UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The role of journal writing in initiating reflection on practice of tutors in a college learning centre Robinson, Julia Margaret 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-0399.pdf [ 7.89MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078075.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078075-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078075-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078075-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078075-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078075-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078075-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078075-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078075.ris

Full Text

THE ROLE OF JOURNAL WRITING IN INITIATING REFLECTION ON PRACTICE OF TUTORS IN A COLLEGE LEARNING CENTRE by JULIA MARGARET ROBINSON B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1982 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Language Education) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (c) J u l i a Margaret Robinson, 1995 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Language Educat ion The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date J u l y 19, 1995 DE-6 (2/88) 11 Abstract A discrepancy appears to e x i s t between the value pl a c e d on r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l w r i t i n g by the w r i t e r s of j o u r n a l s and the value seen by educators of that same j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . In t h i s study, I explored the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g of s i x t u t o r s working i n a l e a r n i n g centre at a two-year community c o l l e g e i n western Canada. I examined: (1) t u t o r s ' perspectives on the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task; (2) the content and r e f l e c t i v i t y of t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s ; and, (3) the accuracy of the j o u r n a l s i n r e p r e s e n t i n g t u t o r t h i n k i n g i n i t i a t e d by the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. The i n i t i a l data c o l l e c t i o n f o r the study i n c l u d e d o b s e r v a t i o n of weekly i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g sessions and examination of t u t o r j o u r n a l e n t r i e s . Tutors were i n t e r v i e w e d about t h e i r perceptions of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g and t h e i r t h i n k i n g around is s u e s they wrote about i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . The t u t o r t r a i n e r was interviewed about h i s expectations of t u t o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , h i s r e a c t i o n s to t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s and h i s perceptions of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. A f t e r the i n i t i a l data c o l l e c t i o n , the p a r t i c i p a n t s were given summaries of data c o l l e c t e d i n the i n i t i a l phase. Tutors read the summaries and as a group dis c u s s e d issues r a i s e d by the data. I i n t e r v i e w e d the t r a i n e r about i n s i g h t s he had gained from the summaries. Content choices and l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i v i t y i n the t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s v a r i e d widely. Factors a f f e c t i n g the content and l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n i n the t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s were a f f e c t e d by t u t o r s ' understanding of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task, t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , t h e i r f e e l i n g s of v u l n e r a b i l i t y , t h e i r personal h i s t o r i e s , t h e i r t u t o r i n g experience, t h e i r preference f o r w r i t i n g as a mode of l e a r n i n g , and t h e i r purposes f o r w r i t i n g j o u r n a l s . Most t u t o r s p e r c e i v e d t h e i r j o u r n a l s as u s e f u l to them, but the t u t o r t r a i n e r regarded the j o u r n a l s as l e s s u s e f u l . This d i f f e r e n c e i n per c e p t i o n of the b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g can be a t t r i b u t e d , at l e a s t i n part , to the d i f f e r i n g l e v e l s of access of the t r a i n e r and the t u t o r s to the b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . The t r a i n e r based h i s understanding of the b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g on the jo u r n a l s themselves whereas the t u t o r s were aware of b e n e f i t s that were not apparent from studying the jo u r n a l s . . Interviews w i t h the t u t o r s showed.that t u t o r s r e f l e c t e d more as a r e s u l t of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task than was evident from t h e i r j o u r n a l s . The t r a i n e r ' s view of the r e f l e c t i o n i n i t i a t e d by the. j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task was obscured i n t u t o r s ' journals.due to the fact, that t u t o r s reported p r i o r r e f l e c t i o n , provided incomplete r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e i r r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g , made r h e t o r i c a l choices which masked t h e i r l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n , and continued to r e f l e c t a f t e r completion of j o u r n a l e n t r i e s . I m p l i c a t i o n s of the study f o r educators i n c l u d e the importance of a process approach to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , the r i s k s of assuming that j o u r n a l s provide an accurate p i c t u r e of the r e f l e c t i o n the task i n i t i a t e s , and f a c t o r s f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the prompt f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . i v I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r researchers focus on the r i s k s of assuming that j o u r n a l s provide an accurate measure of the b e n e f i t s of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. C o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h j o u r n a l w r i t e r s i s seen as e s s e n t i a l f o r any such measure to be achieved. V Table of Contents Abstract i i Table of Contents v L i s t of Figures x Acknowledgements x i Chapter One - I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Background to the study 1 Purpose of the present study 4 D e f i n i t i o n of terms. ' 5 S i g n i f i c a n c e of "the study. 6 P r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e 6 S i g n i f i c a n c e to .research. ...... 7 Org a n i z a t i o n of the t h e s i s 8 Chapter Two - Review of the L i t e r a t u r e 9 I n t r o d u c t i o n 9 R e f l e c t i o n i n teacher education 9 Arenas of the problematic 11 R e f l e c t i v e teaching defined 13 Factors a f f e c t i n g s u c c e s s f u l implementation of r e f l e c t i v e teacher education 16 I n d i v i d u a l student d i f f e r e n c e s 16 Teacher education programs 17 School c u l t u r e 2 0 S t r a t e g i e s used i n r e f l e c t i v e teaching programs 20 W r i t i n g to l e a r n 20 v i J o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n teaching r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e 22 Purposes of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g 22 Approaches to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . . 25 Problems with j o u r n a l w r i t i n g 27 A n a l y s i s of r e f l e c t i o n i n j o u r n a l s 32 Journals as evidence of r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g 33 The Need to access student p e r s p e c t i v e s 37 Chapter Three - The Study. 39 The Context of the Study. 40 Beginnings 41 S e c t i o n One: Data c o l l e c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s 44 Tutor journals 44 Tutor' Interviews 44 Trainer interviews 47 S t a f f meetings . . . . 48 C i t a t i o n of data sources. 49 My r o l e i n the research 49 Section Two: The P a r t i c i p a n t s 52 The Peer tu t o r s . . 52 F e l i c i a 53 Krista'. ." 55 Christopher 57 B i l l y 59 Paul 60 The S t a f f t u t o r : Ann 62 The Tutor t r a i n e r : Tom 63 V l l S e c t i o n Three: The Journal w r i t i n g task 65 Trainer guidelines 65 T r a i n e r purpose i n a s s i g n i n g j o u r n a l w r i t i n g 67 T r a i n e r feedback on journals 68 Tutor perspectives on the purpose of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . 7 0 Tutor perspectives on j o u r n a l feedback 74 Tutor a t t i t u d e s to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g 76 Problems w i t h j o u r n a l w r i t i n g 7 6 B e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g ' 80 E f f e c t s of the research process on' t u t o r a t t i t u d e s to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g 84 T r a i n e r perception of t u t o r a t t i t u d e s to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , ' 87 The J o u r n a l w r i t i n g process 87 S e c t i o n Four: Contents of t u t o r j o u r n a l s 91 Content categories 91 Choice of what to w r i t e about 97 E f f e c t s of the research process on content i n t u t o r journals 101 T r a i n e r p e r s p e c t i v e on d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h j o u r n a l content 103 S e c t i o n F i v e : Levels of t h i n k i n g i n j o u r n a l s 108 T r a i n e r p e r s p e c t i v e on l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n 104 Thinking i n t u t o r j o u r n a l s by l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n . . 1 1 0 Level I: Reporting I l l Level I I : I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 113 V l l l Level I I I : E laboration 116 Level TV: Problem-solving and a p p l i c a t i o n 120 Thinking i n t u t o r j o u r n a l s : Overview 12 5 T r a i n e r p e r s p e c t i v e on l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n i n t u t o r journals 128 T r a i n e r p e r s p e c t i v e on the value of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . 1 3 1 T r a i n e r plans f o r future use of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g 132 S e c t i o n S i x : Tutor t h i n k i n g around j o u r n a l w r i t i n g 134 Factors confounding accurate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h i n k i n g i n t u t o r j o u r n a l s 135 Tutor r e p o r t i n g of p r i o r r e f l e c t i o n 135 Incomplete representation of r e f l e c t i o n 138 Thinking a f t e r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g 148 E f f e c t s of the research process on t u t o r thinking...153 Section Seven: C o l l a b o r a t i v e a n a l y s i s 157 W r i t i n g i n d i v i d u a l p r o f i l e s 157 P a r t i c i p a n t responses to i n d i v i d u a l p r o f i l e s 159 Tutor c o l l a b o r a t i v e meeting 159 Tutor c o l l a b o r a t i v e meeting: Findings 161 F i n a l t r a i n e r i n t e r v i e w 166 F i n a l t r a i n e r i n t e r v i e w : Findings 166 W r i t i n g the study 169 Conclusion 170 Chapter Four - Discussion 172 Findings 172 Content and l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n of j o u r n a l s 172 i x Role of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n r e f l e c t i o n 177 I m p l i c a t i o n s of the study 179 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t u t o r t r a i n e r s and teacher educators 179 Imp l i c a t i o n s f o r research 182 Conclusion 186 References 187 Appendix 1: Subject Consent Form 194 X L i s t of Figures Figure 1: Content categories i n t u t o r j o u r n a l s 92 Figure 2: Levels of t h i n k i n g 109 x i Acknowledgements I would l i k e to express my appreciation to the s t a f f of the learning centre for th e i r time and interest i n my research. Without them, this research would not have been possible. Although c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y requires that they remain nameless, my thanks i s no le s s . I would also l i k e to thank my advisory committee i n Language Education at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia: G l o r i a Tang, Margaret Early and Jim Anderson. Their feedback on my early ideas for the research as well as on e a r l i e r drafts of the thesis enabled me to improve both the process and product of the study. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to dedicate t h i s work to my husband, Patrick Robinson, who held the fort on the home-front throughout the research process, and to my children, Gordon and Anna, for t h e i r patience with the endless li t a n y , "I can't, I have to work" . Without them too, this study would not have been possible. 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background to the Study-In 1993, I began developing a l e a r n i n g centre f o r a two-year community c o l l e g e i n western Canada. The purpose of the l e a r n i n g centre was to a s s i s t students r e g i s t e r e d i n courses across the c o l l e g e w i t h reading, w r i t i n g , word pro c e s s i n g , math and study s k i l l s which they needed to be s u c c e s s f u l i n t h e i r courses. -Students were r e f e r r e d to the l e a r n i n g centre by t h e i r course i n s t r u c t o r s . Each student then met w i t h me; we d i d needs assessment and developed a l e a r n i n g plan which u t i l i z e d the resources of the l e a r n i n g centre'. I assigned students a t u t o r to a s s i s t them i n c a r r y i n g out that pl a n . The students or t h e i r t u t o r s came back to me f o r f u r t h e r a s s i s t a n c e as needed. Part of my job was to t r a i n the s t a f f and peer t u t o r s . The t r a i n i n g i n v o l v e d 12 hours of p r e - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g designed to give t u t o r s the ba s i c s needed to s t a r t work. This was augmented by hour-long weekly i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g sessions. I have desc r i b e d the l e a r n i n g centre model and t u t o r t r a i n i n g i n more d e t a i l elsewhere (Robinson, 1994). In the second semester of the centre's operation, I began to r e q u i r e peer t u t o r s working i n the centre to complete weekly j o u r n a l s r e f l e c t i n g on t h e i r t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e . I d i d so i n the b e l i e f that r e f l e c t i o n on p r a c t i c e would encourage t u t o r s to l e a r n from t h e i r experiences and increase t h e i r competence. 2 L i k e many teacher educators, and educators i n general, I was i n f l u e n c e d by the work of Schon (1983) who emphasized the l e a r n i n g p o t e n t i a l of r e f l e c t i o n on p r a c t i c e . I was a l s o f o l l o w i n g a current trend favouring a c t i o n research as a mode of i n q u i r y aimed at improving p r a c t i c e (Carr & Kemmis, 1986) . My background i n adult education l e d me to b e l i e v e that a d u l t l e a r n e r s are capable people who can and should be a c t i v e p a r t n e r s i n developing t h e i r own l e a r n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Making use of experience i s a c r u c i a l aspect of adul t l e a r n i n g . My ten years of experience as both a w r i t e r and an E n g l i s h as a Second Language (ESL) w r i t i n g teacher had a l s o l e d me to b e l i e v e that w r i t i n g a i d s t h i n k i n g and c r i t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n . I approached my own teaching from the perspective that theory and experience work j o i n t l y to inform p r a c t i c e . Beyond these p h i l o s o p h i c a l reasons, p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s c o n t r i b u t e d to my d e c i s i o n . I had very l i m i t e d time f o r the p r e - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g of t u t o r s . As a r e s u l t , I b e l i e v e d that the t r a i n i n g of t u t o r s needed to be h i g h l y p r a c t i c a l . P a r t i c u l a r l y because the l e a r n i n g centre was new, I had l i t t l e evidence on which to base d e c i s i o n s about what p r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g was needed. I regarded j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as p r o v i d i n g me w i t h data f o r needs assessment as w e l l as h e l p i n g t u t o r s t a c k l e issues which were p e r t i n e n t to t h e i r t u t o r i n g work. I was a l s o concerned to create w i t h i n the l e a r n i n g centre the atmosphere of a l e a r n i n g community i n which everyone, students, t u t o r s and f a c u l t y members, learned together. 3 When I began to rec e i v e weekly j o u r n a l s from the three t u t o r s I had working f o r me, I was g r e a t l y disappointed. Their j o u r n a l s appeared to be nothing more than s u p e r f i c i a l logs of t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s during the week. I encouraged the t u t o r s to make j o u r n a l s more r e f l e c t i v e by d i s c u s s i n g the purpose of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , by modelling r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l w r i t i n g based on my own work i n the l e a r n i n g centre, by asking t u t o r s to focus on only one or two t u t o r i n g sessions each week and by g i v i n g feedback on t h e i r j o u r n a l s which encouraged r e f l e c t i o n . A l l my e f f o r t s seemed to have l i t t l e l a s t i n g e f f e c t . I looked to the l i t e r a t u r e f o r some answers but found l i t t l e l i t e r a t u r e focusing on t u t o r t r a i n i n g and j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . As a r e s u l t , I reviewed some of the l i t e r a t u r e on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n teacher education. I found much optimism about j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as a r e f l e c t i v e t o o l (Wellington, 1991; Robinson-Armstrong, 1991; Surbeck, Park Han, & Moyer, 1991), but a number of w r i t e r s expressed concern about the r e s u l t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n teacher t r a i n i n g (Anderson, 1993; Ho & Richards, 1993). These teacher educators had examined j o u r n a l s of t e a c h e r s - i n - t r a i n i n g and found that there was l i t t l e evidence of r e f l e c t i o n i n those j o u r n a l s . I began to question whether j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was good i n theory but f o r some reason not u s e f u l i n p r a c t i c e . I was concerned that the t u t o r s were spending time on what appeared to be an unproductive a c t i v i t y , but I continued to re q u i r e t u t o r j o u r n a l s u n t i l the end of the year. ' 4 At the end of the year, I interviewed the t u t o r s i n d i v i d u a l l y about t h e i r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g experiences i n an attempt to understand the f a c t o r s which had l e d to the j o u r n a l s ' l a c k of e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Much to my s u r p r i s e , a l l three t u t o r s reported that they had found j o u r n a l w r i t i n g a very u s e f u l experience. They f e l t that they had learned a great deal about t u t o r i n g i n the process of w r i t i n g t h e i r j o u r n a l s and that i t had p o s i t i v e l y a f f e c t e d t h e i r t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e . The discrepancy between my perceptions of the la c k of usefulness of the t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s and the tu t o r s ' • p e r c e p t i o n s of the usefulness of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g l e d me to undertaking the current study. Purpose of the Present Study The purpose of the present study was to explore the pe r s p e c t i v e s on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g of t u t o r s working i n the l e a r n i n g centre. Three questions were used to guide the research: 1. How do t u t o r s perceive the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task? 2 . What do t u t o r s w r i t e about? 3 . How a c c u r a t e l y do t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s represent the t h i n k i n g i n i t i a t e d by the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task? The p e r s p e c t i v e s of t u t o r s on t h e i r j o u r n a l s and t h e i r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g would have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the f u t u r e use of j o u r n a l s i n the context of the l e a r n i n g centre. The study would a l s o have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r how j o u r n a l w r i t i n g should be s t u d i e d by researchers. 5 The study, based on int e r v i e w s , t u t o r j o u r n a l s , observations of i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g sessions and t r a i n i n g documents, describes both t u t o r j o u r n a l s and the t h i n k i n g t u t o r s reported they had done i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g during a one-semester pe r i o d . S i x t u t o r s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study i n c l u d i n g one s t a f f t u t o r and f i v e peer t u t o r s . The t u t o r t r a i n e r was a l s o interviewed w i t h the aim of understanding h i s perspectives on the j o u r n a l s he r e c e i v e d and h i s e f f o r t s to e l i c i t u s e f u l t u t o r J o u r n a l w r i t i n g . D e f i n i t i o n of Terms This s e c t i o n defines terms as they are used i n the study. A t u t o r i s someone engaged i n a s s i s t i n g a c o l l e g e student w i t h academic s k i l l s needed f o r s u c c e s s f u l completion of a c o l l e g e course or courses. Tutors i n the study were of two ki n d s : peer t u t o r s , who were academically s u c c e s s f u l f u l l - t i m e c o l l e g e students working part-time as t u t o r s i n the l e a r n i n g centre, and a s t a f f t u t o r , a unionized'employee of the c o l l e g e who had some teacher t r a i n i n g and experience. A l l t u t o r s worked under the s u p e r v i s i o n of a c o l l e g e f a c u l t y member who was the centre's D i r e c t o r . This f a c u l t y member was .responsible f o r t u t o r t r a i n i n g , needs a n a l y s i s and program planning f o r students, and development of centre p o l i c i e s and procedures. For the purposes of t h i s study, the D i r e c t o r w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as the t u t o r t r a i n e r . Students were r e f e r r e d by an i n s t r u c t o r i n the c o l l e g e to the l e a r n i n g centre f o r a s s i s t a n c e because of weakness i n one or more of t h e i r academic s k i l l s . 6 I n s t r u c t o r r e f e r s to a c o l l e g e f a c u l t y member outs i d e the l e a r n i n g centre. These i n s t r u c t o r s taught academic, a p p l i e d or developmental courses i n the c o l l e g e . R e f l e c t i o n i s used as defined by Lucas (1991). He defines r e f l e c t i o n as "systematic i n q u i r y i n t o one's own p r a c t i c e to improve that p r a c t i c e and to deepen one's understanding of i t " ( c i t e d i n Mclntyre, 1993, p. 42-43). Journals are u n s t r u c t u r e d r e f l e c t i v e w r i t i n g done by t u t o r s about t h e i r t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e s . S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study P r a c t i c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e I hoped the research would have p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , both f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study and f o r t u t o r and teacher t r a i n e r s . I hoped that the research process would be b e n e f i c i a l to the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a number of ways. F i r s t , I f e l t that the i n t e r v i e w process would improve t u t o r s ' understanding of c o n s t r a i n i n g f a c t o r s i n t h e i r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g and thereby r e l i e v e them of f e e l i n g s of inadequacy engendered by t r a i n e r e f f o r t s to e l i c i t more r e f l e c t i o n on t h e i r p r a c t i c e i n j o u r n a l s . Second, I was hopeful that by d i s c u s s i n g t h e i r t h i n k i n g around j o u r n a l w r i t i n g issues, t u t o r s would r e f l e c t more on t h e i r p r a c t i c e w i t h a r e s u l t i n g improvement of t h e i r understanding of t u t o r i n g . F i n a l l y , I f e l t that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study would give them an i n t r o d u c t i o n to academic research. The peer t u t o r s were good students who I assumed 7 would be i n t e n d i n g to go on to u n i v e r s i t y and g r a d u a t e - l e v e l s t u d i e s i n the fut u r e . From studying the perspectives of t u t o r s toward j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n the l e a r n i n g centre, I hoped that f a c u l t y i n v o l v e d i n t u t o r t r a i n i n g i n the centre would l e a r n how to use j o u r n a l w r i t i n g more e f f e c t i v e l y as an i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g t o o l i n the f u t u r e . I a l s o f e l t that the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the p e r s p e c t i v e s of the t u t o r s could a s s i s t teacher educators i n approaching j o u r n a l w r i t i n g when using i t to encourage r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e of t e a c h e r s - i n - t r a i n i n g . Although i n - s e r v i c e t u t o r t r a i n i n g i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t from p r e - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g of teachers, I f e l t that there were s u f f i c i e n t p a r a l l e l s that these i m p l i c a t i o n s would be u s e f u l i n that context. S i g n i f i c a n c e to Research Although research i n t o j o u r n a l w r i t i n g t y p i c a l l y regards i t as part of the r e f l e c t i v e process, I had seen evidence (Anderson, 1 9 9 3 ; Ho & Richards, 1993) that researchers were examining j o u r n a l s as products i n order to assess t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n to r e f l e c t i o n . I suspected, from my short experience w i t h j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , that the assumption that an a n a l y s i s of j o u r n a l s leads to an understanding of the r e f l e c t i o n on p r a c t i c e they i n i t i a t e d was erroneous. I hoped that my research would c l a r i f y d i f f i c u l t i e s i n v o l v e d i n examining j o u r n a l s f o r such a n a l y s i s . I was concerned that research based on j o u r n a l s as products could discourage p r a c t i t i o n e r s from using j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n t r a i n i n g t u t o r s and 8 teachers. An examination of t u t o r p e r s p e c t i v e s might c o n t r i b u t e to a b e t t e r understanding of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g w i t h i n the r e f l e c t i v e process. I a l s o hoped the study would help to e s t a b l i s h a l i t e r a t u r e on the use of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n t u t o r t r a i n i n g . Organization of the Thesis The t h e s i s i s organized as f o l l o w s . Chapter One introduces the t h e s i s . Chapter Two reviews l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to the study. Chapter Three describes the research methodology and the f i n d i n g s of the study. Chapter Four l i n k s f i n d i n g s of the study to f i n d i n g s of other researchers and suggests i m p l i c a t i o n s of the study. 