology 54. 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12089.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Fiona & Margaret M. Lo. 2006. Examining interaction in the teaching practicum: Issues of language, power and control. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 14. 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260500493535.Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSearch in Google Scholar

Lee, Seung-Hee & Hiroko Tanaka. 2016. Affiliation and alignment in responding actions. Journal of Pragmatics 100. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.008.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Seung-Hee. 2016. Information and affiliation: Disconfirming responses to polar questions and what follows in third position. Journal of Pragmatics 100. 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.003.Search in Google Scholar

Lindström, Anna & Lorenza Mondada. 2009. Assessments in social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42. 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296457.Search in Google Scholar

Lindström, Anna & Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2012. Affiliation in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 350–369. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch17Search in Google Scholar

Mann, Steve & Steve Walsh. 2013. RP or ‘RIP’: A critical perspective on reflective practice. Applied Linguistics Review 4. 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0013.Search in Google Scholar

Mann, Steve & Steve Walsh. 2017. Reflective practice in English language teaching: Research-based principles and practices. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315733395Search in Google Scholar

Mondada, Lorenza. 2009. The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42. 329–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296473.Search in Google Scholar

O’Leary, Matt & Dean Price. 2016. Peer observation as a springboard for teacher learning. In Matt O’Leary (ed.), Reclaiming lesson observation: supporting excellence in teacher learning, 114–123. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315621838Search in Google Scholar

O’Leary, Matt. 2014. Classroom observation. A guide to the effective observation of teaching and learning. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Phillips, Diane. 1999. The feedback session within the context of teacher training and development: an analysis of discourse, role and function. United Kingdom: University of London PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action. studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190927431.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Raymond, Geoffrey & John Heritage. 2006. The epistemics of social relationships: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 35. 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325.Search in Google Scholar

Richards, Jack C. & Thomas S. C. Farrell. 2005. Professional development for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667237Search in Google Scholar

Seuren, Lucas. 2018. Assessing answers: Action ascription in third position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51. 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413890.Search in Google Scholar

Shortland, Sue. 2004. Peer observation: A tool for staff development or compliance? Journal of Further and Higher Education 28. 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877042000206778.Search in Google Scholar

Shortland, Sue. 2010. Feedback within peer observation: Continuing professional development and unexpected consequences. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 47: 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2010.498181.Search in Google Scholar

Sidnell, Jack & Tanya Stivers (eds.), 2012. The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001Search in Google Scholar

Sidnell, Jack. 2012. “Who knows best?” Evidentialy and epistemic asymmetry in conversation. Pragmatics and Society 3. 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.3.2.08sid.Search in Google Scholar

Steensig, Jakob & Tine Larsen. 2008. Affiliative and disaffiliative uses of you say x questions. Discourse Studies 10. 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085593.Search in Google Scholar

Steensig, Jakob. 2012. Conversation analysis and affiliation and alignment. In Carol Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 994–948. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0196Search in Google Scholar

Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig. 2011. Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 3–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002Search in Google Scholar

Stivers, Tanya. 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41. 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123.Search in Google Scholar

Strong, Michael & Wendy Baron. 2004. An analysis of mentoring conversations with beginning teachers: Suggestions and responses. Teaching and Teacher Education 20. 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.09.005.Search in Google Scholar

Wajnryb, Ruth. 1994. The pragmatics of feedback: A study of mitigation in the supervisory discourse of TESOL teacher educators, Australia: Macquarie University Unpublished thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Walsh, Steve & Steve Mann. 2015. Doing reflective practice: A data-led way forward. ELT Journal 69. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv018.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2020-07-13

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston