MULTIPLE LAYERS OF INTERACTIVITY IN S-STEP: AN EMPIRICALLY-BASED EXPLORATION OF METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES TIM FLETCHER Brock University, Canada DÉIRDRE NÍ CHRÓINÍN Mary Immaculate College, Ireland MARY O’SULLIVAN University of Limerick, Ireland

BACKGROUND Learning About Meaningful Physical Education (LAMPE): 4 Yr study Preliminary results from Yrs 1-2 Pre-service teachers (PSTs) in Ireland and Canada This research was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada

CONTEXTS Using S-STEP to develop an approach to physical education teacher education (PETE) where the facilitation of meaningful experiences is the prioritized filter for pedagogical decision-making (Kretchmar, 2006; Blankenship & Ayers, 2010)

QUALITY IN S-STEP INTERACTIVE at some stage of the process Self-initiated/-focused Improvement-oriented INTERACTIVE at some stage of the process Multiple methods and data sources Validation couched in trustworthiness LaBoskey (2004) Many other people who have written about this also acknowledge interactivity as crucial – Vanassche & Kelchtermans, Hamilton & Pinnegar, Bullough & Pinnegar, Samaras, etc.

HOW DO YOU TYPICALLY ENACT INTERACTIVITY IN S-STEP DESIGN? Begin with pairs, then merge pairs to see if there are different interpretations… This illustrates how the different layers of interactivity can lead to new, different, and multiple interpretations. And what would happen if/when I came into your conversation and added my 2 cents, particularly given the (arguable) authority of my voice as the presenter? BUT, when multiple voices were included, how and to what extent was your voice still included in the conversation? Was it more or less present than before? Did one voice in the group seem to speak louder than the others?

RESEARCH QUESTIONS How can embedding multiple layers of interactivity provide alternative insights into teacher education practice, and thus enhance the understandings gained? Is layers the right word? Maybe it is multiple sources of interactivity?

DATA SOURCE APPROX. DATA (2 yrs.) LAYER 1 2 3 Teacher educator journal entries 33 = ~ 40 000 wds 1 Critical friend responses 33 = ~ 20 000 wds “Turning Point” documents 8 Recorded audio conversations with ‘meta-critical friend’ ~ 7 hrs 2 Individual interviews with students n = 10 3 Focus group interviews with 3-5 students n = 9 Highlight the important role that critical friendship has played in the study so far

ANALYSIS Teacher educator/Critical friend data Teacher educator/‘meta-critical friend’ data Student data There is an affective (e.g., emotional or motivational) element to the data. The data frame a problem of practice. The author of the data is implicitly or explicitly asking for help from the critical friend. The data are bounded by the action-present; there is still time to take action on the problem. (p. 175)

OUR ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: The role of peer teaching OUTCOMES OUR ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: The role of peer teaching Teaching about teaching

YEAR 1: LAYER 1 = AMBIVALENCE “So they were learning about peer learning as they were doing this activity, as well as learning to teach using peer learning” (Tim’s CF response to Déirdre).

YEAR 1: LAYER 1 = AMBIVALENCE “So they were learning about peer learning as they were doing this activity, as well as learning to teach using peer learning” (Tim’s CF response to Déirdre). + LAYER 2… MARY ENCOURAGED US TO MOVE BEYOND THE NICETIES AND TO SEE OUR PROBLEMS AS FRIENDS. SEE OUR FORTHCOMING PAPER IN STE ON THE ROLE OF MARY AS A META-CRITICAL FRIEND

YEAR 2: LAYER 1 = CRITIQUE/CHALLENGE “I am wondering about the value of peer teaching” (Tim CF comment) “While [Tim] argues that it is an inauthentic context for them as first time teachers of PE it is a perfectly authentic learning context… Have I convinced you?” (Déirdre comment) While Déirdre’s response caused Tim to rethink his position, it also led Déirdre to question hers…

YEAR 2: LAYER 1 = CRITIQUE/CHALLENGE + LAYER 3 (Students’ voices)…

(An implicit) RESEARCH QUESTION What tensions were evident when embedding multiple layers of interactivity from different data sources? How were the different interactive “voices” reconciled and privileged?

It took the students’ voices to convince Tim of the value of peer teaching. In self-study research where there are multiple layers of interactivity: Whose voices should we listen to most closely? At what volume should each voice be set? How do we maintain a focus on the self while including the voices of others?

SIGNIFICANCE Multiple layers of interactivity added deeper and more nuanced understandings of teacher education practice Tensions arose around whose voices we listened to and when This has implications for how we conduct analysis in these types of self-studies Likely no right or wrong answers about this, but it causes to really think about how complex the design of our self-study research (including how we conduct our analyses) becomes when we include multiple layers of interactivty

THANK YOU! Tim Fletcher tfletcher@brocku.ca Déirdre Ní Chróinín Deirdre.NiChroinin@mic.ul.ie Mary O’Sullivan Mary.OSullivan@ul.ie @meaningfulpe meaningfulpe.wordpress.com