9 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Int r o d u c t i o n The dearth of research on r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e and j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n t u t o r t r a i n i n g l e d me to turn to a cognate f i e l d f o r an understanding of the issues of r e f l e c t i o n on p r a c t i c e and j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . L i k e Mann ( 1 9 9 4 ) , I turned to the f i e l d of teacher education. The s i m i l a r i t i e s between teacher education and t u t o r t r a i n i n g are many. The t r a i n e e s are t y p i c a l l y young c o l l e g e students engaged i n e a r l y attempts t o . f a c i l i t a t e l e a r n i n g . In working i n t h e i r new r o l e , they are f a c i n g many s i m i l a r i s sues such as time management, i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s , assessment and teaching s t r a t e g i e s . They are oft e n i n v o l v e d i n other concurrent t r a i n i n g , and t h e i r work w i t h students i s supervised by t r a i n e r s . In t h i s chapter, I explore f i n d i n g s from teacher education research about r e f l e c t i o n on p r a c t i c e . I then examine the p o t e n t i a l of w r i t i n g . a s a l e a r n i n g t o o l . The chapter ends w i t h an examination of issues around j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n teacher education research. R e f l e c t i o n i n Teacher Education Teaching student teachers to r e f l e c t on t h e i r p r a c t i c e i s a current trend i n teacher education programs. Researchers (e.g. Hatton & Smith, 1 9 9 5 ; B a r t l e t t , 1 9 9 0 ; B o l i n , 1 9 8 8 ; Copeland, Birmingham, De La Cruz, & Lewin, 1 9 9 3 ; Ho & Richards, 10 1993) a s c r i b e to Dewey (1933) the idea that r e f l e c t i o n i s c r u c i a l to the a b i l i t y to l e a r n from experience. The current i n t e r e s t i n r e f l e c t i v e teaching, however, was sparked by Schon (1983) who asserted that a key p r o f e s s i o n a l a t t r i b u t e was the a b i l i t y to r e f l e c t on p r o f e s s i o n a l a c t i o n s . Since the p u b l i c a t i o n of Schon's seminal 1983 work The Reflective Practitioner, r e f l e c t i o n i n various forms has been the focus of a l a r g e body of l i t e r a t u r e i n teacher education and has become a goal of.many teacher education programs ( V a l l i , 1993) . This trend i n teacher education has been prompted by a number of f a c t o r s . F i r s t , r e f l e c t i v e teaching has been seen by some teacher educators as a way of he l p i n g students r e l a t e theory to p r a c t i c e ( J a r v i s , 1992; Pape & Smith, 1991). There has a l s o been growing teacher disenchantment w i t h t h e o r e t i c a l a s s e r t i o n s "proven" i n studies which appear to have l i t t l e i n common w i t h r e a l teaching and l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s (Eisner, 1988); t h i s has been as s o c i a t e d w i t h the move i n s o c i a l science away from l o g i c a l p o s i t i v i s m to the view that e d u c a t i o n a l phenomena are s o c i a l l y constructed (Tom, 1985). Another reason that teacher educators are teaching t h e i r students to r e f l e c t and to regard learning.and teaching as a c r i t i c a l process i s that i t enables teacher educators to model the teaching behaviours they hope prospective teachers w i l l employ i n t h e i r own classrooms (Anderson, 1993). The ongoing e f f o r t s of p r a c t i t i o n e r s and academics to have teaching recognized as a p r o f e s s i o n i s another major reason f o r 11 the i n t e r e s t i n r e f l e c t i o n . In par t , r e f l e c t i o n i s seen as a r e a c t i o n to the i n c r e a s i n g tendency of educational bureaucracies to regard teachers as t e c h n i c i a n s who should have l i t t l e c o n t r o l over the goals and contexts of education. Researchers see r e f l e c t i v e teaching as a way of teachers g a i n i n g l e g i t i m a c y i n tak i n g c o n t r o l of the goals and means of education. Many teacher educators (Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987; Smyth, 1989; Wellington, 1991), f o l l o w i n g F r e i r e (1970), regard teaching r e f l e c t i o n as a l i b e r a t o r y pedagogy l e a d i n g to the empowerment of teachers. Arenas of the Problematic Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , t h i s range of purposes f o r r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e leads to s i m i l a r l y v a r i e d understandings of the things about which teachers and prospective teachers should l e a r n to r e f l e c t . Tom (1985) i d e n t i f i e d what he c a l l e d "arenas of the problematic". Following Habermas (1973) and Van Manen (1977), many researchers (LaBoskey, 1993; Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987; Hatton & Smith, 1995) have accepted three arenas or areas f o r r e f l e c t i o n by teachers. The d e f i n i t i o n of these areas v a r i e s but there are c r u c i a l s i m i l a r i t i e s among the conceptions. The f i r s t l e v e l has been c a l l e d the t e c h n i c a l l e v e l (Hatton & Smith, 1995), the p r a c t i c a l / t e c h n i c a l l e v e l (LaBoskey, 1993) and t e c h n i c a l / r a t i o n a l i t y (Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987). This l e v e l focuses on the means of teaching and l e a r n i n g . I t problematizes the techniques and approaches of teaching and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of processes which l e a d to 12 s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g outcomes ( B o l i n , 1988). At t h i s l e v e l , the ends or goals of education are regarded as given. The second l e v e l has been r e f e r r e d to as the p r a c t i c a l l e v e l (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987), the s o c i a l / p o l i t i c a l l e v e l (LaBoskey, 1993), and the p o l i t i c a l / e t h i c a l l e v e l (Tom, 1985). This l e v e l problematizes not only the means of teaching but a l s o i t s goals. Zeichner and L i s t o n d e s c r i b e the problem at t h i s l e v e l as "one of e x p l i c a t i n g and c l a r i f y i n g the assumptions and p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g p r a c t i c a l a f f a i r s and.assessing the e d u c a t i o n a l consequences toward which an .action leads" (Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987, p. 24). Teachers are engaged i n value judgements (Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987) and i n r e l a t i n g theory to p r a c t i c e . They question assumptions about the goals of education. The t h i r d l e v e l , which has been c a l l e d c r i t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987), the m o r a l / e t h i c a l l e v e l (LaBoskey, 1993) and the s o c i e t a l l e v e l (Tom, 1985), problematizes the means and goals of education by examining moral and e t h i c a l c r i t e r i a as w e l l as the wider s o c i o - h i s t o r i c a l and p o l i t i c o - c u l t u r a l contexts of education. At t h i s l e v e l , teachers r e f l e c t about the e f f e c t s of a c t i v i t i e s , experience and goals on the achievement of s o c i a l j u s t i c e . Many t h e o r i s t s (e.g. Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987; Van Manen, 1977; Tom, 1985; Smyth, 1989) regard these three l e v e l s as i n h i e r a r c h i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p and b e l i e v e t h i s t h i r d l e v e l should be the goal of teaching teachers to r e f l e c t . 13 Others, however, question t h i s p o s i t i o n . Recent s t u d i e s by V a l l i (1993), LaBoskey (1993), Pultorak (1993) and Hatton and Smith (1995) suggest, that a l l three l e v e l s are e q u a l l y important to the development of r e f l e c t i v e teachers. LaBoskey (1993) argues that conception of the three arenas as l e v e l s i n h i e r a r c h i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p "devalues the p r a c t i c a l " , and that they should be regarded as " p o t e n t i a l f o c i or content of r e f l e c t i o n r a t h e r than l e v e l s " (p. 26). A f u r t h e r c o n t r i b u t i o n to the p o s i t i o n that c r i t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n need not be the s o l e focus of teacher education programs i s the d i f f i c u l t y teacher educators have had i n engaging pre-se'rvice and i n - s e r v i c e teachers i n the higher l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n (Wedman & M a r t i n , 1986; Hatton & Smith, 1995). These studies suggest that p r o g r e s s i o n through the three l e v e l s i s developmental; one l e v e l must be achieved before progression to higher l e v e l s i s p o s s i b l e . R e f l e c t i v e Teaching Defined These d i f f e r i n g p o s i t i o n s on the value and v i a b i l i t y of engendering teacher r e f l e c t i o n i n d i f f e r e n t arenas of the problematic are echoed i n researchers' attempts to d e f i n e r e f l e c t i v e teaching. B a r t l e t t (1990) i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i n the l i t e r a t u r e two v a s t l y d i f f e r i n g p o s i t i o n s on how r e f l e c t i v e teaching should be defined. He noted that Cruickshank and Applegate (1981) define r e f l e c t i v e teaching as teachers t h i n k i n g about what happens i n the classroom and a l t e r n a t i v e means of a c h i e v i n g t h e i r goals. Zeichner and L i s t o n (1985; 14 c i t e d i n B a r t l e t t , 1990), on the other.hand, d e f i n e the r e f l e c t i v e teacher as "one who assesses the o r i g i n s , purposes and consequences of h i s or her work at a l l l e v e l s " (p. 202) . These d e f i n i t i o n s are dependent upon the p o s i t i o n s of the r e s p e c t i v e researchers toward appropriate arenas of the problematic. Lucas (1991; c i t e d i n Mclntyre, 1993) has provided a more general d e f i n i t i o n of r e f l e c t i o n which avoids commitment to a p a r t i c u l a r view of appropriate arenas of the problematic. He defines r e f l e c t i o n as "systematic i n q u i r y into-one's own p r a c t i c e to improve that p r a c t i c e and to deepen one's understanding of i t " (p. 42-43). Lucas' d e f i n i t i o n n e i t h e r r e q u i r e s nor precludes a focus on any p a r t i c u l a r arena of the problematic. The strength of Lucas' d e f i n i t i o n i s that i t leaves the question of arenas of the problematic open but focuses on a number of key aspects of r e f l e c t i o n . F i r s t , f o l l o w i n g Dewey (1933), r e f l e c t i o n i s a process of systematic i n q u i r y , not random musings. Second, r e f l e c t i o n i s focused on the r e f l e c t o r ' s p r a c t i c e but could i n c l u d e examining both (a) the s o c i o - h i s t o r i c a l and p o l i t i c o - c u l t u r a l i n f l u e n c e s on that p r a c t i c e , and (b) the moral and e t h i c a l r a m i f i c a t i o n s of that p r a c t i c e . T h i r d , r e f l e c t i o n leads to both a c t i o n and knowledge. Outcomes of both a c t i o n and knowledge are seen as under the r e f l e c t o r ' s c o n t r o l . A more recent d e f i n i t i o n of r e f l e c t i o n by Hatton and Smith (1995) a s s e r t s that r e f l e c t i o n i s " d e l i b e r a t i v e t h i n k i n g about 15 a c t i o n w i t h a view to i t s improvement" (p. 4 0 ). This d e f i n i t i o n , although w i s e l y avoiding attachment to p a r t i c u l a r arenas of the problematic, does not a t t a i n the power of Lucas' d e f i n i t i o n i n that i t f a i l s to acknowledge the c e n t r a l r o l e of the r e f l e c t o r . A strength of the Hatton and Smith d e f i n i t i o n i s i t s focus on " d e l i b e r a t i v e t h i n k i n g " as opposed to Lucas' "systematic i n q u i r y " . Much of the r e f l e c t i o n p r a c t i s e d i n teacher education programs i s more a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e d as " d e l i b e r a t i v e t h i n k i n g " . D e l i b e r a t i v e t h i n k i n g can i n c l u d e systematic i n q u i r y but does not preclude l e s s s t r u c t u r e d forms of t h i n k i n g . These d e f i n i t i o n s c o n t r i b u t e to our understanding of r e f l e c t i o n . One problematic issue f o r researchers and teacher educators i s how a r e f l e c t i v e teacher can be i d e n t i f i e d . Hatton and Smith (1995) assert that there i s "a considerable challenge to develop means f o r gathering and a n a l y z i n g data so that evidence shows unequivocally that r e f l e c t i o n has taken place" (p. 3 9 ) . Copeland et a l . (1993) suggest that " r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e i n teaching i s manifested as a stance toward i n q u i r y " (p. 3 4 9 ) . R e f l e c t i o n i s a h i g h l y personal, o f t e n i n t e r n a l process, that cannot be measured e a s i l y i n b e h a v i o r a l terms. Copeland et a l . (1993) assert " i t i s the thought behind the a c t i o n s of teaching, not the a c t i o n s themselves, that i s c r u c i a l to r e f l e c t i o n " (p.3 5 4 ) . Thus, although s k i l l s of r e f l e c t i v e teaching may be measurable, the i n c l i n a t i o n to use them i s a r e s u l t of a t t i t u d e rather than s k i l l . 16 LaBoskey (1993) points out that Dewey's stages of r e f l e c t i o n - - p r o b l e m d e f i n i t i o n , means/ends a n a l y s i s and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n - - f a i l because of t h e i r over-emphasis on l o g i c a l t h i n k i n g . She b e l i e v e s that a t t i t u d e s suggested by Dewey of open-mindedness, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and whole-heartedness are more c r u c i a l to the r e f l e c t i v e process than any s p e c i f i c steps of r e f l e c t i o n . She agrees w i t h Boud, Keogh and Walker (1985) that r e f l e c t i o n i s a complex process which i n v o l v e s i n t e r a c t i o n between c o g n i t i o n and f e e l i n g s . • ••' Factors A f f e c t i n g Successful Implementation of R e f l e c t i v e Teacher Education Factors a f f e c t i n g s u c c e s s f u l implementation of r e f l e c t i v e teacher programs can be grouped i n t o three areas: i n d i v i d u a l student d i f f e r e n c e s , teacher t r a i n i n g programs and school c u l t u r e . I n d i v i d u a l Student Di f f e r e n c e s T e a c h e r s - i n - t r a i n i n g have been found to react v a r i o u s l y to attempts to teach them r e f l e c t i v i t y . One cause of these v a r i e d r e a c t i o n s has been a t t r i b u t e d to t h e i r range of previous experience or l i f e h i s t o r y (Boud, Keogh & Walker, 1985a; LaBoskey, 1 9 9 3 ; Z u l i c h , Bean, and H e r r i c k , 1 9 9 2 ; Freeman, 1 9 9 3 ). Students come to p r e - s e r v i c e education w i t h v a r i e d experiences of teaching and l e a r n i n g and v a r i o u s pre-conceptions of what i t means to be a teacher. Zeichner (1987) notes that there i s evidence i n the l i t e r a t u r e that r e f l e c t i v e teaching programs "are more 17 f r e q u e n t l y s u c c e s s f u l w i t h those students who are already r e f l e c t i v e and l e s s s u c c e s s f u l and more f r e q u e n t l y c r i t i c i z e d by those student (sic) who are not predisposed to r e f l e c t about t h e i r teaching" (p.573) LaBoskey (1993) grouped incoming students to a teacher education program i n " A l e r t Novice" and "Common-sense Thinker" c a t e g o r i e s . A l e r t Novices wrote more r e f l e c t i v e l y than Common-sense Thinkers. D i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups included l e v e l s of c o g n i t i v e development, s t r e n g t h of p r i o r b e l i e f s , impact of emotions, view of l e a r n i n g as short or long term, o r i e n t a t i o n to s e l f or students, conception of the teacher r o l e , awareness of a need to l e a r n and locus of motivation. Teacher Education Programs • Teacher education programs have had a number of d i f f i c u l t i e s i n implementing r e f l e c t i v e teacher education. A major problem seems to be the lack of comprehensiveness of many r e f l e c t i v e programs (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987). Encouragement of teacher r e f l e c t i o n i s o f t e n l o c a l i z e d i n one or a few courses; other courses i n the program do not take a r e f l e c t i v e approach. A comprehensive approach which supports r e f l e c t i o n i n a l l aspects of teacher.education i s recommended ( V a l l i , 1993 ; Hatton & Smith, 1995) . Another concern w i t h comprehensiveness i s a perceived l a c k of commitment to the r e f l e c t i v e approach by some program s t a f f . This problem has been noted w i t h some practicum s u p e r v i s o r s (Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987). These supervisors are t y p i c a l l y 18 graduate students who work i n that c a p a c i t y t e m p o r a r i l y and have heavy workloads. The r o l e of the teacher educator i n r e f l e c t i v e teacher education has been seen as that of a f a c i l i t a t o r (Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987; Calderhead & Gates, 1993) and a mentor (McAlpine, 1992). Calderhead and Gates (1993) suggest that "a c u l t u r e of c o l l a b o r a t i o n " (p. 5) may be needed i n teacher education i f student teachers are to become r e f l e c t i v e teachers. Calderhead and Gates (1993) also' note that the t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e of s t a f f i n teacher education programs, that of assessor and gate-keeper, may make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r program s t a f f to take a f a c i l i t a t i v e r o l e . In s h i f t i n g to teacher education-which'focuses on r e f l e c t i v e teaching, program s t a f f need to l e a r n new s k i l l s and develop new understandings of the r e f l e c t i v e process. However, t h i s has not proven to be a simple task. One d i f f i c u l t y i s the problem of assessing the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of teaching r e f l e c t i o n . Copeland et a l . (1993) a s s e r t , "An examination of the l i t e r a t u r e r e v e als a general assumption that r e f l e c t i o n i n p r o f e s s i o n a l behavior i s d e s i r a b l e but very l i t t l e guidance as to how c o n f i d e n t l y to determine that r e f l e c t i v e behavior a c t u a l l y e x i s t s " (p. 348). This d i f f i c u l t y i n a s s e s s i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of techniques i s explained by Boud et a l . (1985) : ...only l e a r n e r s themselves can l e a r n and only they can r e f l e c t on t h e i r own experiences. Teachers can intervene i n v a r i o u s ways to a s s i s t , but they only have access to 19 i n d i v i d u a l s ' thoughts and f e e l i n g s through what i n d i v i d u a l s choose to reve a l about themselves. At t h i s b a s i c l e v e l the le a r n e r i s i n t o t a l ' c o n t r o l . (p. 11) Thus, teacher educators are not only seeking new s t r a t e g i e s f o r teaching but they are a l s o experiencing d i f f i c u l t y i n asse s s i n g the e f f i c a c y of the s t r a t e g i e s they develop. The l i t e r a t u r e i s r e p l e t e w i t h attempts by teacher educators to assess the usefulness of s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i e s in.prompting a r e f l e c t i v e approach to teaching (e.g. Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987; Freeman, 1993; Hoover, 1994; Ho & Richards, 1993). Some teacher educators a t t r i b u t e t h e i r l i m i t e d - success, w i t h s p e c i f i c techniques to f a i l u r e to provide e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e f l e c t i o n and optimal r e f l e c t i v e tasks.(Ho & Richards, 1993 ; Hoover, 1994) . A f i n a l f a c t o r worthy of note i s the importance of time i n l e a r n i n g to r e f l e c t (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Wedman, M a r t i n , & Mahlios, 1990; Surbeck, Park Han, & Moyer, 1991). R e f l e c t i o n takes time, but student teachers o f t e n lack time f o r r e f l e c t i o n . As Wedman et a l . (1990) note, "A person needs time f o r r e f l e c t i o n and the necessary time i s u s u a l l y not a v a i l a b l e during i n i t i a l phases of classroom teaching" (p. 23). Furthermore, the development of r e f l e c t i v e s k i l l s and a r e f l e c t i v e stance takes time and programs o f t e n do not have the du r a t i o n r e q u i r e d to make s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n teachers' r e f l e c t i v i t y (Ho & Richards, 1993). 20 School C u l t u r e School c u l t u r e has been seen as a conservative f o r c e which o f t e n discourages t e a c h e r s - i n - t r a i n i n g from r e f l e c t i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y on the goals of education (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Wedman et a l . , 1990; Zeichner & Liston,. 1987; Z u l i c h et a l . , 1992). As Wedman et a l . (1990) note, " C l e a r l y i t i s d i f f i c u l t to develop a r e f l e c t i v e teacher i n a n o n - r e f l e c t i v e environment" (p. 17). Calderhead & Gates (1993) suggest that " r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e requires a supportive environment" (p. 5). Practicum and other e a r l y teaching experiences t y p i c a l l y work against e f f o r t s to foster, r e f l e c t i v i t y i n novice teachers. S t r a t e g i e s Used i n R e f l e c t i v e Teaching Programs Hatton & Smith (1995) i d e n t i f y four broad s t r a t e g i e s which are claimed to promote r e f l e c t i o n : a c t i o n research p r o j e c t s ; case s t u d i e s and ethnographic s t u d i e s ; microteaching and other supervised practicum experiences; and, s t r u c t u r e d c u r r i c u l u m t a s k s . They note that " w r i t i n g tasks are o f t e n employed" (p. 36), and they suggest the most fr e q u e n t l y used w r i t i n g task i s j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . W r i t i n g to Learn W r i t i n g has been acknowledged as a powerful l e a r n i n g t o o l (Emig, 1977; Yinger & Clark, 1981; Hoover, 1994). Emig (1977), based on the works of Vygotsky, Bruner and B r i t t o n , has i d e n t i f i e d four key p a r a l l e l s between s u c c e s s f u l l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s and the w r i t i n g process. According to Emig, one 21 reason that w r i t i n g i s such a powerful l e a r n i n g t o o l i s that i t i s " m u l t i - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l and i n t e g r a t i v e " (p. 124). I t inco r p o r a t e s three modes of representation p o s i t e d by Bruner (1966; c i t e d i n Emig, 1977): the enactive mode (doing), the i k o n i c mode ( p i c t u r i n g ) and the symbolic mode (rep r e s e n t i n g w i t h symbolic code). Representing information i n more than one mode has been found to "create r i c h e r memories and rep r e s e n t a t i o n s than through e i t h e r mode of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n (code) alone" (Yinger & Clark, 1981,' p. 4). W r i t i n g i s a l s o a successful' l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g y i n that i t provides a record of the w r i t e r ' s t h i n k i n g . This record i s u s e f u l both during the w r i t i n g process and a f t e r the w r i t i n g i s complete. During' the w r i t i n g process, ideas are reviewed and evaluated, p o t e n t i a l l y leading to f u r t h e r development of those ideas. E i s n e r (1988) suggests, "the act of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ... provides the occasion f o r discovery" (p. 16). A f t e r the w r i t i n g i s complete, the w r i t t e n product provides a resource f o r reading and f u r t h e r t h i n k i n g (Richards & Lockhart, 1994) . The t h i r d way that w r i t i n g i s seen by Emig as sharing the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of l e a r n i n g i s that w r i t i n g develops awareness of the connections between ideas. L e x i c a l , s y n t a c t i c and r h e t o r i c a l devices are used to e s t a b l i s h e x p l i c i t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between ideas. W r i t i n g allows the reader to draw on "relevant knowledge and experience as p r e p a r a t i o n f o r new l e a r n i n g . . . , r e f o r m u l a t i n g or extending e x i s t i n g knowledge" (Hoover, 1994, p. 84). 22 F i n a l l y , Emig suggests that w r i t i n g , l i k e s u c c e s s f u l l e a r n i n g , i s a c t i v e , engaged and personal. W r i t e r s a c t i v e l y n e g o t i a t e meaning, beginning w i t h t h e i r current understandings and p r o g r e s s i n g at a speed appropriate f o r them. The acknowledged strengths of w r i t i n g as a l e a r n i n g t o o l have encouraged many teacher educators to u t i l i z e w r i t i n g tasks to develop student teachers' r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g s k i l l s (e.g. Smyth, 1989; Hoover, 1994; Yinger & Clark, 1987; Anderson, 1993; Robinson-Armstrong, 1991). Journal w r i t i n g has been used ext e n s i v e l y , i n r e f l e c t i v e teaching programs; the expressive nature of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g takes advantage of the b e n e f i t s of " w r i t i n g as a mode of l e a r n i n g " (Emig, 1977). J o u r n a l W r i t i n g i n Teaching, R e f l e c t i v e P r a c t i c e Purposes of Journal W r i t i n g J o u r n a l w r i t i n g has been used i n the context of teaching r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e w i t h three main goals: (1) as a v e h i c l e f o r r e f l e c t i o n ; (2) as a mode of communication; and, (3) as a research t o o l . J o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s widely accepted as a u s e f u l task f o r encouraging r e f l e c t i o n among t e a c h e r s - i n - t r a i n i n g (e.g. Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987; '"Gipe' & Richards, 1992 ; Z u l i c h et a l . , 1992; J a r v i s , 1992; B o l i n , 1988). Zeichner and L i s t o n (1987) suggest that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g provides "student teachers w i t h a v e h i c l e f o r systematic r e f l e c t i o n on t h e i r development as teachers and on t h e i r a c t i o n s i n classroom and work contexts" (p. 33). Implied i n Zeichner & L i s t o n ' s a s s e r t i o n i s the r o l e 23 of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n hel p i n g student teachers make connections between t h i n g s . One frequently c i t e d connection f a c i l i t a t e d by j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s the connection between t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge and teaching p r a c t i c e (e.g. Ho & Richards, 1993; J a r v i s , 1992; Yinger & Cl a r k , 1981; Wedman & Martin, 1986) . Other connections f a c i l i t a t e d by j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i nclude connections between self-knowledge, p r a c t i c a l experience and teaching and l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s (Yinger & Clark, 1981), connections between s e l f and i n s t i t u t i o n (Wedman & Martin, 1986), connections between d a i l y r o u t i n e s and teaching e f f e c t i v e n e s s (Wedman & M a r t i n , 1986), and connections between l i f e experience' and teaching (Anderson, 1993). By g i v i n g prospective teachers p r a c t i c e i n making these connections, j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s seen to improve t h e i r t h i n k i n g s k i l l s and to st i m u l a t e " c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n " (Carswell, 1988, p. 12) of ideas about teaching. Another b e n e f i t of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g c i t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s i t s r o l e i n i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g i n s t r u c t i o n (Robinson-Armstrong, 1991; F u l w i l e r , 1980). Not only can pro s p e c t i v e teachers work w i t h ideas at t h e i r own l e v e l of understanding, but they can a l s o explore those ideas at t h e i r own pace. Students can explore the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i r own l e a r n i n g and t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s (Robinson-Armstrong, 1991) and personal h i s t o r i e s ( Z u l i c h et a l . , 1992). Through j o u r n a l w r i t i n g they can develop t h e i r own v o i c e (Wedman et a l . , 1989; c i t e d i n Hatton & Smith, 1995) and a personal p r o f e s s i o n a l stance (McAlpine, 1992). 24 Jo u r n a l w r i t i n g i s a l s o seen to provide an opportunity f o r " a t t a i n i n g new depths of personal understanding which may i n tu r n f a c i l i t a t e increased personal development" (Wedman & Ma r t i n , 1986, p. 69). Robinson-Armstrong (1991) suggests that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g can be "therapeutic" as i t provides an opportunity f o r students "to explore t h e i r emotions and a t t i t u d e s " (p. 8). McAlpine (1992) a s s e r t s that t h i s e x p l o r a t i o n of emotions can serve a " c a t h a r t i c " f u n c t i o n (p. 24) . Jo u r n a l w r i t i n g i s valued as a communication t o o l , p r i m a r i l y between teacher and students, and s e c o n d a r i l y between students and other students. B o l i n (1988) p o s i t s that " j o u r n a l s serve as the supervisor's l i n k to the classroom" (p. 50). Zeichner and L i s t o n (1987) assert that j o u r n a l s are intended to f u r n i s h i n s t r u c t o r s "with information about the ways i n which t h e i r students t h i n k about t h e i r teaching and about t h e i r development as teachers,' w i t h information about classroom, school, and community contexts" (p. 33). Z u l i c h et a l . (1992) note that they used j o u r n a l e n t r i e s to gain access to students' personal biographies and progress i n the program. In t h i s way, j o u r n a l s become an important needs assessment t o o l . The communication achieved through j o u r n a l w r i t i n g between students and i n s t r u c t o r s has been seen as improving t h e i r rapport (Carswell, 1988), p a r t i c u l a r l y when i n s t r u c t o r s provide extensive feedback on jo u r n a l s or when dialogue j o u r n a l s are used. When j o u r n a l s are shared, they have a l s o been found to 25 " s t i m u l a t e more productive c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s " (Porter, G o l d s t e i n , Leatherman, & Conrad, 1990, p. 235) and "create i n t e r a c t i o n beyond the classroom, both between teacher and student, and among students" (Porter et a l . , 1990, p.236). Journals have been used as a research t o o l both f o r examining teacher t h i n k i n g and f o r assessing the e f f i c a c y of s t r a t e g i e s and programs aimed at encouraging r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e . Yinger and C l a r k (1985) found that j o u r n a l s could be a u s e f u l t o o l f o r examining teacher t h i n k i n g . They wrote, "personal documents i n general, and j o u r n a l s i n p a r t i c u l a r , can be a window through which to view some of the workings of the human mind" (p. 27). They used j o u r n a l s to help them understand teacher t h i n k i n g around lesson planning. Mann (1994) used j o u r n a l s as a window to understanding f a c t o r s impeding the development of peer t u t o r s - i n - t r a i n i n g . Surbeck et a l . (1991) used j o u r n a l s as a means to understanding how students " t y p i c a l l y organize t h e i r t h i n k i n g " (p.25). Jo u r n a l s have a l s o been used e x t e n s i v e l y as a means of a s s e s s i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of teaching s t r a t e g i e s and programs aimed at encouraging r e f l e c t i v e teaching (Gipe & Richards, 1992). B o l i n (1988) suggests that j o u r n a l s are u s e f u l " i n a s s e s s i n g how w e l l our students meet personal and program goals" (p. 51) . Approaches to Journal W r i t i n g Journals are r e f e r r e d to i n the l i t e r a t u r e w i t h a v a r i e t y of terms. Terms such as " l e a r n i n g logs" (Porter et a l . , 1990), 26 " l e a r n i n g d i a r i e s " ( J a r v i s , 1992) and " l e a r n i n g records" ( J a r v i s , 1992) appear to be interchangeable w i t h the term j o u r n a l . There i s some evidence that p a r t i c u l a r terms are chosen by educators f o r the impressions they create f o r j o u r n a l w r i t e r s ( J a r v i s , 1992; Car s w e l l , 1988). The term "dialogue j o u r n a l " ( B o l i n , 1988; Newman, 1988; Z u l i c h et a l . , 1992) i s a l s o used; the dialogue aspect of these'journals t y p i c a l l y r e l a t e s to the q u a l i t y and qua n t i t y of feedback given by i n s t r u c t o r s and others to students' j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . However, the feedback given by many' who describe the task as simply j o u r n a l w r i t i n g appears to be s i m i l a r to that of proponents of dialogue j o u r n a l s . S p e c i f i c types of j o u r n a l s which focus on p a r t i c u l a r aspects of the student teacher experience are a l s o mentioned i n the l i t e r a t u r e : practicum j o u r n a l s (Wedman & Ma r t i n , 1986); v i s i t a t i o n j o u r n a l s (Pultorak, 1993); and, academic j o u r n a l s (Robinson-Armstrong, 1991). Besides changes i n name and focus, j o u r n a l assignments a l s o vary according to frequency of w r i t i n g and according to degree of s t r u c t u r e i n the task. Journals are assigned on var i o u s time frames i n c l u d i n g d a i l y j o u r n a l s , b i - d a i l y j o u r n a l s , weekly j o u r n a l s , bi-weekly j o u r n a l s and j o u r n a l s timed i n r e l a t i o n to other course assignments. Journals are a l s o given v a r y i n g degrees of s t r u c t u r e . Many teacher educators a s s i g n unstructured j o u r n a l s i n which students may w r i t e about any experiences or i n s i g h t s they gain i n teaching and l e a r n i n g (e.g. C a r s w e l l , 1988; Gipe & Richards, 1992; Anderson, 1993). 27 Such unstructured j o u r n a l s are ofte n presented w i t h a l i s t of questions aimed at he l p i n g students understand the nature of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task (e.g. Ho & Richards, 1993). Other j o u r n a l s are more s t r u c t u r e d ; educators pose s p e c i f i c i s s u e s to be explored i n each j o u r n a l (e.g. Pape & Smith, 1991), or they i n c o r p o r a t e s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s i n t o each j o u r n a l entry (e.g. Yinger & C l a r k , 1981) . Feedback given on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g by sup e r v i s o r s v a r i e s i n q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y ; however, g e n e r a l l y feedback focuses on the content r a t h e r than the,form of student w r i t i n g (e.g. Anderson, 1993) . Written feedback on j o u r n a l s can vary from a few w r i t t e n comments on what students have w r i t t e n to extensive w r i t t e n feedback e q u a l l i n g the O r i g i n a l , j o u r n a l i n le n g t h . Most educators use at l e a s t some of the f o l l o w i n g s t r a t e g i e s i n g i v i n g students feedback; they provide: (1) p o s i t i v e reinforcement and encouragement (e.g. Anderson, 1993; J a r v i s , 1992); (2) questions designed to encourage students to probe iss u e s more deeply (e.g. Pape & Smith, 1991; Newman, 1988); (3) models of higher l e v e l t h i n k i n g i n r e l a t i o n to iss u e s discussed by the j o u r n a l w r i t e r (e.g. McAlpine, 1992; Newman, 1988); and, (4) challenge to student assumptions (e.g. McAlpine, 1992; Newman, 1988) . Some i n s t r u c t o r s a l s o use j o u r n a l s i n the classroom by sharing excerpts from student j o u r n a l s and by responding to common concerns (e.g. J a r v i s , 1992). Problems wi t h Journal W r i t i n g Despite the laudable t h e o r e t i c a l b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l 28 w r i t i n g , implementation of j o u r n a l s i n teacher education programs has been problematic. Studies suggest a number of d i f f i c u l t i e s which appear to reduce the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as a r e f l e c t i v e t o o l . Some of these d i f f i c u l t i e s echo the problems experienced i n encouraging r e f l e c t i v e teaching as a whole whereas others appear to be p a r t i c u l a r l y problematic w i t h j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . As i n r e f l e c t i v e teaching i n general, teacher educators have had d i f f i c u l t y teaching student teachers to r e f l e c t deeply i n j o u r n a l s . J a r v i s (1992) found that many students simply made l i s t s of classroom a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . Anderson (1993) attempts to q u a n t i f y the problem: . At l e a s t one t h i r d of the jo u r n a l s which I have read i n the l a s t 5 years have been mostly summaries of assigned readings or i n - c l a s s a c t i v i t i e s and w i t h no evidence of a n a l y s i s , s y n t h e s i s , d e l i b e r a t i o n , or r e f l e c t i o n , (p. 307) Other s t u d i e s have found that many students who r e f l e c t i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s l i m i t those r e f l e c t i o n s to the means of teaching (Gipe & Richards, 1992; Wedman & Martin, 1986), what has been c a l l e d a t e c h n o c r a t i c o r i e n t a t i o n (Zeichner & L i s t o n , 1987). Furthermore, teacher educators have been unsuccessful i n i n c r e a s i n g student r e f l e c t i o n i n j o u r n a l s over time (Pape & Smith, 1991; Ho & Richards, 1993). I t appears that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , l i k e other e f f o r t s to improve r e f l e c t i v i t y , does not work f o r some students. Newman (1988) notes that many students have no experience w i t h the 29 genre of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . This i s borne out by Ca r s w e l l (1988) who c i t e s extensive research showing that most w r i t i n g done by students i n school and u n i v e r s i t y " i s done i n a formal t r a n s a c t i o n a l mode which i s produced f o r the purpose of grading" (p. 105). Zeichner & L i s t o n (1987) note that w r i t i n g i s not the p r e f e r r e d r e f l e c t i v e mode of some students. F u l w i l e r (1982; c i t e d i n Car s w e l l , 1988) suggests that some students p r e f e r v e r b a l i z i n g to w r i t i n g t h e i r r e f l e c t i o n s . LaBoskey's study (1993) which i d e n t i f i e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n o r i e n t a t i o n between r e f l e c t i v e and n o n - r e f l e c t i v e groups of students may a l s o suggest f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i v i t y evidenced i n the j o u r n a l s of some students. N o n - r e f l e c t i v e students, whom she c a l l e d "Common-sense Thinkers", seemed H t o be unable to engage i n the c o g n i t i v e process of r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g " or they "seemed to have b e l i e f s , , v a l u e s , a t t i t u d e s or emotions that prevented or d i s t o r t e d the r e f l e c t i v e process" (p. 30). They focused on "how to" and "what works" questions as opposed to "why" questions (p. 30). The "impetus" f o r "acts of r e f l e c t i o n " (p. 31) by these students was from e x t e r n a l sources. She a l s o found that some of these students were "overwhelmed and d i s t r a c t e d " by other concerns. The i s s u e of time c o n s t r a i n t s seems to a f f e c t j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as i t does r e f l e c t i v e a c t i v i t y i n general. One of Gipe and Richards' (1992) students summed i t up, "I do r e f l e c t . But, I do i t n a t u r a l l y . . . l i k e i n the shower or d r i v i n g or going to sleep. You've got to have time to w r i t e and I'm working 32 30 hours per week" (p. 55). Some problems seem to be more s p e c i f i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h j o u r n a l w r i t i n g than w i t h other r e f l e c t i v e t a s k s . One such problem i s that some students make in a p p r o p r i a t e comments i n j o u r n a l s that they do not make i n other program forums. Anderson (1993) found that some students expressed " b l a t a n t b i g o t r y " (p. 306) and made personal a t t a c k s on other students. J a r v i s (1992) found that many students used j o u r n a l s to make comments which she regarded as competitive. These comments denigrated the work of other students i n the c l a s s . J a r v i s suggests that t h i s competitiveness i n t e r f e r e s w i t h some i n d i v i d u a l s ' a b i l i t i e s to r e f l e c t . Some students seem to experience r e s i s t a n c e to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . One cause of t h i s may be over-use of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task, a point made by one of Anderson's (1993) students who reported, "We have been journaled to death" (p. 306). This would suggest that i n s t r u c t o r s i n r e f l e c t i v e teaching programs need to coordinate t h e i r use of common r e f l e c t i v e techniques. Another f a c t o r which could play a r o l e i n t h i s r e s i s t a n c e has been suggested by J a r v i s (1992). She suggests that a t e n s i o n i s created by the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task because students are asked to create "a record of personal relevance" and yet that same record i s being read by t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r (p. 135). J a r v i s ' comment r a i s e s an important problem w i t h j o u r n a l w r i t i n g - - i t i s a threatening task. B o l i n (1988) a s s e r t s , "student j o u r n a l s may not be as powerful a t o o l f o r s e l f -31 r e v e l a t i o n as a personal d i a r y or j o u r n a l since the j o u r n a l i s re q u i r e d and students know that a College Supervisor w i l l read and respond to t h e i r e n t r i e s " (p.50). Hatton & Smith (1995) note that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g may increase f e e l i n g s of v u l n e r a b i l i t y i n students because of the r i s k of "exposing one's perceptions and b e l i e f s to others" (p. 37). They see t h i s as p a r t i c u l a r l y problematic " i f the locus of c o n t r o l i s not seen to be w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l , who may tend to self-blame f o r any perce i v e d weaknesses uncovered t h r o u g h . r e f l e c t i o n " (p. 37) . Lather (1991; c i t e d i n Middleton, 1993) suggests that "an intended l i b e r a t o r y pedagogy might f u n c t i o n as part of the technology of s u r v e i l l a n c e and no r m a l i z a t i o n " (p. 178). Whether or not j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s used by teacher educators w i t h the i n t e n t i o n of c a r r y i n g out s u r v e i l l a n c e , students may per c e i v e s u r v e i l l a n c e as the educators' goal. One way i n which students respond to the threat of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s by w r i t i n g to please the teacher ( J a r v i s , 1992; Anderson, 1993; Newman, 1988) ra t h e r than f o r t h e i r own purposes. The i s s u e of threat i s exacerbated by the use of j o u r n a l s i n the e v a l u a t i o n of student teachers. Hatton and Smith (1995) question "the v e r a c i t y and e t h i c s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g which i s to be assessed" (p. 36). Newman (1988) r e p o r t s , "The problem i s f o r me to help those who are w r i t i n g f o r me as teacher-as-examiner to assume some r e a l purpose of t h e i r own" i n w r i t i n g t h e i r j o u r n a l s (p. 151). Anderson (1993) questions whether j o u r n a l s should be graded. He notes that when he has graded 32 j o u r n a l s , students who are p r o l i f i c b u t ' r e l a t i v e l y u n r e f l e c t i v e have complained about the grades he has given them. On the other hand, he fi n d s "when there i s no attempt at d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , there i s an observable decrease i n the qu a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of the e n t r i e s of a l l students" (p. 3 0 7 ) . Newman's po i n t suggests that students must be helped to f i n d i n t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g to replac e the e x t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n of grades. A n a l y s i s of R e f l e c t i o n i n Journals The t h i n k i n g evidenced i n student j o u r n a l s has been analyzed f o r • r e f l e c t i v i t y i n a number of ways. One common approach i s to assess r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g i n j o u r n a l s according to arenas of the problematic. - Wedman and Ma r t i n (1986) and Pult o r a k (1993) c l a s s i f y thought u n i t s i n j o u r n a l s according to Van Manen's three l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i v i t y : t e c h n i c a l , p r a c t i c a l and c r i t i c a l . Another approach i s to categ o r i z e thought u n i t s i n j o u r n a l s as e i t h e r r o u t i n e or r e f l e c t i v e (Wedman et a l . , 1 9 9 0 ) . These terms are based on the work of Dewey (1933) who p o s i t e d that r o u t i n e p r a c t i c e i s the r e s u l t of impulse, t r a d i t i o n and a u t h o r i t y whereas r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e i n v o l v e s " a c t i v e , p e r s i s t e n t , and c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of teaching b e l i e f s and p r a c t i c e s and the p o s s i b l e consequences which may r e s u l t from them" (Wedman et a l . , 1990 , p. 1 6 ) . Thus, r o u t i n e w r i t i n g r e p o r t s on ac t i o n s or summarizes t h e o r e t i c a l stances whereas r e f l e c t i v e w r i t i n g explores a c t i o n s or t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s . 33 A n a l y s i s of thought u n i t s as rou t i n e or r e f l e c t i v e i s o f t e n used i n conjunction w i t h content c a t e g o r i e s . Surbeck et a l . (1991) take a d i f f e r e n t approach. They i d e n t i f y a framework of categories and sub-categories i n student j o u r n a l s . They do not e x p l i c i t l y focus on the i s s u e of r e f l e c t i v e and n o n - r e f l e c t i v e c a t e g o r i e s , but i d e n t i f y p a t t e r n s of r e f l e c t i v e thought. Their three categories are r e a c t i o n , e l a b o r a t i o n and contemplation. The r e a c t i o n category i n c l u d e s r e p o r t i n g and expressing f e e l i n g s . The•elaboration category i n c l u d e s more d e t a i l e d r e p o r t i n g as w e l l as comparative and g e n e r a l i z e d e l a b o r a t i o n . The contemplation category has three f o c i : p ersonal, p r o f e s s i o n a l and s o c i a l / e t h i c a l . These ca t e g o r i e s are se q u e n t i a l i n the sense that f o r a thought u n i t to be put i n the contemplation category, i t must be preceded by r e a c t i o n and e l a b o r a t i o n . Surbeck et a l . found that the sequence was at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y developed i n most j o u r n a l e n t r i e s . Journals as Evidence of R e f l e c t i v e Thinking When j o u r n a l s are assessed f o r r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g the r e s u l t s tend to be discouraging. Surbeck et a l . (1991) found that few of t h e i r students' j o u r n a l s included the contemplation category. Likewise, Wedman and Martin (1986) found that a l l but one of the j o u r n a l e n t r i e s they examined e x h i b i t e d only the low l e v e l of r e f l e c t i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e d as t e c h n i c a l r e f l e c t i o n . P u l t o r a k (1993) a l s o found that most bi-weekly and v i s i t a t i o n j o u r n a l s he examined were t e c h n i c a l and p r a c t i c a l i n 34 o r i e n t a t i o n . Wedman et a l . (1990) found most r e f l e c t i v e thought u n i t s i n j o u r n a l s i n t h e i r study were t e c h n i c a l i n nature. Gipe and Richards (1992) found that i n students' 15 j o u r n a l e n t r i e s , the number of r e f l e c t i v e statements ranged from 4 to 42, w i t h most students i n c l u d i n g fewer than 20 r e f l e c t i v e statements i n t h e i r 15 e n t r i e s . In a case study of a practicum student she c a l l s Lou, B o l i n (1988) reported: Out of 158 paragraphs, 111 are d e s c r i p t i o n s of what has happened w i t h l i t t l e a n a l y s i s . Of the 47 paragraphs that are more r e f l e c t i v e , most are b r i e f statements of about seven l i n e s each, d e a l i n g w i t h f e e l i n g s or concerns. Seldom does Lou explore i s s u e s t h o u g h t f u l l y or weigh a l t e r n a t i v e s , (p. 51) Ho and Richards (1993) found that although there was wide v a r i a t i o n i n the l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i v i t y and the content areas students r e f l e c t e d on i n t h e i r program, only 3 of 10 students wrote r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l s . Four were somewhat r e f l e c t i v e and 3 wrote " i n a l a r g e l y n o n - r e f l e c t i v e manner" (p. 20). They a l s o noted that students showed no' s i g n i f i c a n t i n c rease i n r e f l e c t i v i t y over time. Anderson (1993), i n a more s u b j e c t i v e a p p r a i s a l of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n h i s courses, concluded that although the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g of some students was r e f l e c t i v e , as many as one t h i r d of h i s students showed no signs of r e f l e c t i v i t y at a l l i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . This evidence must r a i s e s e r i o u s questions about the usefulness of j o u r n a l s as a r e f l e c t i v e task. 35 Despite t h i s negative evidence on the l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n evidenced i n j o u r n a l s , teacher educators continue to f e e l that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s a u s e f u l task. Anderson (1993), a f t e r p r e s e n t i n g a damning p o r t r a y a l of the problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , s t a t e s , "I do not wish to suggest that j o u r n a l s do not have a v a l i d pedagogical r o l e to p l a y i n teacher education programs. I support the value of j o u r n a l s " (p. 307-308) . Besides the fa c t that j o u r n a l s seem to work w e l l f o r some students, Anderson presents no evidence to support h i s co n t i n u i n g a l l e g i a n c e to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Ho and Richards (1993) also' imply that they w i l l continue to use j o u r n a l w r i t i n g d e s p i t e the fa c t that they found that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g "does not n e c e s s a r i l y promote c r i t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n " (p. 20). Their r a t i o n a l e i s based on the value of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as a communicative t o o l ; they value i t s r o l e i n g i v i n g i n s t r u c t o r s access to the teaching and l e a r n i n g experiences of t h e i r students. Wedman and Martin (1986) take another approach. They regard the low l e v e l of r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g i n t h e i r students' j o u r n a l s as evidence that the questions they use to prompt j o u r n a l w r i t i n g need refinement, not that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s an i n e f f e c t i v e way of encouraging r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g . They continue to as s e r t that "the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g component of an i n q u i r y - o r i e n t e d student teaching c u r r i c u l u m provides a means f o r student teachers to r e f l e c t on and process teaching and sc h o o l i n g experiences" (p. 71). Surbeck et a l . (1991), d e s p i t e t h e i r f i n d i n g s of l i m i t e d r e f l e c t i o n i n j o u r n a l s , a s s e r t , 36 "using j o u r n a l s . . . takes time but a s s i s t s p r o s p e c t i v e teachers i n becoming b e t t e r t h i n k e r s who probe deeper i n t o both p r o f e s s i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e and t h e i r own t e a c h i n g / l e a r n i n g " (p. 27) . This a l l e g i a n c e to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as a r e f l e c t i v e task can be explained i n a number of ways. Perhaps the t h e o r e t i c a l b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g are so convincing that educators p e r s i s t i n t r y i n g to develop approaches that can make them more pro d u c t i v e d e s p i t e repeated evidence of f a i l u r e . They may, l i k e C a r s w e l l (1988), "have an i n t u i t i v e c o n v i c t i o n that they [ j o u r n a l s ] are a u s e f u l device" (p. 107). Then again perhaps, l i k e Ho and Richards (1993), teacher educators f i n d the b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as a communication t o o l great enough to outweigh t h e i r seemingly l i m i t e d c a p a c i t y f o r engendering r e f l e c t i v e thought. A f u r t h e r and l e s s f l a t t e r i n g p o s s i b i l i t y i s that using j o u r n a l s allows educators to pay l i p -s e r v i c e to teaching r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e w i t h l i t t l e e f f o r t and l i t t l e c l a s s time required. Although a l l of these p o s s i b i l i t i e s may be true f o r some educators, I b e l i e v e that the main reason f o r the continued use of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s the f a c t that educators assume that j o u r n a l s engender more r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g than studies evidence. Studies suggest that j o u r n a l s do not give evidence of a l l the r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g they engender. Student e v a l u a t i o n s of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e tend to be overwhelmingly p o s i t i v e . Surbeck et a l . (1991) found that t h e i r 37 students regarded j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as a u s e f u l r e f l e c t i v e and l e a r n i n g t o o l . Ho and Richards (1993) report that only 4% of t h e i r students found j o u r n a l w r i t i n g "not u s e f u l " w h i l e 71% found i t " u s e f u l " and 25% found i t " f a i r l y u s e f u l " (p. 20) . J a r v i s (1992) a l s o found that the m a j o r i t y of her students were very p o s i t i v e about the outcomes of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . C a r s w e l l (1988) re p o r t s that a l l but two of h i s students found j o u r n a l w r i t i n g a p o s i t i v e experience. He notes, "the comments [on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g ] were more p o s i t i v e than I expected" (p. 107) . Many researchers assert that j o u r n a l s cannot.be assumed to a c c u r a t e l y represent the t h i n k i n g of j o u r n a l w r i t e r s (Powell, 1985; Gipe & Richards, 1992 ; Boud et a l . , 1985; F u l w i l e r , 1980; J a r v i s , 1992; Yinger & Clark, 1981). Gipe & Richards (1992) suggest that t h i s may be because of "personal preferences f o r p r i v a c y and i n d i v i d u a l choices f o r r e f l e c t i v e m o d a l i t i e s " (p. 55). Furthermore, the process of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g may i n i t i a t e f u r t h e r t h i n k i n g that does hot appear i n the j o u r n a l (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Richards & Lockhart, 1994). Hatton & Smith (1995) a s s e r t , "many of the [journal] e n t r i e s may be personal, r e a c t i v e , emotive, and at the time of w r i t i n g not at a l l r e f l e c t i v e . However, those e n t r i e s can provide i d e a l substance f o r l a t e r r e f l e c t i n g upon a c t i o n " (p. 43). The Need to Access Student Perspectives The assumption of many teacher educators appears to be that although j o u r n a l w r i t i n g does not show much evidence of r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g , there i s a l o t more r e f l e c t i o n going on 38 than meets the eye. Copeland et a l . (1993) a s s e r t , "we are now i n danger of being drawn beyond our knowledge base to the employment of p r a c t i c e s that are founded only i n assumptions" (p. 347). I suggest that.educators are using j o u r n a l w r i t i n g based on assumptions that j o u r n a l s are more u s e f u l than the extant evidence suggests. To c l a r i f y the v a l i d i t y of t h i s assumption, we must approach j o u r n a l w r i t i n g from the p e r s p e c t i v e of j o u r n a l w r i t e r s . We must understand t h e i r p e r s p e c t i v e s on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g and-the r o l e i t takes i n t h e i r r e f l e c t i v e processes. In t h i s study .1 examine the p e r s p e c t i v e s on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g of j o u r n a l w r i t e r s , i d e n t i f y i n g both what they w r i t e about and what evidence of r e f l e c t i o n e x i s t s i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s as w e l l as the r o l e of t h e i r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n t h e i r ongoing t h i n k i n g about i s s u e s . 39 CHAPTER THREE THE STUDY In t h i s chapter, I describe the research methodology and the f i n d i n g s of the study. F i r s t , I give an overview of the chapter and introduce the l e a r n i n g centre context and my entry i n t o the f i e l d . I d i v i d e the r e s t of the chapter i n t o seven s e c t i o n s . Sections One-and Two describe the research design and the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study. Sections Three, Four, F i v e and Si x focus on answering' the research questions. S e c t i o n Seven describes the process and outcomes of the c o l l a b o r a t i v e a n a l y s i s u t i l i z e d i n the study. My approach i n the chapter i s to draw on the p e r s p e c t i v e s of the t u t o r s and t r a i n e r to t e l l the s t o r y of the use of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n a c o l l e g e l e a r n i n g centre during a one semester p e r i o d . Connelly and C l a n d i n i n (1990) a s s e r t that the edu c a t i o n a l importance of using n a r r a t i v e i n q u i r y i n edu c a t i o n a l research i s that " i t brings t h e o r e t i c a l ideas about the nature of human l i f e as l i v e d to bear on ed u c a t i o n a l experience as l i v e d " (p. 3)'. They suggest that those being s t u d i e d need to be given the opportunity to t e l l t h e i r s t o r i e s so that those s t o r i e s gain "the a u t h o r i t y and v a l i d i t y that the research s t o r y has long had" (p.' 4). In t h i s chapter, i n t e l l i n g the n a r r a t i v e of my research, I attempt to h i g h l i g h t the v o i c e s of p a r t i c i p a n t s . 40 The Context of the Study The context f o r the study was a l e a r n i n g centre i n a two-year community c o l l e g e i n western Canada. The l e a r n i n g centre, which I had s t a r t e d a year and a h a l f e a r l i e r , was aimed at a s s i s t i n g students r e g i s t e r e d i n courses across the c o l l e g e to improve weak academic s k i l l s which were h i n d e r i n g t h e i r success i n those courses. The l e a r n i n g centre was overseen by the developmental education department of the c o l l e g e , and the D i r e c t o r of the l e a r n i n g centre was a f a c u l t y member w i t h i n that department. The l e a r n i n g centre was a converted classroom i n the' developmental education area of the' c o l l e g e . The students who attended the l e a r n i n g centre v a r i e d w i d e l y . They included recent high school graduates as w e l l as o l d e r a d u l t s who had been out of school f o r some time. They i n c l u d e d students who spoke E n g l i s h as t h e i r f i r s t language as w e l l as students who spoke E n g l i s h as a second language. The students were e n r o l l e d i n programs i n a l l areas of the c o l l e g e : academic, a p p l i e d and developmental. In the centre, the students worked on a range of s k i l l s , i n c l u d i n g : w r i t i n g , reading, study s k i l l s , mathematics and word pr o c e s s i n g . The biggest demand, however./ was f o r a s s i s t a n c e w i t h w r i t i n g . The l e a r n i n g centre had been i n operation f o r only a year and a h a l f p r i o r to my undertaking t h i s study. Up u n t i l that time, I had been the D i r e c t o r of the centre. When I took ed u c a t i o n a l leave to work on my t h e s i s , a new D i r e c t o r replaced me. Tom, the new D i r e c t o r , gave me permission to approach 41 l e a r n i n g centre s t a f f about p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study. I begin by t e l l i n g the s t o r y of my entry i n t o the f i e l d . Beginnings Tom suggested I attend the year's f i r s t weekly s t a f f meeting at the l e a r n i n g centre to ask t u t o r s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. I knew who would be there. They were a l l f a m i l i a r , but I was approaching them i n a d i f f e r e n t r o l e - - t h a t of researcher, not D i r e c t o r and t u t o r t r a i n e r . Tom would be there, long time colleague. K r i s t a and F e l i c i a , peer t u t o r s who had worked w i t h me the year before, would be there. Ann, the s t a f f t u t o r , had s t a r t e d working i n the centre f o r me the previous January. Christopher would be there; he hadn't worked w i t h me l a s t year, but the year before T had h i r e d him to teach word pr o c e s s i n g i n the centre. I a r r i v e d at the l e a r n i n g centre e a r l y ; i t was s t i l l only ten to nine. I got out my key and unlocked the door. Turning on the l i g h t s , I looked around what had been my workplace f o r a year and a h a l f and was no longer. Most things were the same: the computers humming under the windows; the book shelves w i t h t h e i r worn books on reading, w r i t i n g and study s k i l l s ; the b l a ck board w i t h i t s fragments of thoughts; the t a b l e s and c h a i r s awry, as abandoned l a s t evening. Some things were d i f f e r e n t from memory. A new b u l l e t i n board was l o o k i n g very smart w i t h n e a t l y ordered n o t i c e s and announcements. Two fancy-l o o k i n g computers behind a room d i v i d e r crowded the t a b l e s and c h a i r s more than ever. 42 People began to a r r i v e . Ann came i n , f u l l of humour. She regaled me w i t h the t r i a l s and t r i b u l a t i o n s of g e t t i n g the centre going at the beginning of term. K r i s t a a r r i v e d l o o k i n g t i r e d , f u l l of the new courses she was t a k i n g . We began to set up a t a b l e f o r the meeting. Tom came i n , f i l e f o l d e r i n hand. He asked me how long I needed i n the meeting. C h r i s t o p h e r a r r i v e d l o o k i n g a l i t t l e l e s s confident than the other s . Tom began the meeting; F e l i c i a a r r i v e d i n a f l u r r y , waving to me as she sat down. Tom began by t a l k i n g about the purpose of s t a f f meetings, to s o l v e o p e r a t i o n a l g l i t c h e s and l e a r n to do a b e t t e r job. He asked the t u t o r s what they had learned i n t h e i r experience t u t o r i n g . The three women suggested some t h i n g s : confidence, speaking s k i l l s , problem-solving s k i l l s , grammar and composition. Tom gave out a handout, t i t l e d " S t a f f Learning (The Development of Knowledge, S k i l l s and A t t i t u d e s ) " (M-Oct.12) . The group worked part way through the handout, Tom f r e q u e n t l y asking questions. The t u t o r s p a r t i c i p a t e d a c t i v e l y , except f o r Christopher who mainly j u s t spoke when asked a d i r e c t question. Tom pointed out that the handout could give t u t o r s some ideas f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . He gave out another handout, "Don't Help Too Much (a strategy f o r working w i t h w r i t i n g assignments)" (M-Oct.12). He s a i d , "Here's some ideas; t r y them out and see what works f o r you" (M-Oct.12). Then the meeting moved on to o p e r a t i o n a l i s s u e s : meeting times, computer o r i e n t a t i o n scheduling, and d i f f i c u l t i e s about s h a r i n g the 43 space w i t h another program. Then Tom r a i s e d an i s s u e t u t o r s had i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s - - t h e problem of students not showing up f o r appointments. Tutors made suggestions of things they could do to resolve the problem. Tom then t o l d the t u t o r s that I was there to t a l k to them about my research and that he would t u r n the meeting over to me. A f t e r Tom l e f t , I explained the background to my research, and my purpose i n doing i t . I discussed the uses of the research and the time commitment i t w o u l d ' e n t a i l on t h e i r p a r t s . I t r i e d not to l e t my keenness show because I d i d not want them to f e e l they would be l e t t i n g me down i f they d i d not agree to p a r t i c i p a t e . They asked questions and I gave them the consent form. I t o l d them they should t h i n k about i t , but Ann signed hers r i g h t away and gave i t back to me. K r i s t a and F e l i c i a f o llowed s u i t . Christopher was busy p u t t i n g papers away. He had a ten o'clock c l a s s ; he had to run. We agreed that I would c a l l him as he h u s t l e d out the door. I set up i n t e r v i e w times w i t h F e l i c i a and Ann. I had to wait to set up a f i r s t i n t e r v i e w w i t h K r i s t a ; the centre was now open and one of her students had a r r i v e d f o r an appointment. K r i s t a and her student were c o n f e r r i n g q u i e t l y i n one-corner, huddled over a book. That was the beginning of t h i s semester-long study of the p e r s p e c t i v e s on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g of t u t o r s working i n the l e a r n i n g centre. Christopher d i d agree to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study as d i d two other peer t u t o r s , Paul and B i l l y , who were h i r e d l a t e r i n the semester. 44 Section One: Data C o l l e c t i o n S t r a t e g i e s The f i r s t phase of data c o l l e c t i o n f o r the study i n v o l v e d examining t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s , i n t e r v i e w i n g the t u t o r s and Tom about j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , and attending weekly s t a f f meetings. Tutor Journals When t u t o r s handed i n t h e i r weekly j o u r n a l e n t r i e s to Tom, they made a copy of them and put them i n my mailbox. On the day of my i n t e r v i e w w i t h them, I would go to the l e a r n i n g centre ahead of time and read t h e i r j o u r n a l s . I would note evidence of r e f l e c t i o n and issues f o r d i s c u s s i o n i n the i n t e r v i e w s . The number of j o u r n a l e n t r i e s handed i n by the students v a r i e d . Two t u t o r s , B i l l y .and Paul./ were h i r e d l a t e r than the others and as a r e s u l t d i d fewer e n t r i e s . Paul was i n a car accident near the end of term and as a r e s u l t handed i n fewer again. Because of the few e n t r i e s Paul handed i n , I got one more j o u r n a l from him at the beginning of the semester f o l l o w i n g the one under study. I received 4 j o u r n a l e n t r i e s from Paul, 5 from B i l l y , 6 from F e l i c i a and 7 each from Chri s t o p h e r , Ann and. K r i s t a . -At my request, a f t e r Tom had w r i t t e n feedback on the j o u r n a l s he of t e n photocopied them f o r me. Tutor Interviews My goal was to i n t e r v i e w students two or three days a f t e r they had completed a j o u r n a l entry. This was long enough a f t e r t h e i r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g to allow more r e f l e c t i o n to have taken 45 pl a c e , but not so long that they would not remember t h e i r t h i n k i n g p r i o r to and during the w r i t i n g process. E s t a b l i s h i n g , i n t e r v i e w s on that time frame, however, proved to be more d i f f i c u l t than I had a n t i c i p a t e d . Besides working 10 to 15 hours per week i n the l e a r n i n g centre, the t u t o r s were f u l l -time students. Busy times f o r t u t o r s and busy times f o r students c o i n c i d e d , so i t was d i f f i c u l t to schedule appointments. Furthermore, Tom was not s t r i c t about when t u t o r s handed i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s , so. the j o u r n a l s came i n at v a r i e d times. These f a c t o r s made i t impossible to schedule i n t e r v i e w s s t r i c t l y i n r e l a t i o n to when jo u r n a l s were completed. As a r e s u l t , I interviewed t u t o r s at a range of times i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r completion of j o u r n a l e n t r i e s . Although t h i s d i d not provide the t i d y data I had looked f o r , i t d i d give me access to t h e i r t h i n k i n g about t h e i r j o u r n a l s before, during and a f t e r w r i t i n g . I d i d not, however, get accurate data on a l l three time periods f o r every j o u r n a l they wrote. Sometimes I in t e r v i e w e d t u t o r s the same day they wrote t h e i r j o u r n a l e n t r i e s ; i n those cases, l i t t l e time had passed to a l l o w f o r f u r t h e r r e f l e c t i o n . At other times, I interviewed them a week or more a f t e r they had completed t h e i r e n t r i e s . In those cases, I d i d not attempt to explore t h e i r t h i n k i n g p r i o r to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . I conducted "moderately scheduled i n t e r v i e w s " (Gorden, 1975). In each i n t e r v i e w , a f t e r an i n i t i a l chat, I began by asking the t u t o r general questions p o t e n t i a l l y r e l a t e d to the 46 t u t o r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Such issues i n c l u d e d : t h e i r employment and educational backgrounds and goals; t h e i r current l i f e s i t u a t i o n s both i n and outside the c o l l e g e ; t h e i r a t t i t u d e s to t u t o r i n g , w r i t i n g and problem-solving; i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the centre; the feedback Tom gave them on t h e i r j o u r n a l s ; and, t h e i r understandings of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. We spent the f i r s t part of the i n t e r v i e w d i s c u s s i n g one or two such is s u e s . We returned to most of these is s u e s more than once over the p e r i o d of the study. A f t e r d e a l i n g w i t h these general; i s s u e s , we would s h i f t our focus and begin to look at the j o u r n a l . T y p i c a l l y , I would ask t u t o r s to th i n k back to w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l . I asked where they were and what e l s e was going on at the time. I asked them about t h e i r w r i t i n g process and whether'they were i n t e r r u p t e d during that process. This was p r i m a r i l y an attempt to help the t u t o r s r e t u r n to the time of w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l s and thereby a c t i v a t e t h e i r memories of t h e i r t h i n k i n g p r i o r to and during the w r i t i n g process. I t a l s o provided data f o r the study. I would then ask t u t o r s to read through t h e i r j o u r n a l entry and t e l l me about t h e i r t h i n k i n g on the issues they wrote about. I p a r t i c u l a r l y asked them t o - i d e n t i f y : (1) t h e i r t h i n k i n g on the iss u e s p r i o r to focusing on w r i t i n g t h e i r j o u r n a l entry; (2) any new t h i n k i n g they d i d while planning or w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l entry; and, (3) any f u r t h e r t h i n k i n g they had done on the iss u e s s i n c e w r i t i n g t h e i r j o u r n a l s . A f t e r working through the j o u r n a l i n t h i s way, I would ask 47 t u t o r s about t h e i r reasons f o r choosing to w r i t e about i s s u e s . We a l s o o c c a s i o n a l l y returned to issues w r i t t e n about i n previous j o u r n a l s to discuss any f u r t h e r t h i n k i n g they had done about those i s s u e s . The i n t e r v i e w s ranged i n length from 2 0 minutes to one hour. This v a r i a t i o n depended on a number of f a c t o r s : (1) the time t u t o r s had a v a i l a b l e ; (2) the amount of t h i n k i n g they had done; (3) the number and type of general i s s u e questions I asked; and, (4) how t a l k a t i v e the p a r t i c i p a n t was. At times d i s c u s s i o n of a j o u r n a l issue would lead to wide-ranging d i s c u s s i o n s i n which we both p a r t i c i p a t e d a c t i v e l y . At other times, t u t o r s b r i e f l y reported t h e i r t h i n k i n g and we l e f t i t at t h a t . I interviewed each t u t o r f o l l o w i n g every time they handed i n a j o u r n a l entry. I audiotaped and l a t e r t r a n s c r i b e d the i n t e r v i e w s . Trainer Interviews I i n t e r v i e w e d Tom, the t u t o r t r a i n e r , 6 times during the semester under study. Our interviews were t y p i c a l l y about an hour long. I interviewed Tom w i t h the goal of understanding h i s p e r s p e c t i v e s on the j o u r n a l s t u t o r s handed i n to him. In our moderately scheduled interviews (Gorden,, 1975) , we discussed Tom's purpose f o r a s s i g n i n g j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , the g u i d e l i n e s he gave t u t o r s as the prompt f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , h i s feedback on t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s , the value of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g t u t o r s d i d , problems he encountered w i t h t u t o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , and the i m p l i c a t i o n s of h i s experience using j o u r n a l s 48 f o r f u t u r e use of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n the l e a r n i n g centre. We spent part of every i n t e r v i e w examining and d i s c u s s i n g Tom's per c e p t i o n of the usefulness of i n d i v i d u a l t u t o r j o u r n a l e n t r i e s to the t u t o r ' s development. I a l s o audiotaped and l a t e r t r a n s c r i b e d these i n t e r v i e w s . S t a f f Meetings The s t a f f meetings were mainly geared toward t u t o r i n -s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . Tom planned and chaired these meetings, o f t e n g i v i n g out 'handouts on aspects of t u t o r i n g and l e a d i n g d i s c u s s i o n s of t u t o r i n g ' i s s u e s . The meetings were f o r one hour once a week. I attended the meetings as an observer and took notes on what people d i d and s a i d . I attended the. meetings f o r a number of reasons. F i r s t , these meetings were the only time i n the week that a l l centre s t a f f were together. This gave me an opportunity to observe s t a f f i n t e r a c t i o n s . I b e l i e v e d i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s could a f f e c t j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Second, I wanted to be aware of any d i s c u s s i o n of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g that occurred i n the group: Tom might gi v e guidance or feedback on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g ; t u t o r s might comment on the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g experience; and, Tom might use the j o u r n a l s i n choosing what to i n c l u d e i n i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . F i n a l l y , I wanted to be aware of other t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s going on i n order to recognize the impact of those a c t i v i t i e s on t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . I took notes duri n g the meetings and c o l l e c t e d handouts Tom gave the t u t o r s . 49 C i t a t i o n . o f Data Sources i n the Thesis In c i t i n g data from j o u r n a l s , i n t e r v i e w s and s t a f f meetings i n the study, I have used n o t a t i o n such as "(J-K-Nov.3)". The f i r s t l e t t e r i n the n o t a t i o n i d e n t i f i e s the type of data source: " J " f o r j o u r n a l entry, " I " f o r i n t e r v i e w , and "M" f o r s t a f f meeting. In the case of j o u r n a l s and i n t e r v i e w s , there i s a second l e t t e r i n the n o t a t i o n which i n d i c a t e s the f i r s t i n i t i a l of the j o u r n a l w r i t e r or interviewee. The end of the n o t a t i o n i s the date of the j o u r n a l entry, i n t e r v i e w or meeting. Thus, an i n t e r v i e w w i t h B i l l y on•November 18 i s i d e n t i f i e d by "(I-B-Nov.18)". • My Role i n the Research I began the research process w i t h the naive i n t e n t i o n of t r y i n g to study the perspectives of t u t o r s on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n t h e i r n a t u r a l s t a t e . As an observer, I wanted to have as l i t t l e impact on the data as p o s s i b l e . I t soon became c l e a r to me that being "a f l y on the w a l l " was n e i t h e r p o s s i b l e nor d e s i r a b l e (Roman & Apple, 1990, p. 47). F i r s t , I had a personal h i s t o r y w i t h the m a j o r i t y of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study and w i t h the l e a r n i n g centre program. I was, to a l a r g e extent, an i n s i d e r . Second, to engage the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n meaningful, d i s c u s s i o n about j o u r n a l s , I had to ask questions. These questions c l e a r l y a f f e c t e d the " n a t u r a l " s t a t e of t h i n g s (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983). Third, I began to see evidence that I could improve the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g experience f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study. As a r e s u l t , I began to conceive of 50 the research more as an a c t i o n research study (Carr & Kemmis, 1986) than a n a t u r a l i s t i c study. I began to recognize and record the impact I was having on the course of events. My i n e v i t a b l e impact on the s o c i a l l y constructed s e t t i n g meant that i t would be important to l o c a t e myself i n the study i n r e l a t i o n to the research (Opie, 1 9 9 2 ) . This changed perspective on my r o l e i n the study allowed me to conceive of the research as a more c o l l a b o r a t i v e venture i n which the p a r t i c i p a n t s and I would work together to b u i l d d e s c r i p t i o n s and t h e o r i z e about t h e i r experiences. This approach to the study had a number of a t t r i b u t e s which f i t w i t h my goals f o r the research. F i r s t , a b e t t e r understanding of p a r t i c i p a n t p erspectives c l e a r l y could be gained i f p a r t i c i p a n t s not only provided data but a l s o p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the a n a l y s i s of that data. Second, as t u t o r t r a i n e r I had attempted to create an e g a l i t a r i a n approach to s u p e r v i s i o n based on my own p o l i t i c a l and pedagogical b e l i e f s . I t seemed i n a p p r o p r i a t e to attempt to change t h i s approach w i t h t u t o r s i n the study, many of whom were the same t u t o r s I had worked w i t h . T h i r d , I hoped that a c o l l a b o r a t i v e approach would be empowering (Roman &'Apple, 1990). Peer t u t o r s were i n the v u l n e r a b l e r o l e of student workers i n f i n a n c i a l need. J o u r n a l w r i t i n g , an i s o l a t i n g task, asked them to expose t h e i r t h i n k i n g to the t r a i n e r . The t r a i n e r had the power not only to f i r e them but a l s o to a f f e c t t h e i r working c o n d i t i o n s . I b e l i e v e d that c o l l a b o r a t i o n among the t u t o r s which allowed them to share 51 t h e i r experiences of subordination ( F r e i r e , 1970) would help them to see the s t r u c t u r a l i n f l u e n c e s on t h e i r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e s . As Lather (1986) suggests, "For researchers w i t h emancipatory a s p i r a t i o n s , doing e m p i r i c a l research o f f e r s a powerful opportunity f o r p r a x i s to the extent that the research process enables people to change by encouraging s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n and a deeper understanding of t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s " (p. 263) . My r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the study as a form of a c t i o n research allowed me to accept a more authentic r o l e . As p a r t i c i p a n t - o b s e r v e r , I could question not only p a r t i c i p a n t s ' p e r s p e c t i v e s on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g but a l s o the e f f e c t s of the research process on the p a r t i c i p a n t s . 52 Section Two: The P a r t i c i p a n t s In t h i s s e c t i o n , I describe the peer t u t o r s , the s t a f f t u t o r and the t u t o r t r a i n e r who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study. In my i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w s w i t h p a r t i c i p a n t s , I asked them to suggest a pseudonym they would l i k e me to. use f o r them i n the study. Those names are used throughout the study. The Peer Tutors The peer t u t o r s were h i r e d on a government sponsored work/study program aimed at a s s i s t i n g f i n a n c i a l l y needy students by g i v i n g them work w i t h i n the i n s t i t u t i o n . The program p a i d students reasonably w e l l f o r part-time work. The g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h i s work/study program r e q u i r e d students to show f i n a n c i a l need and to be enroled at a post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n f u l l - t i m e . Students could work up to a maximum of 15 hours per week. A l l peer t u t o r s were academically s u c c e s s f u l students who e x h i b i t e d strong w r i t i n g s k i l l s , e f f e c t i v e o r a l communication s k i l l s and a r e f l e c t i v e approach to problem-solving. T h e i r primary r o l e i n the centre was to a s s i s t students having d i f f i c u l t y w i t h academic s k i l l s to improve t h e i r s k i l l s . They d i d t h i s w i t h the guidance and s u p e r v i s i o n of the t u t o r t r a i n e r . The t r a i n e r would meet wi t h a student who was new to the centre, do needs assessment,' recommend a program of study, and a s s i g n the student a t u t o r . The t u t o r would a s s i s t the student i n c a r r y i n g out the recommended program, sometimes 53 modifying i t as new needs arose. The t r a i n e r was a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n s u l t a t i o n and could see students again as needed. The t u t o r s a l s o d i d other jobs i n the centre. They d e a l t w i t h telephone and in-person i n q u i r i e s by students, made appointments f o r students w i t h Tom and the t u t o r s , a s s i s t e d w i t h m a t e r i a l s p r e p a r a t i o n and provided t r o u b l e - s h o o t i n g a s s i s t a n c e to students doing word processing. Some t u t o r s a l s o taught b a s i c word processing to small groups of students. F e l i c i a F e l i c i a was i n her t h i r d semester working as a peer t u t o r . I had h i r e d , t r a i n e d and supervised her the previous year. When she began to w r i t e j o u r n a l s f o r me, she had never kept a j o u r n a l before. F e l i c i a was i n her e a r l y twenties, studying Criminology and Psychology. The semester under study was to be her l a s t working i n the centre because she was moving to the l o c a l u n i v e r s i t y f u l l - t i m e the f o l l o w i n g semester. She intended to f i n i s h her Bachelor's degree at the u n i v e r s i t y , and, a f t e r working f o r a couple of years, go on to do a Master's degree i n Psychology. F e l i c i a had a very heavy workload.during the study. She began the semester t a k i n g 3' courses at the c o l l e g e and 2 courses at the u n i v e r s i t y as w e l l as working 16 hours per week at another job and 12 hours per week at the l e a r n i n g centre. E a r l y i n the semester, because she found the workload too heavy, she dropped one of her courses at the c o l l e g e and reduced the hours of her other job from 16 to 8 hours per week. 54 Even so, she was over-burdened by her workload. S h o r t l y a f t e r mid-term exams, she s a i d , "two weeks ago, I broke down and c r i e d because I couldn't handle i t " (I-F-Nov.23). Although she was doing her work and g e t t i n g good grades, she found the la c k of time to r e l a x d i f f i c u l t . F e l i c i a had a long h i s t o r y of work, both f u l l and p a r t -time. Because her family was unable to help her f i n a n c i a l l y , she was p u t t i n g h e r s e l f through school. P r i o r to a t t e n d i n g the c o l l e g e f u l l - t i m e , she worked f u l l - t i m e as a l e g a l r e c e p t i o n i s t f o r a year. During that time, she a l s o s t u d i e d at the c o l l e g e p a r t - t i m e . An important issue f o r F e l i c i a was her confidence. She reported that u n t i l her l a t e teens she had been unsure of h e r s e l f and that i t was only r e c e n t l y that she had begun to develop confidence i n her a b i l i t i e s . Despite her f l e d g l i n g confidence, she acted confident w i t h both students and coll e a g u e s . F e l i c i a l i k e d the t u t o r i n g job, but she f e l t that i t c o n t r i b u t e d a l o t of s t r e s s to an already s t r e s s f u l l i f e . She at times discussed a fear of being f i r e d from the t u t o r i n g job, but she a l s o noted that she had never had any t r o u b l e f i n d i n g jobs when she needed them. Due to her strong background i n E n g l i s h and the S o c i a l Sciences, F e l i c i a p r i m a r i l y tutored students i n essay w r i t i n g . Many of these students were tak i n g a u n i v e r s i t y t r a n s f e r E n g l i s h composition course. For the f i r s t two-thirds of the 55 semester, she a l s o taught weekly hour-long o r i e n t a t i o n sessions i n u sing a word processing program to small groups of students. K r i s t a K r i s t a , l i k e F e l i c i a , was i n her t h i r d semester as a peer t u t o r . She had been t r a i n e d by me and had handed j o u r n a l s i n to me the previous year. K r i s t a was i n her e a r l y twenties, and had been studying at the c o l l e g e f o r two and a h a l f years, mostly i n Science and Mathematics. During the semester under study, she had branched•out and wds t a k i n g -mostly S o c i a l Science courses. K r i s t a had a heavy workload during the study. She was t a k i n g four courses but because of her switch to the s o c i a l s ciences, she found her courses demanding, p a r t i c u l a r l y the essay w r i t i n g component. Besides working 15 hours a week i n the centre, she a l s o worked at a volunteer job 2 hours a week and, beginning e a r l y i n November, worked 10 hours a week at a r e t a i l s a l e s job. K r i s t a was a person who l i k e d to stay busy. However, she found that she was too busy. Looking back at the end of the semester, she s a i d , " t h i s semester I had too much on the go, and I f e l t that was t a k i n g away from my t u t o r i n g , I couldn't concentrate as long or do as much" (I-K-Dec. 8). An important issue f o r K r i s t a was to have a good job i n which she was independent and valued. P r i o r to working i n the l e a r n i n g centre, she had had many w a i t r e s s i n g and c a s h i e r jobs. In those jobs, she had f e l t e x p l o i t e d . She f e l t that she was p a i d and respected too l i t t l e and asked to take on too much 56 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and work too hard. She l i k e d the t u t o r i n g job because she d i d not f e e l e x p l o i t e d , i t was convenient to school, i t gave her the opportunity to l e a r n new t h i n g s , and i t provided money she badly needed. Her goal was to study Physiotherapy or Occupational Therapy i n f u t u r e . She f e l t the t u t o r i n g job gave her good experience f o r these p r o f e s s i o n s . She s a i d : In t h i s job I have to think. A c t u a l l y , i t a p p l i e s to my fu t u r e work,, because you're always t r y i n g to t h i n k o f . c r e a t i v e ways to deal w i t h problems ... you have to put yourself- i n other people's s i t u a t i o n s - and help them. (I-K-Nov .9) In the semester under study, K r i s t a was i n v o l v e d i n the l e a r n i n g centre beyond her t u t o r i n g d u t i e s . She sat on the l e a r n i n g centre advisory committee and a l s o p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a college-wide "think tank" l o o k i n g at p o s s i b l e f u t u r e models f o r l e a r n i n g support s e r v i c e s at the c o l l e g e . P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n these committees was part of her work time, so the amount of time she spent t u t o r i n g was reduced. K r i s t a t u t o r e d students w i t h a wide range of needs. She tu t o r e d some students i n Math, helped some ESL students w i t h t h e i r general language development, tu t o r e d some students i n reading and study s k i l l s , and helped some students w i t h grammar and essay w r i t i n g . For the f i r s t two-thirds of the semester, she a l s o taught weekly hour-long o r i e n t a t i o n sessions i n using a word processing program to small groups of students. 57 C h r i s t o p h e r Christopher was working i n the centre f o r the second time, but there had been a gap of a year since he had worked there before and the job had changed considerably over that time. When he f i r s t worked at the centre, he only taught word pro c e s s i n g . He had not w r i t t e n j o u r n a l s , but he was h i r e d and t r a i n e d by me. In the semester under study, he s t a r t e d working i n e a r l y October and h i s duties were the same as those of the other t u t o r s . C h r i s t o p h e r had a heavy workload during the study. Besides t a k i n g four courses, he worked 10 hours a. week i n the l e a r n i n g centre and two to three evenings per week at h i s uncle's watch r e p a i r company. Christopher was about 3 0 years o l d and had been a j u n i o r h i g h school teacher f o r four years i n Hong Kong. The school he had worked at used E n g l i s h as the language of i n s t r u c t i o n . While teaching, he took an education c e r t i f i c a t e on a part-time b a s i s . His t r a i n i n g focused on planning, methodology and teaching techniques while the methodology f o r language teaching was based on a theory of "maximum exposure to the language environment" (I-C-Oct.27). Much of h i s teaching and l e a r n i n g experience i n Hong Kong was i n teacher-centred classrooms. C h r i s t o p h e r enjoyed teaching i n Hong Kong but found the heavy workload there a problem. Christopher had come to Canada two and a h a l f years before the study. He took the c o l l e g e ' s Business Diploma as w e l l as 58 some e x t r a Math courses. He would f i n i s h h i s diploma the semester f o l l o w i n g that of the study. He intended to go on to u n i v e r s i t y and major i n Accounting. He d i d not int e n d to go back i n t o teaching; he saw that as too d i f f i c u l t because of h i s E n g l i s h a b i l i t y and h i s lack of Canadian c r e d e n t i a l s . Christopher had never w r i t t e n j o u r n a l s p r i o r to the study. He l i k e d w r i t i n g i n Chinese and had completed a Chinese Language Honours Diploma p r i o r to h i s teaching. The process he used f o r w r i t i n g i n both Chinese and E n g l i s h r e l i e d h e a v i l y on d e t a i l e d o u t l i n i n g p r i o r to composing. Christopher reported, " i f I've got time to prepare... I can w r i t e w e l l " (I-C-Oct.27). In E n g l i s h , h i s w r i t i n g was c l e a r but inc l u d e d non-standard grammar and' d i c t i o n . Christopher's spoken E n g l i s h was f l u e n t and c l e a r . Only o c c a s i o n a l l y were there s p e c i f i c vocabulary items which he used d i f f e r e n t l y from standard E n g l i s h . For example, he used the word " f e e l i n g " o f t e n i n our i n t e r v i e w s . By f e e l i n g , he meant "idea", "a b i g impression" and "I n o t i c e d i t a l o t " (I-C-Nov.10). He reported that the word " f e e l i n g " has a l l these meanings i n Cantonese..Although such problems sometimes caused a b i t of confusion i n the i n t e r v i e w process, Christopher's E n g l i s h was s u f f i c i e n t f o r him to p a r t i c i p a t e e f f e c t i v e l y i n the i n t e r v i e w process. Christopher enjoyed the job i n the l e a r n i n g centre and found i t very b e n e f i c i a l to h i s own E n g l i s h s k i l l s . He improved h i s understanding of E n g l i s h grammar and re s o l v e d some of. h i s 59 d i c t i o n problems. He a l s o found that the increased exposure to E n g l i s h and to English-speaking peers increased h i s confidence i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g o r a l l y i n h i s courses. During the semester under study, Christopher mainly t u t o r e d students i n Math and Computer. However, he a l s o worked w i t h a few students, mainly ESL students, on w r i t i n g and study s k i l l s . B i l l y B i l l y was h i r e d as a peer t u t o r i n e a r l y November and t h i s was h i s f i r s t semester at the c o l l e g e . He was studying Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and g e t t i n g good grades. He had no previous experience w i t h j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . B i l l y was i n h i s e a r l y twenties. He was t a k i n g 5 courses and working at the l e a r n i n g centre : 10 hours per week. B i l l y ' s courses had a heavy w r i t i n g component. He was a good w r i t e r who l i k e d w r i t i n g . Most of h i s academic w r i t i n g experience came "from doing l i t e r a r y a n a l y s i s essays" (I-B-Nov. 16). His p r e f e r r e d way of studying- was to "write e v e r y t h i n g down" (I-B-Nov.16). He found that i t helped him remember things and see connections between ideas. B i l l y had not tutored formally before, but he had provided feedback on papers f o r f r i e n d s i n high school. A f t e r f i n i s h i n g h i g h school, he had worked at a convenience s t o r e and gas s t a t i o n f o r a year, ending up as A s s i s t a n t Manager. During that year he had a l s o taken a distance education c o l l e g e Math course, an experience which taught him "a l o t about how to do • 60 i t y o u r s e l f without having someone teach i t to you" (I-B-Nov.16). B i l l y l i k e d the challenge of the t u t o r i n g job. He noted, " j u s t f i n d i n g ways to help people i s very c h a l l e n g i n g I f i n d " (I-B-Nov.23). The job helped him f i n a n c i a l l y but he was not dependent on h i s income from i t . Rather, i t allowed him to conserve h i s savings. In the semester under study, B i l l y mainly t u t o r e d students i n w r i t i n g and study s k i l l s . Paul . . . L i k e B i l l y , Paul was h i r e d as a peer t u t o r i n e a r l y November. He was i n h i s t h i r d semester at the c o l l e g e , t a k i n g a w r i t i n g - f o r - p u b l i c a t i o n program. Paul, who. .was i n h i s mid-f o r t i e s , had a v a r i e d background. He had worked i n the h o t e l and r e s t a u r a n t business, and had owned h i s own bar and h i s own bookstore. In h i s bar days, Paul had had a substance abuse problem and spent time i n a r e h a b i l i t a t i o n centre. He then attended a micro-computer processing program and subsequently was a captions e d i t o r and a teaching a s s i s t a n t f o r a computer course. Most r e c e n t l y , as a student, he had had a p a r t - t i m e night job as a s e c u r i t y guard. Paul's goal was to become "a f r e e - l a n c e , p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s , marketing s p i n doctor" (I-P-Nov.10). He was doing w e l l i n h i s studies and intended to complete h i s program the f o l l o w i n g year. Paul had a heavy workload during the research p e r i o d . His s t u d i e s were demanding; he t y p i c a l l y had 16 hours of c l a s s each 61 week and 2 5 to 3 0 hours of homework. Besides working i n the l e a r n i n g centre 12 hours per week, he a l s o had h i s own t e c h n i c a l w r i t i n g company which took about 15 hours per week of h i s time. Paul was an a v i d w r i t e r . He loved a l l kinds of w r i t i n g but was p a r t i c u l a r l y keen on c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g . He had kept h i s own personal j o u r n a l s f o r 22 years and during the study kept not only h i s l e a r n i n g centre j o u r n a l but a l s o h i s personal j o u r n a l and separate j o u r n a l s f o r two courses he was t a k i n g . Paul d e s c r i b e d the value of h i s j o u r n a l w r i t i n g : I f i n d that i t ' s r e a l l y good because i t helps me to go back and r e f l e c t . . . [ j o u r n a l s ] they're wonderful t o o l s to help me f i n d out where I've been and where I'm going and how I've gotten there and what's happened to me i n the i n t e r i m . (I-P-Nov.24) Paul l i k e d t u t o r i n g . He s a i d : This i s one of the most enjoyable jobs I've ever had because I get to help people and make a d i f f e r e n c e . . . and use my s k i l l s ... most important i s the f a c t that i t t i e s i n [to my course work]. (I-P-Nov.24) One of the key f a c t o r s i n Paul's enjoyment of the job was the b e n e f i t he saw i n i t f o r himself. He reported, " i t ' s r e a l l y a great source of goodness . . . f o r me" (I-P-Nov.17). He was able to use many s k i l l s he had acquired i n h i s v a r i e d background. He s a i d , "I'm f i n d i n g t h i s job i s h e l p i n g me g r e a t l y , I'm g e t t i n g to use a l l s o r t s of past t r a i n i n g from grammar to c o u n s e l l i n g , 62 I use i t a l l " (I-P-Nov.17). He a l s o f e l t that i t was p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y good f o r him and commented, " I t [the job] helps my h u m i l i t y and i t ' s ego g r a t i f y i n g that I have the s k i l l s to help people and that's great f o r my self-esteem" (I-P-Nov.24). A l l the students assigned to Paul were r e f e r r e d to the centre f o r help w i t h w r i t i n g . The S t a f f Tutor: Ann Ann, the s t a f f t u t o r i n the centre, was i n her second semester i n that job. A t r a i n e d teacher who had taught elementary school f o r 7 years, she had l e f t teaching because she and her husband moved from another province and she was not q u a l i f i e d to teach i n her new province. A f t e r moving, she worked at the c o l l e g e i n accounting.for many years. L a t e r , she worked as the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a s s i s t a n t f o r the c o l l e g e ' s l i t e r a c y t u t o r i n g program. During her 19 years of working at the c o l l e g e , she a l s o studied, completing most of her Accounting Diploma at the c o l l e g e . She came to the l e a r n i n g centre i n order to have a change and to reduce her working hours. She worked in ' the l e a r n i n g centre 25 hours a week. She was i n her l a t e f i f t i e s and a n t i c i p a t i n g e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t . In f a c t , she r e t i r e d at the end of the semester under study. Ann r e a l l y enjoyed the job and described i t as "an i n depth l e a r n i n g experience" (I-A-Nov.24). She s a i d , "I'm r e a l l y g l a d that I'm able to go out of my working l i f e w i t h something that I've enjoyed doing" (I-A-Nov.24). She worked w i t h a l l kinds of students on a wide v a r i e t y of 63 needs. She worked most wi t h mature students and w i t h students i n t e c h n i c a l programs and communications courses. However, she a l s o worked with, many students on academic programs. Besides her t u t o r i n g work, she was responsible f o r p r o v i d i n g the centre w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e support. The Tutor T r a i n e r : Tom Tom was the f a c u l t y member i n charge of the l e a r n i n g centre. This was a h a l f - t i m e p o s i t i o n . Besides running the l e a r n i n g centre, he taught.ESL h a l f - t i m e . Tom's background i n c l u d e d extensive teaching of co l l e g e - p r e p a r a t o r y ESL, some l i t e r a c y teaching, a Masters degree i n Adult Education and experience teaching a u n i v e r s i t y TESL course. As part of h i s ESL teaching at the c o l l e g e , he had fr e q u e n t l y taught an adjunct course to the c o l l e g e ' s u n i v e r s i t y t r a n s f e r E n g l i s h composition course. The semester under study was Tom's f i r s t semester running the l e a r n i n g centre. His duties included: h i r i n g , t r a i n i n g and s u p e r v i s i n g t u t o r s ; assessing and developing l e a r n i n g plans f o r students; e s t a b l i s h i n g Centre p o l i c i e s and procedures; and, l i a i s i n g w i t h c o l l e g e f a c u l t y and the department head about l e a r n i n g centre matters. Tom's approach to h i s f i r s t semester i n the centre was to maintain the status quo, working on the assumption that he should l e a r n how the centre had been ope r a t i n g p r i o r to making any changes. Tom and I had been colleagues f o r 6 years and had shared an o f f i c e f o r the l a s t 3 years. Two years e a r l i e r we had worked 64 together on a c u r r i c u l u m development p r o j e c t and had c o l l a b o r a t e d on w r i t i n g a handbook on assessing student needs f o r l i t e r a c y t u t o r i n g . We got along w e l l together and had common p h i l o s o p h i c a l assumptions about students and about teaching. I encouraged him to apply f o r the l e a r n i n g centre job, and I was very pleased when he was s e l e c t e d to repl a c e me. 65 Section Three: The Journal W r i t i n g Task In t h i s s e c t i o n , I explore t u t o r s ' p e r s p e c t i v e s on the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task, the focus of my f i r s t research question. F i r s t , I describe the t r a i n e r ' s g u i d e l i n e s f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , h i s purpose i n a s s i g n i n g the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task and the feedback he gave t u t o r s on t h e i r j o u r n a l s . Next, I d e s c r i b e the t u t o r s ' p e r s p e c t i v e s on the purpose f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g and the feedback they received. I then describe t u t o r s ' a t t i t u d e s to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . A f t e r t h a t , . 1 discuss the t r a i n e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n of t u t o r a t t i t u d e s to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . F i n a l l y , I d e s c r i b e the w r i t i n g processes employed by t u t o r s i n w r i t i n g t h e i r j o u r n a l s . Trainer Guidelines When Tom began the semester, he asked t u t o r s to w r i t e j o u r n a l s . He d i d not give any s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s . The t u t o r s had done j o u r n a l s the year before and he simply asked them to continue, r e l y i n g on t h e i r knowledge of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g from the previous year. This was somewhat problematic when Christ o p h e r j o i n e d the centre as he had not done j o u r n a l s before. In the f i r s t s t a f f meeting of the year, Tom suggested that t u t o r s could w r i t e about s t r a t e g i e s , a t t i t u d e s and s k i l l s (M-Oct.12) . The f o l l o w i n g week, at my suggestion, Tom developed g u i d e l i n e s f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . The handout he gave t u t o r s began l i k e t h i s : To help you w i t h your j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , here are a few 66 suggestions: 1) remember that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g has a purpose -- to help you become a b e t t e r t u t o r by r e f l e c t i n g c r i t i c a l l y on your t u t o r i n g . This means asking questions which help you to r e f l e c t about your t u t o r i n g : -What are you l e a r n i n g (past, present) -What do you need or want to learn? -How do you l e a r n or don't you l e a r n best? 2) to be u s e f u l f o r you, t h i s k i n d of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g needs to be much moire than r e p o r t i n g what happened during the week; i t needs to have an a n a l y t i c a l or c r i t i c a l focus which asks questions about s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s that you encountered during the week. (M-Oct.19) The r e s t of the handout co n s i s t e d of more d i s c u s s i o n and a long l i s t of p o s s i b l e questions t u t o r s could use to help them r e f l e c t on t h e i r p r a c t i c e . The questions suggest that the t r a i n e r intended the t u t o r s to focus on the p r a c t i c a l arena of the problematic (Tom, 1985). The questions problematized the techniques and approaches tutors, used; the questions d i d not suggest that t u t o r s question the goals of t h e i r work. In that week's s t a f f meeting (M-Oct.19), Tom introduced the g u i d e l i n e s , summarizing what he saw as the key p o i n t s . He noted t h a t , " r e f l e c t i n g rather than r e p o r t i n g i s the g o a l " and that t u t o r s should "think about a s i t u a t i o n and consider, what do I need to do b e t t e r ? " . He suggested that t u t o r s "tear apart 67 a s i t u a t i o n and look at i t from many angles". He ended by saying, " j u s t f o l l o w these questions". T r a i n e r Purpose i n Assigning J o u r n a l W r i t i n g I n i t i a l l y , Tom asked t u t o r s to w r i t e j o u r n a l s mainly because the t u t o r s had done j o u r n a l s the year before. This was i n keeping w i t h h i s p o l i c y of maintaining the s t a t u s quo i n h i s f i r s t semester i n the job. A f u r t h e r c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r was that he knew I was i n t e r e s t e d i n studying j o u r n a l s . By mid-way through the semester, however,' he had a c l e a r p i c t u r e of the purpose of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n h i s t u t o r • t r a i n i n g scheme. He s a i d : T: I t should c o n t r i b u t e to t h e i r l e a r n i n g on the job by h e l p i n g them r e f l e c t about what they're doing... the word r e f l e c t i s important because i n s t e a d of j u s t s i t t i n g down and doing i t without even t h i n k i n g about i t , and always doing the same t h i n g over and over, i t ' s to s i t back and say why, why d i d i t go that way? how could I do i t b e t t e r next•time? what i s too d i f f i c u l t ? what i s n ' t d i f f i c u l t any more? and what has changed? I guess some things l i k e t h a t , because I t h i n k one of the major issues that we're running i n t o here i s , to a c e r t a i n extent t u t o r i n g i s not i n any way developing i n the person's mind, they're not r e a l l y developing as t u t o r s , they're there to do a job and do the same th i n g every time, i t ' s not as i f they want to develop. Or they're too busy doing the 68 t u t o r i n g to s i t back and have time to t h i n k about what works and what doesn't and so they're j u s t p u t t i n g i n the time doing i t without r e f l e c t i n g a l o t about i t whereas others do think about, w e l l , how are they doing i t , um, so I think there's a spectrum there. J : So are you saying then that you t h i n k that the j o u r n a l s sort of enforce people t a k i n g the time to stop and t h i n k about i t ? T: That's, yes, i t s t r u c t u r e s i t i n . That's the purpose of s t r u c t u r i n g i n an opportunity; or requirement maybe, to to r e f l e c t on how i t ' s going and what i s n ' t going w e l l and what i s going w e l l . ( I -T-Nov.17) So, Tom's purpose f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was to provide a s t r u c t u r e which pushed t u t o r s to l e a r n from t h e i r t u t o r i n g experiences and thereby develop as t u t o r s . Trainer Feedback on Journals Tom r e q u i r e d t u t o r s as part of t h e i r job to w r i t e weekly j o u r n a l s . I n i t i a l l y , due to h i s heavy workload at the beginning of the semester, Tom was slow "to r e t u r n t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s to them. However, a f t e r three or four weeks he returned a l l t h e i r j o u r n a l s to them w i t h feedback. A f t e r that, he returned t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s more q u i c k l y . The feedback Tom wrote on t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s was of four main types. One type could be c a l l e d encouraging comments. He 69 wrote things such as "good idea" (J-A-Nov.16), "yes!" (J-B-Nov.15) and "you're a b s o l u t e l y r i g h t ! " (J-B-Nov.15). This approach to feedback has a l s o been employed by Anderson (19 93) and J a r v i s (1992) . Another type Tom used was probing questions. He wrote things l i k e , "Did t h i s approach work w i t h him?" (J-A-Nov.16). He a l s o o c c a s i o n a l l y r e s t a t e d what he understood from a t u t o r ' s w r i t i n g and asked i f that was what the t u t o r meant. Probing questions have a l s o been used by Pape and Smith (1991) and Newman (1988). A t h i r d type of feedback was i n f o r m a t i o n . For example, when a t u t o r described a problem he had i n h e l p i n g a student,' Tom responded w i t h step-by-step i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r how to work through the problem. As v a r i a t i o n s on t h i s type, Tom would sometimes r e f e r t u t o r s to handouts he had given or d i s c u s s i o n s they had had i n s t a f f meetings, or he would ask t u t o r s to provide him wit h more information so that he could help them. The f i n a l type could be c a l l e d drawing p r i n c i p l e s from experience. He would take what t u t o r s wrote and note p r i n c i p l e s which they had imp l i e d but not s t a t e d . For example, when one t u t o r wrote about how a student's enthusiasm had made him f e e l , Tom responded, "Motivation i s an important f a c t o r i n l e a r n i n g " (J-B-Dec.7). Tom's feedback was w r i t t e n on the j o u r n a l s which t u t o r s handed i n . He made extensive use of margins, o f t e n u n d e r l i n i n g segments of the jo u r n a l s and drawing arrows to h i s comments on those segments. His comments were b r i e f and c l e a r . Tom gave t u t o r s feedback on' issues they r a i s e d i n t h e i r 70 j o u r n a l s i n two other ways. In meetings, he o f t e n brought up issues and focused on problems that t u t o r s had r a i s e d i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . He used j o u r n a l s as data f o r h i s needs assessment of t u t o r s and planned s t a f f meetings, i n p a r t , based on those needs. This approach to j o u r n a l feedback i s a l s o c i t e d by J a r v i s (1992). Tom a l s o o c c a s i o n a l l y discussed i s s u e s r a i s e d i n j o u r n a l s w i t h t u t o r s on a one-to-one b a s i s . This d i d not occur s y s t e m a t i c a l l y and I d i d not have access to these d i s c u s s i o n s , but o c c a s i o n a l l y t u t o r s reported to me that they had d i s c u s s e d an i s s u e w i t h Tom. ' • Tutor Perspectives on the Purpose of J o u r n a l W r i t i n g Before Tom presented the g u i d e l i n e s f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , the four t u t o r s then working tended-to regard j o u r n a l w r i t i n g mainly as a means of communication. Ann described her j o u r n a l s as "a d i a r y , l i k e a running commentary of what happened over the week" (I-A-Nov.10). Ann a l s o described using her j o u r n a l to give Tom "messages" (I-A-Oct.13). Sometimes these messages c o n s i s t e d of comments from which she hoped Tom would take h i n t s about how he might do things d i f f e r e n t l y . She noted that "you don't want to t r e a d on anybody's toes or hurt anybody's f e e l i n g s so you t r y to suggest things by say being d i p l o m a t i c " (I-A-Oct. 13). F e l i c i a described using her j o u r n a l to ask Tom's advice about t u t o r i n g issues she was f a c i n g . C h r i s t o p h e r used h i s e a r l y j o u r n a l s to e x p l a i n to Tom what he saw as h i s l i m i t a t i o n s and a b i l i t i e s i n r e l a t i o n to t u t o r i n g . Tutors a l s o used t h e i r j o u r n a l s at that stage to create a 71 p o s i t i v e impression on Tom, t h e i r new boss. K r i s t a d e s c r i b e d the purpose behind one j o u r n a l entry; "I wanted him to t h i n k that I'm a c t u a l l y t h i n k i n g about things, l i k e , and I'm t r y i n g to f i n d new ways of doing things" (I-K-Oct.19). Ann reported using her j o u r n a l to "cover" h e r s e l f when she had not had time to do a l l the tasks which were part of her job (I-A-Oct.27). C h r i s t o p h e r t r i e d to make a good impression by showing Tom that he enjoyed h i s job, that he was gaining i n confidence, and that he was a team p l a y e r . Other researchers have a l s o i d e n t i f i e d t h i s tendency to t r y to please the teacher ( J a r v i s , 1992; Anderson, 1993; Newman, 1988). Wi t h i n a few weeks of r e c e i v i n g the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g g u i d e l i n e s , the t u t o r s had"'changed t h e i r p e r s p e c t i v e s on the purpose of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . F e l i c i a ' s comment was t y p i c a l of t h i s new understanding; she s a i d : He asks us to w r i t e s t u f f down i n order to t h i n k about i t more. 'Cause i f you w r i t e i t down, you're o b v i o u s l y t h i n k i n g about what happened.or how to b e t t e r y o u r s e l f more when you're w r i t i n g i t down. Otherwise you wouldn't have to t h i n k about i t , so I think he does i t i n that aspect, j u s t to make us think more and to b e t t e r our a b i l i t y to help people. (I-F-Nov.16) Christopher made a s i m i l a r comment but he a l s o found that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g f a c i l i t a t e d communication between him and Tom. He noted that w r i t i n g down ideas was a good .way of communicating w i t h Tom because " i t ' s not too good to r e f l e c t 72 our f e e l i n g i n o r a l speech so b e t t e r w r i t e i t down and then I t h i n k i t avoids an embarrassing environment" (I-C-Nov.10). Ch r i s t o p h e r saw t h i s communicative purpose as an important by-product of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. K r i s t a seemed to have some d i f f i c u l t y understanding Tom's purpose f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . She s a i d she had " t r i e d t o " use the g u i d e l i n e s i n w r i t i n g her j o u r n a l (I-K-Nov.3). When asked about the g u i d e l i n e s she could remember a few s p e c i f i c questions but not t h e i r o v e r a l l t h r u s t . She s a i d she'd have to r e f e r back to them again when she d i d her next j o u r n a l . Two weeks l a t e r , she was s t i l l confused about the g u i d e l i n e s . In the s t a f f meeting she complained to Tom about always having to look at the negative of what she d i d (M-Nov.16). In d i s c u s s i o n w i t h me l a t e r that day, she s a i d : K:...1 thought they [journals] had to be ... j u s t about problems, t r y i n g to f i n d a problem, to make y o u r s e l f a b e t t e r t u t o r , l i k e to always, um, have to th i n k about ways of improving y o u r s e l f , which i s good but (pause) J : Is that what the purpose of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s ? K: Um, yeah, I th i n k so....But I always thought i t was a negative way of, l i k e today that s t r a i g h t e n e d i t out f o r me when we were saying, oh no you can t a l k about l i k e good things ... but then e x p l a i n why you f e l t they were good ... instead of j u s t l i s t i n g l i k e we used to do, expanding on why you f e e l they work. 73 (I-K-Nov.16) The new t u t o r s , h i r e d i n e a r l y November, were given the g u i d e l i n e s f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g and asked to w r i t e j o u r n a l s . A f t e r w r i t i n g j o u r n a l s f o r several weeks, B i l l y saw j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as having two purposes. He reported that Tom wanted the t u t o r s to w r i t e "a k i n d of c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s . . . so you r e f l e c t , so you're c o n s t a n t l y t r y i n g to improve y o u r s e l f " (I-B-Nov.30). Although t h i s was the purpose Tom had s t a t e d f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , B i l l y f e l t that Tom's primary purpose was "to see where everyone i s " (I-B-Nov.30). He s a i d that Tom used the j o u r n a l s " j u s t to see what's going on, so he has an idea of what's going on so he can t r y and help us out" (I-B-Nov.30). B i l l y saw c l e a r outcomes of t h i s use f o r j o u r n a l s i n the s t a f f meetings. He s a i d , "he [Tom] seems to take i n f o r m a t i o n out of the j o u r n a l and j u s t k i n d of develop the meetings around them" (I-B-Nov.30). Paul regarded j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as having "a three-pronged purpose" (I-P-Jan.27). The f i r s t two purposes were s i m i l a r to those described by B i l l y . The t h i r d purpose was to maintain a record of what happened i n t u t o r i n g s e s s i o n s . He f e l t t h i s record was u s e f u l both f o r reference i n s t a f f meetings and f o r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . He s a i d , I f we had someone that put a complaint i n ... against us ...we would have some way of going back r a t h e r than j u s t t r y i n g to r e l y on memory, we'd have some way of going back and saying w e l l t h i s was the entry that I made concerning t h i s student. (I-P-Jan.27) 74 E v e n t u a l l y , a l l of the t u t o r s came to an understanding of Tom's s t a t e d purpose f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g ; i n K r i s t a ' s case, however, t h i s understanding took time. I t must a l s o be noted that they recognized other purposes f o r the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task which Tom d i d not s t a t e . Tutor Perspectives on Journal Feedback When asked about the kinds of feedback Tom gave, most t u t o r s i d e n t i f i e d at l e a s t some of the four types of feedback I observed on t u t o r j o u r n a l s . Most t u t o r s reported that Tom wrote p o s i t i v e comments on t h e i r j o u r n a l s and responded to t h e i r questions. B i l l y , Ann and F e l i c i a a l s o noted that Tom wrote probing questions which made them think more about i s s u e s . Most t u t o r s a l s o pointed out that s t a f f meetings o f t e n i n c l u d e d feedback on issues they had r a i s e d i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . K r i s t a noted that she ofte n got o r a l feedback from Tom on her j o u r n a l s . However, t h i s d i d not appear to occur w i t h a l l t u t o r s . The t u t o r s reported that they, found Tom's feedback u s e f u l . As C h r i s t o p h e r reported, "he's showing a p o s i t i v e way i n reading our j o u r n a l . . . he t r e a t s t h i s j o u r n a l and our f e e l i n g s very s e r i o u s l y " (I-C-Oc't. 27) . B i l l y reported that he appreciated b e n e f i t t i n g from Tom's experience. He s a i d , " I t ' s j u s t a d i f f e r e n t view of what I'm saying or t h i n k i n g , so i t helps j u s t to see a d i f f e r e n t view and to see what he t h i n k s . He's been here a l o t longer than I have" (I-B-Nov.23). He a l s o noted that he found the p o s i t i v e comments good "reinforcement" 75 (I-B-Nov.23). Ann recognized that there was p o t e n t i a l i n f o l l o w i n g up on Tom's comments. On one occasion she s a i d , "I was t h i n k i n g that I'm going to focus my next j o u r n a l on answering h i s questions and comments that he put on, maybe go back and t a l k more about that" (I-A-Nov.10). She d i d not, however, f o l l o w up on that idea. Christopher d i d f o l l o w up on one of Tom's probing questions by w r i t i n g a paragraph i n h i s next j o u r n a l which attempted to answer a question Tom had posed. F e l i c i a noted that Tom's questions "help us to analyze ourselves more" . (I-F-Oct.24) . D e s p i t e ; t h e t u t o r s ' views of the usefulness of Tom's feedback, i t should be noted that i n t e r v i e w s and j o u r n a l s provided l i t t l e evidence of the impact of Tom's feedback; on t u t o r s ' t h i n k i n g . Near the end of the semester, Ann made three suggestions of the kinds of feedback she thought would be more u s e f u l . She noted "I t h i n k i f he gave me some negative comments about t h i n g s , some c r i t i c i s m , then that would spur me on to improve i n that area" (I-A-Nov.24). Researchers (McAlpine, 1992 ; Newman, 1988) have a l s o suggested that j o u r n a l feedback should challenge the w r i t e r s ' assumptions. Another problem she saw w i t h the feedback was that there was "never any follow-up to that feedback" (I-A-Nov.24). She suggested that she would gain from d i s c u s s i n g the issues w i t h Tom or w i t h the other t u t o r s . She a l s o noted that she would l i k e the t u t o r s to read each others' j o u r n a l s and w r i t e feedback on them. Newman (1988) employed t h i s s t r a t e g y w i t h students i n her study. 76 Because of the feedback they received, F e l i c i a and K r i s t a sometimes d e a l t w i t h issues i n other ways i n s t e a d of w r i t i n g about them i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . F e l i c i a pointed out that she o f t e n wrote questions i n notes to Tom i n s t e a d of i n c l u d i n g them i n her j o u r n a l . She found that she got f a s t e r feedback that way. K r i s t a o f t e n spoke to Tom about issues she was f a c i n g i n s t e a d of w r i t i n g about them i n her j o u r n a l . She p r e f e r r e d o r a l i n t e r a c t i o n to w r i t t e n r e f l e c t i o n . Tutor A t t i t u d e s to Journal W r i t i n g Most t u t o r s were very p o s i t i v e ' about the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g experience. Ann expressed her perspective at the end of the semester i n her. j o u r n a l . She s a i d : I know that I have evolved from a mediocre tutor to a pretty good tutor. Mainly, this is because I kept an open mind, I was willing to adapt, and I learned something from each experience. I ... believe my journal has assisted me in this evolution. (J-A-Dec.6) Chr i s t o p h e r a l s o regarded j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as b e n e f i c i a l because of i t s impact over time. He i d e n t i f i e d j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as "one of the way (sic) to become a mature t u t o r " (I-C-Nov.10). B i l l y and Paul reported that f o r them j o u r n a l w r i t i n g f u l f i l l e d i t s purposes w e l l . Problems w i t h Jo u r n a l W r i t i n g K r i s t a and F e l i c i a were l e s s confident about the value of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Although they both described b e n e f i t s they saw i n j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , they a l s o had r e s e r v a t i o n s . Both made 77 negative comments about the value of i n d i v i d u a l j o u r n a l s they had w r i t t e n . For example, K r i s t a s a i d about one j o u r n a l she had w r i t t e n , " t h i s j o u r n a l i s dumb" (I-K-Nov.16). K r i s t a a s c r i b e d her res e r v a t i o n s about j o u r n a l w r i t i n g to her l a c k of confidence i n her a b i l i t y to r e f l e c t i n w r i t i n g . She d i d not th i n k w r i t i n g was a good way f o r her to explore ideas. She a l s o repeatedly expressed confusion about the r o l e j o u r n a l w r i t i n g took i n he l p i n g her think about t u t o r i n g . She s a i d : I don't know i f i t ' s having to w r i t e the j o u r n a l or i f i t ' s j u s t because, maybe i t ' s making me t h i n k more along the l i n e s , maybe by making me do i t i t ' s making me t h i n k ... but I'm j u s t not r e a l i z i n g , do you know? that i t ' s connected. L i k e , because I've had to t h i n k about that maybe i t ' s t h i s whole t h i n g l i k e maybe i t ' s not j u s t , maybe the j o u r n a l does promote i t but i t ' s j u s t everything that promotes l i k e t h i n k i n g of new ideas and s t u f f l i k e t h a t . The j o u r n a l does, but tha t ' s one area that helps me to th i n k and meetings and j u s t concerns and concerns of other people and having to deal w i t h i t . b a s i c a l l y and wanting to help the people and wanting to giv e them the best that you can and not... so I'm always t r y i n g to t h i n k . (I-K-Oct.19) F e l i c i a f e l t the pressure to be a n a l y t i c i n j o u r n a l s damaged her confidence. She described the problem t h i s way: 78 I t [ j o u r n a l w r i t i n g ] puts pressure on you to keep l e a r n i n g , keep advancing, you have to keep f i n d i n g new ways to f i g u r e out problems, l i k e I don't know, l i k e I t h i n k i t d e f i n i t e l y helps but i f you're a n a l y z i n g y o u r s e l f a l l the time, l i k e u s u a l l y i n everyday l i f e you're a n a l y z i n g y o u r s e l f because you're doing something wrong, you don't r e a l l y analyze the good as much as you do the bad, so i f you analyze y o u r s e l f , you see more of the problems, you see that you have to improve which i s good, but i t does, set the stage f o r f e e l i n g not as competent as you probably would have (I-F-Dec.7) F e l i c i a f e l t her j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was more v a l u a b l e to her when i t was simply r e p o r t i n g what she had done i n the week than when she attempted to meet Tom's goal of more a n a l y t i c j o u r n a l s . In the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n she contrasted w r i t i n g a n a l y t i c j o u r n a l s f o r Tom w i t h w r i t i n g j o u r n a l s the previous year: F: When I w r i t e about an appointment... l i k e l a s t year, r e p o r t i n g back to you about what happened i n my appointments, I ' l l go through and I ' l l t h i n k about the appointments, and that helped me t h i n k more about my appointments... J : Than when you're supposed to be a n a l y z i n g them? F: Yeah (with f e e l i n g ) , d e f i n i t e l y , l i k e l a s t year the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g helped me a l o t more, but t h i s year we're not supposed to report on what happened i n our appointments, j u s t what worked, what d i d n ' t , the 79 techniques and why, and I can't w r i t e about s t u f f l i k e t h a t, that doesn't help me as much. J : But g i v i n g an overview of your appointments s t a r t s you t h i n k i n g about some things? F: Yeah, i t does. (I-F-Dec.7) Hatton and Smith (1995) suggest that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g may incr e a s e f e e l i n g s of v u l n e r a b i l i t y i n j o u r n a l w r i t e r s . They suggest t h a t , t h i s is e s p e c i a l l y ..likely • when the locus of c o n t r o l i s not seen to be wit h the j o u r n a l w r i t e r . The p r o v i s i o n of g u i d e l i n e s f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g may have caused F e l i c i a to f e e l that she had to give up c o n t r o l of her j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Ann f e l t that j o u r n a l writing,, was a va l u a b l e l e a r n i n g t o o l , but she f e l t i t could have been more v a l u a b l e . She f r e q u e n t l y mentioned the idea that j o u r n a l s would be more va l u a b l e i f they were shared among.tutors. One reason f o r t h i s was her concern that she didn't know i f her j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was "of f base" (I-A-Dec . 8) . •  She wanted to see the j o u r n a l s of others to confirm that she was doing what was expected. Another reason was that she wanted access to d i f f e r i n g p e r s p e c t i v e s on t u t o r i n g . She thought seeing the j o u r n a l s of others would introduce her to some new ways of l o o k i n g at t h i n g s . However, the main p o i n t which Ann returned to again and again was her d e s i r e to share her own j o u r n a l w i t h others. She saw t h i s as a way to get feedback on her ideas and to enter i n t o d i s c u s s i o n about is s u e s w i t h other t u t o r s . She s a i d , " i t would help us a l l 80 be b e t t e r t u t o r s " (I-A-Dec. 8). Ann's suggestion was i n keeping w i t h Mann (1994) who as s e r t s that an important f u n c t i o n of t u t o r t r a i n i n g should be to encourage t u t o r s to share and dis c u s s t u t o r i n g s t r a t e g i e s . B e n e f i t s of Jo u r n a l W r i t i n g A l l t u t o r s described some b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Many of these b e n e f i t s r e l a t e d to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as a r e f l e c t i v e t o o l . The t u t o r s f e l t j o u r n a l w r i t i n g helped them focus on issues i n a way they might not have without the j o u r n a l s . Paul and K r i s t a described t h i s as the j o u r n a l p r o v i d i n g a " t r i g g e r " (I-P-Jan.27) or "spark" (I-K-Oct.19) f o r f u r t h e r t h i n k i n g . Tutors a l s o described j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as h e l p i n g them c l a r i f y - t h e i r ideas. Often w r i t i n g j o u r n a l s l e d t u t o r s to recognize new connections between experiences. Tutors suggested j o u r n a l w r i t i n g a l s o had other b e n e f i t s : an opp o r t u n i t y to view the " g e s t a l t " of t u t o r i n g sessions (I-P-Nov.24); re d u c t i o n i n planning time (I-C-Oct.27); and heightened awareness of t u t o r l e a r n i n g (I-F-Nov.2). B i l l y noted that he thought j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was "an e x c e l l e n t t o o l f o r r e f l e c t i n g " (I-B-Dec.7). He f e l t the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g requirement " r e i n f o r c e d " the pressure he already put on himself to improve h i s t u t o r i n g . He s a i d , " I f you don't t h i n k back, you're not going to improve r e a l l y . I f you don't t r y and see what you're doing wrong or or see what you're doing r i g h t , you're not going to improve y o u r s e l f " (I-B-Dec.7). A few t u t o r s a l s o mentioned the b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l 81 w r i t i n g i n f a c i l i t a t i n g communication between themselves and Tom. K r i s t a regarded j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as a good forum f o r making suggestions to Tom. She s a i d : Because I have the j o u r n a l to w r i t e , I f e l t oh good, t h i s i s a great time to express those concerns and t r y to w r i t e i t down, h o p e f u l l y not i n a way that would upset him [Tom] or anything but, so I think that r e a l l y helped, to know I would have a way to express i t , yeah at the time, j u s t get t h i s on paper before you forget what you're t h i n k i n g about. (I-K-Ocf.19) Paul f e l t that one b e n e f i t of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was the way i t enabled him to tell.Tom about problems that they could then work on together. A number of t u t o r s described a f f e c t i v e b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Although F e l i c i a f e l t that a n a l y t i c j o u r n a l w r i t i n g reduced her confidence, i n other ways she f e l t j o u r n a l w r i t i n g b u i l t her confidence. She s a i d , " i f you w r i t e i t down that you d i d a good job, y o u ' l l b e l i e v e you d i d a good job" ( I - F -O c t . l l ) . Christopher f e l t the same way. Both F e l i c i a and C h r i s t o p h e r f e l t that s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e was very important f o r a t u t o r . Christopher explained h i s reasoning t h i s way: " s e l f -confidence i s the most c r u c i a l f a c t o r to determine one's a b i l i t y to solve problems" (I-C-Nov.24). Some t u t o r s a l s o valued j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as an o u t l e t f o r t h e i r f r u s t r a t i o n s . For example, Ann described using one j o u r n a l as an o p p o r t u n i t y to "release a l i t t l e f r u s t r a t i o n that I was h o l d i n g w i t h i n . I 82 needed to get i t out I guess" (I-A-Oct.13). This would seem to support McAlpine's (1992) a s s e r t i o n that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g can perform a c a t h a r t i c f u n c t i o n . Paul i d e n t i f i e d a value of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g f o r him that no other t u t o r mentioned. He b e l i e v e d that the three-pronged purpose he had i d e n t i f i e d f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was a v a l i d one. He s a i d : I t h i n k i t [ j o u r n a l w r i t i n g ] i s probably the best way to do that [ f u l f i l those purposes]. Thinking about i t any other way,would i n v o l v e the n e c e s s i t y of s o r t of f i l l i n g out forms and f o l l o w i n g g u i d e l i n e s and having s t r u c t u r e s i n p l a c e . I t h i n k t h i s [journal w r i t i n g ] allows you a b i t of freedom and .I t h i n k i t does the job of keeping those three p o i n t s i n focus. (I-P-Jan.27) Thus, f o r Paul, j o u r n a l w r i t i n g provided an opportunity to meet needs of r e f l e c t i o n , communication and record keeping w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g some freedom of choice i n how those needs should be met. Most t u t o r s also,saw value i n j o u r n a l w r i t i n g beyond i t s d i r e c t impact on t h e i r t h i n k i n g about issues they wrote about. Some t u t o r s noted that they thought a great deal more about t h e i r t u t o r i n g i n the process of w r i t i n g t h e i r j o u r n a l s than was evident i n t h e i r w r i t t e n products. Christopher d e s c r i b e d i t t h i s way: While I'm w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l , i t ' s a f i l t e r i n g process... during the t h i n k i n g process I may t h i n k more than what 83 I've w r i t t e n down... I mean the t h i n k i n g process during the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s d i f f e r e n t from the a c t u a l j o u r n a l . (I-C-Dec.8) B i l l y a l s o noted that w r i t i n g h i s j o u r n a l caused him to review h i s whole week of t u t o r i n g and that t h i s l e d to more r e f l e c t i o n than what he a c t u a l l y wrote i n h i s j o u r n a l . Ann noted that w r i t i n g her j o u r n a l encouraged her to th i n k about her ideas a f t e r the w r i t i n g was complete; sometimes t h i s f u r t h e r t h i n k i n g was i n areas not touched on i n the j o u r n a l . Paul noted that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g created a record of experiences and that the record allowed f o r l a t e r reading and r e f l e c t i o n . Ann found that' re-reading o l d j o u r n a l s had l e d her to important new understandings; these understandings i n c l u d e d r e c o g n i t i o n of the improvement she had made i n her t u t o r i n g over time and r e c o g n i t i o n of the importance of reading s k i l l s i n being an e f f e c t i v e w r i t e r . Paul and Ann were the only t u t o r s who reported having re-read j o u r n a l s they had w r i t t e n i n the past. Christopher and F e l i c i a both'noted that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g set a tone f o r working i n the centre that valued ongoing l e a r n i n g . When asked about whether he would do h i s job d i f f e r e n t l y i f i t d i d not include j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , C h r i s t o p h e r r e p l i e d : I t would be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t , f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g g i v e me a deeper thought, a deeper t h i n k i n g i n my work a t t i t u d e i n general, but without w r i t i n g j o u r n a l I w i l l , yeah you 84 might say, I w i l l be qu i t e absent-minded about what happens around us, I mean the working environment... I won't concern so much about i t , j u s t f i n i s h day by day okay w i l l be f i n e . (I-C-Dec.8) F e l i c i a a l s o f e l t that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g encouraged an atmosphere v a l u i n g ongoing l e a r n i n g f o r centre s t a f f . However, as noted above, t h i s was a double-edged sword. She f e l t that i t encouraged her to s t r i v e f o r improvement i n her t u t o r i n g a b i l i t i e s but that i t a l s o sometimes made her f e e l l i k e she was on a tr e a d m i l l - that was going a l i t t l e too f a s t . Because she didn't improve her t u t o r i n g as much as she f e l t she should, i t reduced her confidence.. -In summary, although most t u t o r s f e l t j o u r n a l s were very b e n e f i c i a l , two t u t o r s expressed concerns about t h e i r u s e f u l n e s s . These concerns focused on discomfort w i t h r e f l e c t i v e w r i t i n g and detrimental e f f e c t s on t u t o r s e l f -confidence. Despite these concerns, a l l t u t o r s d e s c r i b e d themselves as having b e n e f i t e d from j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . The b e n e f i t s c i t e d by t u t o r s included increased r e f l e c t i o n on t u t o r i n g and t u t o r l e a r n i n g / improved communication w i t h Tom, a f f e c t i v e b e n e f i t s , freedom to choose issues and formats f o r r e f l e c t i o n , and c r e a t i o n of an atmosphere v a l u i n g ongoing l e a r n i n g of centre s t a f f . E f f e c t s of the Research Process on Tutor A t t i t u d e s to Journal W r i t i n g Tutors suggested that the f a c t that I was studying t h e i r 85 j o u r n a l s increased the importance of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. As B i l l y s a i d , "Just the f a c t that you're doing t h i s [ i n t e r v i e w i n g t u t o r s about t h e i r j o u r n a l s ] , k i n d of j u s t r e i n f o r c e s the j o u r n a l s ' , um, importance or u s e f u l n e s s , not j u s t to us, but even to you" (I-B-Dec . 7 ) . E a r l y i n the f o l l o w i n g semester, Paul echoed B i l l y ' s sentiment, n o t i n g that j o u r n a l s didn't seem as important anymore because I was no longer studying them. The importance given to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g by the research process had a negative e f f e c t f o r F e l i c i a . We d i scussed i t as f o l l o w s : F: I t h i n k about my t u t o r i n g more now than I d i d l a s t semester when you weren't t a l k i n g to me about my j o u r n a l s , l i k e when you weren't doing i t , i t didn't matter what I wrote i n my j o u r n a l s / I didn't t h i n k about i t as much and t h e r e f o r e I could w r i t e about anything. J : You weren't going to have to face i t i n p u b l i c again? F: E x a c t l y , but now when they're being analyzed a l i t t l e b i t more, now i t ' s r e a l l y hard to w r i t e about anything. L i k e t h a t , along w i t h doing the same t h i n g over and over again f o r the past year, a l l that combines i n t o , t h a t ' s why I haven't been able to w r i t e many j o u r n a l s . . . ( I - F -Dec . 7 ) However, F e l i c i a seemed w i l l i n g to discuss some d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n s w i t h me i n the i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n that she was r e l u c t a n t to w r i t e about i n her j o u r n a l . For example, she t o l d 86 me about a s i t u a t i o n i n which she f e l t very badly about the poor grade a student was given on a paper she had helped w i t h . F e l i c i a expressed great anxiety about Tom f i n d i n g out about what had happened. In the inte r v i e w , we discussed the reasons the student might have got a poor grade and the l i m i t s of F e l i c i a ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i t (I-F-Oct.24). In the f o l l o w i n g s t a f f meeting, she brought up the s i t u a t i o n and t o l d everyone about what had happened and how she had f e l t - (M-Oct.26). The i n t e r v i e w process seemed to have given her more confidence about r e v e a l i n g the problem she had faced.' When t u t o r s described problems they had w i t h j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n personal terms, I t r i e d to help them reach an understanding of t h e • s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g them. This happened most oft e n w i t h F e l i c i a . In one i n t e r v i e w , I suggested: You have to look"at the s i t u a t i o n , l i k e I t h i n k I wouldn't take i t very p e r s o n a l l y , that t h i s i s some great flaw i n you that you can't w r i t e t h i s j o u r n a l , r i g h t ? I t sounds l i k e there are a number of f a c t o r s that have made i t d i f f i c u l t f o r you to w r i t e a j o u r n a l , not that you are somehow d e f e c t i v e , r i g h t ? But r a t h e r that these f a c t o r s , which i s what I'm t r y i n g to understand, what these f a c t o r s are, you know? (I-F-Dec.7) As a r e s u l t , she would t a l k to me about such f a c t o r s . My purpose i n t a k i n g t h i s approach was d i r e c t l y t i e d to my goal of making the research emancipatory. I f e l t i f t u t o r s understood 87 the e f f e c t s of s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s i n the s i t u a t i o n on t h e i r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , they would f e e l l e s s p e r s o n a l l y at f a u l t when t h e i r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g d i d not meet t h e i r own or others' e x p e c t a t i o n s . T r a i n e r Perception of Tutor A t t i t u d e s to J o u r n a l W r i t i n g Tom f e l t that t u t o r s under-valued j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . We discussed i t t h i s way: T: The d i f f i c u l t y i s i n g e t t i n g t u t o r s to a p p r e c i a t e the f a c t that i t ' s a u s e f u l a c t i v i t y r a t h e r than j u s t something they have to do f o r me. J : Why do you say that? Have you found people r e l u c t a n t to do them [j o u r n a l s ] ? T: Yeah, they're.too busy and.comments from K r i s t a and F e l i c i a that they can't think of anything to w r i t e and from.Krista saying that she j u s t doesn't l i k e j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , and that makes me r e a l i z e that to a l a r g e extent they're doing i t only because I want them t o . And so they see i t as an assignment that b e n e f i t s me but they don't q u i t e see how i t b e n e f i t s them, or they haven't allowed themselves to t h i n k about that. (I-T-Dec.l) The Journal W r i t i n g Process Tutors wrote t h e i r j o u r n a l s under v a r i e d c o n d i t i o n s . Some t u t o r s wrote t h e i r j o u r n a l s on t h e i r work time whereas others d i d them on t h e i r own time. Ann and Paul d i d t h e i r j o u r n a l s at home. Christ o p h e r g e n e r a l l y planned h i s j o u r n a l at home and composed i t 88 on a computer i n the l e a r n i n g centre outside of h i s working hours. For Paul, doing h i s j o u r n a l i n the evenings at home seemed to f i t w i t h h i s previous h a b i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Ann and C h r i s t o p h e r s a i d they worked on t h e i r j o u r n a l s at home because there was not enough uninterrupted time at work to do them p r o p e r l y . B i l l y , F e l i c i a . a n d K r i s t a u s u a l l y did, t h e i r j o u r n a l s during t h e i r work time. They experienced d i f f e r e n t amounts of i n t e r r u p t i o n w h i l e j o u r n a l w r i t i n g and i t seemed to a f f e c t them i n d i f f e r e n t ways. B i l l y reported that he was not i n t e r r u p t e d o f t e n and when he was i t didn't seem to be a problem. K r i s t a a l s o managed to f i n d quiet times to w r i t e her j o u r n a l s and avoided much i n t e r r u p t i o n . F e l i c i a , however, . found that she was i n t e r r u p t e d c o n s t a n t l y and that t h i s adversely a f f e c t e d her j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Tutors spent between h a l f an hour and two hours each week w r i t i n g t h e i r j o u r n a l s . B i l l y spent only about h a l f an hour working on h i s j o u r n a l s , while F e l i c i a spent about an hour, and K r i s t a and Ann spent an hour to-an hour and a h a l f . K r i s t a noted that much of that time was spent t r y i n g to t h i n k of things to w r i t e about. Christopher spent one to two hours working on h i s j o u r n a l each week. Paul d e a l t w i t h h i s j o u r n a l s d i f f e r e n t l y . He would spend some time a f t e r each s h i f t he worked i n the centre w r i t i n g up h i s j o u r n a l f o r that s h i f t . The time he spent v a r i e d . Paul's j o u r n a l w r i t i n g process was d i f f e r e n t from that of the other t u t o r s . On each of h i s work s h i f t s he would make notes of students he worked with, i d e n t i f y i n g t h e i r names and a few key 89 words to help him remember what they d i d together. In the evening at home, he would use these notes to w r i t e up h i s j o u r n a l f o r that s h i f t . U n l i k e the other t u t o r s , he wrote about every t u t o r i n g s e s s i o n he had w i t h a student. The other t u t o r s were more s e l e c t i v e about the contents of t h e i r j o u r n a l s . B i l l y , Christopher, F e l i c i a and Ann used various s t r a t e g i e s to review the sessions they had had during the week. F e l i c i a would review the appointment book to remind h e r s e l f of the sessions she had had over the week. Ann would o f t e n note down a l l the students she had worked w i t h during the week and make a few notes on each. Then she would choose one or a few to w r i t e about. Christopher and B i l l y would, as B i l l y put i t , "run a l l the events through your head, j u s t t h i n k i n g about them" (I-B-Dec . 7 ) . A d i f f e r e n c e between these two was that Christopher would do i t a day or two p r i o r to a c t u a l l y w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l whereas B i l l y would do i t when he sat down to w r i t e the j o u r n a l . C h ristopher and Ann of t e n d i d a l o t of planning f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Christopher would spend a day or two m u l l i n g over what to w r i t e . He would develop an o u t l i n e , sometimes i n h i s head and sometimes on paper. Part of h i s planning was geared toward f i g u r i n g out how to w r i t e h i s ideas and avoid "Chenglish", Chinese-English (I-C-Nov.10). Ann would keep a running l i s t of students she worked w i t h and then a day or two before j o u r n a l w r i t i n g would s t a r t to plan the j o u r n a l . Sometimes she wrote an o u t l i n e . Often, whether or not she wrote an o u t l i n e , she would have her j o u r n a l planned i n some d e t a i l before a c t u a l l y s i t t i n g 90 down to w r i t e i t . At other times when she had no p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e she wanted to w r i t e about, she d i d much l e s s planning. K r i s t a , and sometimes Ann, would j u s t s i t down and s t a r t w r i t i n g , one t h i n g leading to another. Ann a l s o , p a r t i c u l a r l y near the end of the semester, would simply s t a r t w r i t i n g about something " i n the f o r e - f r o n t " of her mind (I-A-Nov.3). In the process of w r i t i n g other issues "would come to mind" (I-A-Nov.24). In these s i t u a t i o n s she. would o f t e n see the connection between one idea and the next as of importance i n the development of her t h i n k i n g . Christopher and Ann, despite sometimes el a b o r a t e planning, would o f t e n modify t h e i r ideas while a c t u a l l y w r i t i n g t h e i r j o u r n a l s . Once B i l l y had decided what to w r i t e about he would " s c r i b b l e out" the j o u r n a l (I-B-Nov.23). He would explore the issu e s he had chosen to w r i t e about while w r i t i n g . For example, he reported, "I knew the t h i n g I was going to t a l k about but I hadn't thought about what I was going to gain from i t " (I-B-Nov.16). Paul described w r i t i n g w i t h a "stream of consciousness" approach (I-P-Jan. 27) , mainly focusing on what he d i d w i t h h i s students. The e d i t i n g p r a c t i c e s of t u t o r s a l s o v a r i e d w i d e l y . K r i s t a , B i l l y and F e l i c i a d i d l i t t l e e d i t i n g . Christopher and Ann e d i t e d f o r c l a r i t y . Paul proofread h i s j o u r n a l s c a r e f u l l y and r e f l e c t e d on t h e i r contents as he d i d so. Section Four: Contents of Tutor Journals 91 In Sections Four and Five, I describe what t u t o r s wrote about i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s , the focus of my second research question. Section Four focuses on the content of t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s and Section Five describes l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i v i t y i n the j o u r n a l s . In t h i s s e c t i o n , I f i r s t describe content c a t e g o r i e s i n t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s and issues involved i n t h e i r choices of what to w r i t e about i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . Next, I di s c u s s the e f f e c t s of the research process on t u t o r s ' content choices. F i n a l l y , I de s c r i b e the t r a i n e r ' s perceptions of d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h t u t o r s ' choices of content f o r . t h e i r j o u r n a l s . ' Content Categories I used a constant-comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to develop categories f o r the contents of., t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s . Figure 1 shows the categories which t u t o r s discussed i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . The numbers i n the chart represent a ranking of the r e l a t i v e amounts of t u t o r j o u r n a l s focused on the d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . For example, Ann discussed 10 d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . The number "1" under "A" i n the f i g u r e s i g n i f i e s that she spent more of her j o u r n a l s d i s c u s s i n g w r i t i n g t u t o r i n g than she spent on any other category. The number "10" s i g n i f i e s that she devoted l e s s of her j o u r n a l w r i t i n g to d i s c u s s i n g i s s u e s of student motivation than she devoted to any other category. 92 Figure 1: Content Categories i n Tutor Journals A B C F K p W r i t i n g Tutoring 1 3 7 1 1 1 S e l f Assessment as Tutor 2 2 3 2 2 6 Student M o t i v a t i o n •10 ' 4 8 4 4 3 Role of Tutors 4 1 1 X 8 2 Study S k i l l s Tutoring 8 5 6 X 5 7 The Job 3 -7 10 3 X 8 S t a f f Meetings X 9 11 9 X 4 J o u r n a l W r i t i n g 5 X X 7 6 10 E f f e c t on S e l f of Tutoring X 6 4 X X 5 Computer Tutoring 9 X 5 5 X 11 Centre Role & P o l i c y X X 9 ' X 9 X Personal X 8 X 8 7 X Centre Operations 7 . x- • X 6 3 X Language Learning X X . 2 X X X Reading T u t o r i n g , 6 X X X X X C o l l e g e P o l i c y X X X X X 9 (Numbers represent a ranking of j o u r n a l s spent d i s c u s s i n g issues x = not present) the r e l a t i v e amounts i n the category; of Below, I discuss the types of issues t u t o r s d i s c u s s e d i n each of the c a t e g o r i e s . W r i t i n g t u t o r i n g . In t h i s category, t u t o r s mainly discussed techniques f o r t u t o r i n g w r i t i n g , assessment of needs 93 and progress i n w r i t i n g , a f f e c t i v e responses of themselves and t h e i r students to w r i t i n g t u t o r i n g , and problems u n d e r l y i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h w r i t i n g . This category represents the l a r g e s t p o r t i o n of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g f o r most t u t o r s . C h r i s t o p h e r d i d not w r i t e a great deal about t u t o r i n g w r i t i n g , l a r g e l y because he d i d l i t t l e w r i t i n g t u t o r i n g . Some'of what l i t t l e he d i d w r i t e on the subject was c l e a r l y i n response to a c t i v i t i e s i n s t a f f meetings r a t h e r than i n response to t u t o r i n g experience. K r i s t a wrote q u i t e a l o t about w r i t i n g but most of t h i s was simply r e p o r t i n g that she had met w i t h a student and worked w i t h the student on a paper or e x e r c i s e . Self-assessment as t u t o r . In t h i s category, t u t o r s assessed t h e i r a b i l i t i e s and l i m i t a t i o n s , d e scribed t h e i r a f f e c t i v e responses to success or f a i l u r e i n t u t o r i n g , and i d e n t i f i e d techniques f o r l e a r n i n g t u t o r i n g s k i l l s . This category was w r i t t e n about a l o t by a l l t u t o r s but Paul. Student mo t i v a t i o n . Tutors wrote about attendance, causes of l a c k , o f attendance, e f f e c t s of high and low m o t i v a t i o n on t u t o r i n g , and techniques f o r f o s t e r i n g m o t i v a t i o n . This was an important focus f o r B i l l y , F e l i c i a , K r i s t a and Paul, but C h r i s t o p h e r and Ann put l i t t l e emphasis on t h i s area. Role of t u t o r s . Tutors described aspects of good t u t o r i n g , the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the t u t o r i n g r o l e to more f a m i l i a r r o l e s , and i s s u e s of peer r e l a t i o n s . F e l i c i a and K r i s t a , two of the more experienced t u t o r s , discussed the i s s u e of t u t o r r o l e l i t t l e or not at a l l . However, Ann, the other experienced 94 t u t o r , devoted a considerable p o r t i o n of her j o u r n a l s to d e s c r i b i n g aspects of good t u t o r i n g . Study s k i l l s t u t o r i n g . Tutors wrote about techniques f o r t u t o r i n g study s k i l l s , assessment of student needs and progress i n the study s k i l l s area, causes of study s k i l l s problems, and study s k i l l s as a problem underlying w r i t i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s . F e l i c i a d i d not w r i t e about"study s k i l l s t u t o r i n g . The job. Tutors discussed how busy the centre was and how they f e l t about the job. Busyness was of t e n d i s c ussed i n the opening l i n e s of the j o u r n a l s and' served as a k i n d of i n t r o d u c t i o n . Ann and F e l i c i a , those t u t o r s l e a v i n g at the end of the semester, devoted a considerable p o r t i o n of t h e i r j o u r n a l s to d i s c u s s i n g t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the job and t h e i r f e e l i n g s about l e a v i n g the job. S t a f f meetings. Most t u t o r s wrote l i t t l e i f anything about the s t a f f meetings. Paul was the exception. In keeping w i t h h i s more log-book approach to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , he'mentioned every meeting, o f t e n summarizing what happened i n the. meeting and expressing opinions about things that went on. A few other t u t o r s a l s o mentioned the s t a f f meetings. Their main f o c i were the b e n e f i t s of the meetings and of the techniques suggested i n the meetings. J o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Some t u t o r s described problems they faced i n w r i t i n g j o u r n a l s , mainly the d i f f i c u l t y of coming up w i t h thin g s to w r i t e about. The t u t o r s who d i d t h i s were Ann, K r i s t a and F e l i c i a , those who had been w r i t i n g l e a r n i n g centre 95 j o u r n a l s f o r the longest time. Paul and K r i s t a made comments about the q u a l i t y of t h e i r j o u r n a l s , and Ann discussed the b e n e f i t s and p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . E f f e c t on s e l f of t u t o r i n g . Tutors described l e a r n i n g i n a number of areas w i t h a focus on the e f f e c t s of t u t o r i n g on t h e i r own personal knowledge and s k i l l s : l e a r n i n g of academic s k i l l s , l e a r n i n g of language, l e a r n i n g of content, and l e a r n i n g about the c o l l e g e . K r i s t a , F e l i c i a and Ann, the most experienced t u t o r s , d i d not w r i t e anything i n t h i s category. Computer t u t o r i n g . Discussions of computer t u t o r i n g by Chri s t o p h e r and F e l i c i a mainly focused on t h e i r own and t h e i r students' a f f e c t i v e responses t o . t h e i r computer t u t o r i n g . Ann discussed equipment problems and needs assessment. Although K r i s t a , F e l i c i a and Christopher a l l conducted word pr o c e s s i n g o r i e n t a t i o n sessions on a weekly b a s i s , K r i s t a d i d not d i s c u s s t h i s a c t i v i t y i n her j o u r n a l s . Centre p o l i c y . K r i s t a and Christopher both b r i e f l y d i s c u s sed problems they had i n c a r r y i n g out s p e c i f i c centre p o l i c i e s . With Christopher, t h i s took the form of q u e s t i o n i n g the p o l i c y . Personal. K r i s t a f r e q u e n t l y began or ended her j o u r n a l s by mentioning personal i s s u e s . In some cases, she de s c r i b e d issues of importance to h e r s e l f such as v i s i t s home on the weekend. In other cases, she focused on Tom, her reader. For example, she wished him w e l l over the h o l i d a y s . This personal focus may be the r e s u l t of the format K r i s t a chose f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . She 96 wrote her j o u r n a l s i n the form of l e t t e r s to Tom. F e l i c i a and B i l l y a l s o mentioned personal i s s u e s ; however, t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n s were more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to t u t o r i n g . For example, F e l i c i a described her s t r e s s f u l weekend and r e l a t e d i t to her t u t o r i n g on Monday. Centre operations. E a r l y i n the semester, K r i s t a , and to a l e s s e r extent Ann, discussed scheduling i s s u e s . F e l i c i a wrote one long segment about an upset student who had mistakenly thought that the centre would contact her to make an appointment. Language l e a r n i n g . Christopher,'the only member of the s t a f f who d i d not speak E n g l i s h as a f i r s t language, devoted much of h i s j o u r n a l s to issues of how people l e a r n language and how language should be taught. No other t u t o r s d i s c u s s e d t h i s i s s u e . Reading t u t o r i n g . Although few student's were r e f e r r e d to the centre f o r help w i t h reading s k i l l s , Ann f e l t that many of students' w r i t i n g problems were caused by reading problems. As a r e s u l t , she devoted some of her j o u r n a l w r i t i n g to d i s c u s s i n g techniques f o r t u t o r i n g reading. No other t u t o r s wrote about reading t u t o r i n g . C o l l e g e p o l i c y . In one j o u r n a l , Paul discussed the c o l l e g e ' s p o l i c y of open access to courses. He expressed concern about the perceived detrimental e f f e c t s of t h i s p o l i c y on students, i n s t r u c t o r s and the community at l a r g e . No other t u t o r s discussed c o l l e g e p o l i c y . 97 Choice of What to Write About K r i s t a reported e a r l y i n the semester that " b a s i c a l l y f o r me the j o u r n a l recounts everything I've done" (I-K-Oct.12). However, a f t e r r e c e i v i n g the g u i d e l i n e s t u t o r s attempted to meet Tom's expectations. As Christopher reported, "you can w r i t e about problems you have or about what you've learned during the week" (I-C-Nov.24).. A f t e r the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the g u i d e l i n e s , t u t o r s chose experiences to w r i t e about from t h e i r experiences during the week. The exception to t h i s was Paul who throughout the study wrote about a l l h i s t u t o r i n g s e s s i o n s . However, he chose to r e f l e c t more about some sessions than about others. The t u t o r s t y p i c a l l y chose to w r i t e about i s s u e s that were "foremost" i n t h e i r minds (I-A-Nov.3) or "stuck out" (I-B-Nov.23). Christopher noted that the centre was so busy i t was hard to remember i n d i v i d u a l students. As a r e s u l t he wrote about the students he could remember. Tutors d e s c r i b e d a number of f a c t o r s that could make a t u t o r i n g session s t i c k out. One important f a c t o r was time. Generally t u t o r s would w r i t e about more recent t u t o r i n g experiences because they were most e a s i l y remembered. Another f a c t o r was t h e i r f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h a student. Tutors would w r i t e about students they saw f r e q u e n t l y or w i t h whom they shared a common bond. Christopher, f o r example, noted that one student was memorable because he and she shared the same c u l t u r a l background. A t h i r d f a c t o r was the degree of d i f f i c u l t y they experienced i n a t u t o r i n g s e s s i o n . 98 Both B i l l y and Ann noted that they were more l i k e l y to w r i t e about sessions they-found c h a l l e n g i n g . K r i s t a noted that she would o f t e n w r i t e about new students. Another f a c t o r was the a f f e c t i v e impact of a t u t o r i n g session. Tutors d e s c r i b e d choosing to w r i t e about sessions they enjoyed. They a l s o chose to w r i t e about sessions w i t h students who showed t h e i r a p p r e c i a t i o n , seemed desperate f o r help or were emot i o n a l l y d i s t r e s s e d . Tutors a l s o described other reasons f o r w r i t i n g about s p e c i f i c i s sues or t u t o r i n g sessions. Christopher o f t e n wrote about sessions or issues because he had w r i t t e n about them before. This was i n d i r e c t contrast to most t u t o r s , as we w i l l see l a t e r . Christopher had a sense of needing to maintain c o n t i n u i t y i n h i s j o u r n a l s f o r the readers' b e n e f i t , both mine and Tom's, and thus, i n part, t h i s i s an e f f e c t of the research process. Christopher f e l t he should w r i t e things that I was i n t e r e s t e d in.'Because.I had been i n t e r e s t e d i n what he had w r i t t e n i n the. past, he f e l t he should f o l l o w up on those i s s u e s . F e l i c i a suggested another f a c t o r she employed i n choosing what to w r i t e about i n her journal.- She wrote about things she found e a s i e s t to w r i t e about. She s a i d , "I f i n d i t e a s i e r to t a l k about the good things and how I b u i l d my confidence, i t ' s a l o t e a s i e r to w r i t e about than i t i s to w r i t e about how I helped a student, the techniques I used" ( I -F-Dec . 7 ) . C o n t r i b u t i n g to F e l i c i a ' s emphasis on w r i t i n g about p o s i t i v e things was her concern about Tom's a t t i t u d e towards 99 her. E a r l y i n the semester we had t h i s conversation: J : Do you f e e l comfortable about t e l l i n g him [Tom] the r e a l honest t r u t h or do you sometimes f e e l l i k e you k i n d of want to put your best foot forward, i f you know what I mean? F: I t h i n k i t ' s more l i k e I, i t ' s not that I don't f e e l comfortable, l i k e i t took a whi l e w i t h you... Jus t l i k e w i t h you the f i r s t semester i s k i n d of i f f y , l i k e I don't know what to expect from him and um, but the second semester I found w i t h you I was f i n e , I could t e l l you'anything i n my j o u r n a l , and I wouldn't f e e l l i k e you were going to get angry or get mad that I d i d something wrong, but w i t h him I don't know. (I-F-Oct .24), Another feature of choosing what to w r i t e about was r e l a t e d to the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g process.' W r i t i n g about one iss u e would t r i g g e r thoughts about another i s s u e . Ann de s c r i b e d such a process as "a progression of t h i n k i n g " (I-A-Nov.24). For example, she s a i d : I s t a r t e d out wi t h t h i s one and i t was funny 'cause I s t a r t e d out w i t h t h i s week I've been t h i n k i n g about how seldom I get feedback about various students and how they've gone o f f and l e f t me. I've helped them w i t h a paper or they disappeared and I never f e e l l i k e I get any feedback. And f o r some reason a l l of a sudden I'm doing t h i s and th i n k of i t and then a p i c t u r e of Hideaki came 100 i n t o mind and so that's why t h i s jumped i n i n the middle of the paragraph. I got i t i n and I thought w e l l he was p o s i t i v e , you know, and so I had to w r i t e about him .. . and a l l of a sudden I thought oh, yes and then there was Y i n Wing, you know, and then I got i n t o him...(I-A-Nov. 24) . Tutors a l s o d e l i b e r a t e l y chose not to w r i t e about some i s s u e s . The most common reason f o r choosing not to w r i t e about an i s s u e or session was that t u t o r s had w r i t t e n about the same or a s i m i l a r t h i n g before. They t r i e d to avoid r e p e t i t i o n . Another reason f o r avoiding w r i t i n g about some iss u e s was because Tom would read the j o u r n a l s . Ann, f o r insta n c e , sometimes chose not to w r i t e about an iss u e she had on her mind because she was not ready to share her ideas. She a l s o would avoid making some suggestions about centre operations because she d i d n ' t know how Tom would react.: She s a i d : Since he [Tom] gets i t [the journal] then he's l i a b l e to solve i t [the problem] before I get a chance,.do you understand what I'm saying? So I'd ra t h e r back o f f sometimes on the way I put things or the way I say things because he's ... g e t t i n g i t . (I-A-Dec.8). Ann a l s o avoided d i s c u s s i n g issues that she thought would r e f l e c t badly on other t u t o r s . Christopher and Paul both t r i e d to tone down t h e i r s u b j e c t i v e responses. For example, Paul i d e n t i f i e d d i f f e r e n c e s between h i s personal j o u r n a l s and those he handed i n to Tom. He found that i n h i s personal j o u r n a l s he 101 could be " s l i g h t l y more honest, s l i g h t l y .less benign" (I-P-Jan.27). Christopher reported w r i t i n g and then removing one comment because he f e l t i t was too s u b j e c t i v e . F e l i c i a avoided w r i t i n g things i n her j o u r n a l which she f e l t r e f l e c t e d badly on her t u t o r i n g a b i l i t y . She reported: I don't f e e l l i k e I could say everything 'cause i f I have a r e a l l y bad experience' l i k e something, l i k e I don't know, i t looks l i k e my teaching a b i l i t y or my t u t o r i n g a b i l i t y i s n ' t that great, i t makes me f e e l l i k e I could l o s e my job. So I'm scared to say something to him. (I-F-Oct.24) She went on to speak very emotionally about one such s i t u a t i o n . She s a i d : When a person comes back w i t h t h e i r essay and they didn't get a good mark on i t , I j u s t f e e l l i k e i t ' s a l l my f a u l t (quavering v o i c e ) , and I f e e l l i k e i f Tom f i n d s out that t h i s person didn't get a good grade i t ' s on my shoulders. L i k e I know that's' not tru e , l i k e there's only so much you can help a student w i t h but i t f e e l s r e a l l y bad. (I-F-Oct.24) Tutors expressed concerns not only about l o s i n g t h e i r jobs but a l s o about maintaining Tom's respect. E f f e c t s of the Research Process on Content i n Tutor J o u r n a l s Most t u t o r s reported that the research process had not a f f e c t e d what they chose to w r i t e about i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . They s a i d that when they wrote t h e i r j o u r n a l s they thought of Tom as t h e i r audience. 102 There were, however, some exceptions. F e l i c i a noted that she i n c l u d e d more information because I was studying her j o u r n a l s , "so that there's more to discus s " (I-F-Oct.24). C h r i s t o p h e r reported that my i n t e r e s t i n h i s j o u r n a l s a f f e c t e d both what he chose to w r i t e about and the kinds of t h i n k i n g he chose to r e p o r t . We discussed i t : ' • C: I have to w r i t e something that you are i n t e r e s t e d i n too, l i k e say the l i n e of t h i n k i n g and a l s o some events... J : So i t encourages you to sort of f o l l o w through on i s s u e s . Is that what you mean? C: Yeah. ... You see, j o u r n a l a f t e r j o u r n a l I w i l l continue to t e l l about the person I have mentioned. J : And that's because of my i n t e r e s t ? C: Yeah. For your i n t e r e s t , and a l s o you are one of the readers i n reading the j o u r n a l , you know. So you know much about what I'm w r i t i n g . So I continue' to w r i t e the person I have mention•before. J : Okay, i f I wasn't reading them do you t h i n k you would do that f o r Tom as wel l ? C: Not r e a l l y , I w i l l w r i t e something i n more aspects, besides w r i t i n g the person you are concerning w i t h . Let's say, my a t t i t u d e to work or the problems I am now encounter... J : I would encourage you as much as p o s s i b l e to do the j o u r n a l however you would do i t f o r Tom and t r y not to change i t f o r my sake, because I want to see 103 about how j o u r n a l s r e a l l y are, not how they are f o r me, you know? C: Okay. (I-C-Nov.17) So i t would appear that indeed the research process had some e f f e c t on what t u t o r s chose to w r i t e about i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . T r a i n e r Perspective on D i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h J o u r n a l Content Tom regarded some of. what t u t o r s chose to w r i t e about as not s u f f i c i e n t l y r e l a t e d to t u t o r i n g to be u s e f u l . Tom's understanding of t h i s problem changed over time, p a r t l y as a r e s u l t of the i n t e r v i e w process. Christopher's j o u r n a l s contained the m a j o r i t y of m a t e r i a l which Tom regarded as not s u f f i c i e n t l y focused on t u t o r i n g . C h r i s t o p h e r wrote at length about how ESL students l e a r n and about h i s own improvements with E n g l i s h . Tom saw these content areas as unproductive because Christopher d i d not r e l a t e these r e f l e c t i o n s t o . h i s t u t o r i n g s t r a t e g i e s . Part way through the semester, Tom and I discussed the issue of w r i t i n g about language l e a r n i n g : ' '. 1 • ; . J : Do you th i n k that r e f l e c t i o n on l e a r n i n g i n general i s u s e f u l f o r a t u t o r ? T: Only i f i t helps the t u t o r somehow b r i n g i t back to t h e i r own p r a c t i c e . How am I then ap p l y i n g t h i s p r i n c i p l e ? The only way he [Christopher] i s im p l y i n g i t i s by t a l k i n g about how Chinese students, by coming to the l e a r n i n g centre and even d e a l i n g w i t h t u t o r s are being exposed more to E n g l i s h and t h e r e f o r e 104 having the opportunity to l e a r n E n g l i s h by exposure.... J : Do you t h i n k that serves any u s e f u l f u n c t i o n f o r h i s development as a t u t o r ? T: No. He seems, I mean I don't think so. Because I t h i n k he's too broad, he's focusing more on what helps ESL students l e a r n , to get exposure, not on how can we help them as t u t o r s . (I-T-Nov.17) Other t u t o r s besides Christopher wrote about t h e i r own l e a r n i n g as a r e s u l t of t u t o r i n g . However, Tom d i d not see t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n s as o f f t o p i c . Near'the end of the semester, I questioned Tom about h i s approach to the i s s u e of appropriate content. We discussed i t t h i s way: J : I guess my o r i g i n a l question was about content, l i k e , o b viously i t matters what they're w r i t i n g about, l i k e i f K r i s t a w r i t e s about the reasons why she hasn't got her baking done, that's o b v i o u s l y not seen as u s e f u l r e f l e c t i o n i n a j o u r n a l . Well t h a t ' s o b v i o u s l y an extreme case, but then there's a l l these other things i n between. Like Christopher r e f l e c t i n g on l e a r n i n g i n general, on how ESL students l e a r n . I t ' s not d i r e c t e d at how can I be a b e t t e r t u t o r , i t looks a t , okay, side e f f e c t s i f you l i k e , of the centre, h i s own l e a r n i n g . Understanding of h i s own l e a r n i n g presumably helps him be a b e t t e r t u t o r , but i t ' s k i n d of l i k e these things, you have to s t r e t c h 105 i t a b i t as opposed to somebody t a l k i n g about what I d i d w i t h t h i s student on t h i s day and how i t worked and how i t didn't l i k e Paul i s doing here. One of my s t r u g g l e s i s how do I look at that s t u f f . T: Which s t u f f Paul's s t u f f or Christopher's s t u f f ? J : W e ll, anybody's s t u f f that doesn't r e a l l y seem to be t a l k i n g about t u t o r i n g , um, you know, and maybe i f they say a l i t t l e b i t about i t , Paul saying a l i t t l e b i t about how i t ' s h e l p i n g h i s own w r i t i n g , but maybe i f he spent three weeks j o u r n a l s on i t i t would be a problem. So I'm j u s t t r y i n g to, get a handle on i t . T: Yeah, because B i l l y s a i d the same t h i n g , d i d n ' t he, that t h i s helps him become aware that h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s k i l l s aren't what they could be.... But I t h i n k you've r a i s e d a very good poin t and i t ' s made me reconsider a l i t t l e b i t about Chr i s t o p h e r , because I do agree w i t h you that what Paul i s doing here i s the same as what Christopher i s doing except that Paul d i d i t j u s t i n one sentence, whereas Chris t o p h e r spread i t out i n 2 or 3 j o u r n a l s . So i t ' s a matter of degree rather than the q u a l i t y of i t . J : So i t ' s more l i k e the o v e r a l l emphasis i n the j ournals. T: Yeah. (I-T-Dec.l) The d i f f i c u l t y of content not focused on t u t o r i n g rose i n another way concerning j o u r n a l s of K r i s t a and F e l i c i a . In t h e i r 106 j o u r n a l s they put a l o t of emphasis on how t h e i r t u t o r i n g experiences made them f e e l . Tom regarded these j o u r n a l s as l e s s u s e f u l than j o u r n a l s focused on l e a r n i n g , again because of the amount of focus on the is s u e . He s a i d : Both F e l i c i a and K r i s t a tend to give a l o t of s o r t of i t made me f e e l good or i t didn't, i t made me comfortable or i t didn't, or uncomfortable, i t made me f e e l good as a t u t o r , um. But that's more an e v a l u a t i o n of how d i d i t make me f e e l , not what d i d i t make me l e a r n . (I-T-Nov. 1-7) • Thus, what appeared as content problems i n i t i a l l y were more problems of the amount of j o u r n a l space devoted to issues that were not e x p l i c i t l y focused on t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e . When t u t o r s touched on these issues b r i e f l y , Tom found i t acceptable and at times even d e s i r a b l e . However, when j o u r n a l s focused on these issues to the e x c l u s i o n of other content more s p e c i f i c a l l y focused on t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e , Tom f e l t the j o u r n a l s were l e s s u s e f u l . Tom was a l s o aware that t u t o r s sometimes tended to w r i t e about p o s i t i v e experiences rather than t a c k l e areas of d i f f i c u l t y (I-T-Nov.3). He noted: I t h i n k t h i s may be a l i t t l e b i t of what's going on, I'm not sure, i s that they're a f r a i d to t e l l me about problems because i t w i l l suggest that they're f a i l u r e s . And so they end up r e p o r t i n g the way an employee reports to a boss, to make i t look l i k e everything's okay. Even i f i t ' s not. So i t doesn't r e f l e c t back on them that they didn't do i t r i g h t or they f a i l e d , and I mean that's b u i l t i n t o the s i t u a t i o n . . . . So i t ' s not so much a l e a r n i n g t o o l when i t ' s done that way. I t ' s l e t ' s t r y and keep the boss happy because he wants i t to go r i g h t too, because they know I want everything to go w e l l . And of course they don't, want to be put i n a p o s i t i o n which makes i t look l i k e something's going wrong. ( I -T-Nov.3) Section F i v e : Levels of Thinking i n Jou r n a l s 108 I begin t h i s s e c t i o n by d e s c r i b i n g the t r a i n e r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e on l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n . Next, I de s c r i b e t u t o r j o u r n a l s according to those l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n . F i n a l l y , I give an overview of i n d i v i d u a l t u t o r s ' . r e f l e c t i v i t y i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s and discuss the t r a i n e r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e on l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n i n the t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s . T r a i n e r Perspective on Levels of R e f l e c t i o n When Tom and I discussed t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s , I asked him what kinds of t h i n k i n g he found.more, and l e s s u s e f u l i n the j o u r n a l s t u t o r s wrote. From the information he gave me, I developed a hie r a r c h y of l e v e l s of t h i n k i n g i n the j o u r n a l s . We discussed t h i s h i e r a r c h y and, at h i s suggestion, I made m o d i f i c a t i o n s . The main r e s u l t of the m o d i f i c a t i o n s was the development of four rather than the o r i g i n a l three l e v e l s . He accepted the second v e r s i o n w i t h a.few minor changes-. • The hi e r a r c h y which he decided on,is l i s t e d i n Figure 2 . Tom's understanding of the hierarch y was that i t represented d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of t h i n k i n g which t u t o r s d i d i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . He regarded Level I as the l e a s t d e s i r a b l e and l e a s t u s e f u l t h i n k i n g i n j o u r n a l s . He regarded Levels I I , I I I and IV as p r o g r e s s i v e l y more d e s i r a b l e and more u s e f u l t h i n k i n g . 109 Figure 2: Levels of Thinking Level I : Reporting a) t e l l what happened b) describe t u t o r f e e l i n g s c) describe student c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d) describe student needs Level I I : I d e n t i f i c a t i o n a) i d e n t i f y success of a s t r a t e g y b) i d e n t i f y f a i l u r e of a s t r a t e g y c) i d e n t i f y an area of weakness as a t u t o r d) i d e n t i f y goals e) i d e n t i f y p r i n c i p l e s f) i d e n t i f y e f f e c t s Level I I I : E l a b o r a t i o n a) compare to other s i t u a t i o n b) r e l a t e general statement or p r i n c i p l e to a s p e c i f i c case c) r e l a t e a s p e c i f i c case to other s i t u a t i o n s d) explore student needs or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n d e t a i l e) e x p l a i n purpose of a s t r a t e g y Level IV: Problem-solving and A p p l i c a t i o n a) explore why something worked b) explore why something didn't work c) suggest s t r a t e g i e s which might r e s o l v e a problem d) suggest i m p l i c a t i o n s of experience f o r p r a c t i c e Tom saw the development of t h i s h i e r a r c h y as c r u c i a l to h i s understanding of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g and h i s a b i l i t y to assess j o u r n a l s and provide u s e f u l feedback. He s a i d that, without our i n t e r v i e w s : I wouldn't have probably been q u i t e so c l e a r or e x p l i c i t about understanding these d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s . I t would have been more of a mushy mess, not a mess. 110 but i t wouldn't have been so c l e a r l y d i v i d e d i n t o w e l l there's t h i s , t h i s , t h i s , and t h i s . I t would have been a b i t more, w e l l there's t h i s end of the continuum and there's t h i s end of the continuum, but what's i n the middle, I wouldn't have thought very c l e a r l y about t h a t . So I guess your h i e r a r c h y helped and your probe questions and j u s t the f a c t of having to s i t here and t a l k about i t helped. (I-T-Dec.8) I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that Tom f r e q u e n t l y r e f e r r e d to "your h i e r a r c h y " . I had presented i t as what I had put together from h i s comments on t u t o r j o u r n a l s , and I had m o d i f i e d i t under h i s d i r e c t i o n , but he c o n s i s t e n t l y r e f e r r e d to i t as mine. I t should be noted, however, that although I helped him c o n s t r u c t the h i e r a r c h y , ' I regarded i t as very much h i s h i e r a r c h y . I agreed wi t h the h i e r a r c h y to a l a r g e extent but there were some d e t a i l s w i t h which I disagreed. For example, I f e l t that when t u t o r s recognized t h e i r a f f e c t i v e responses to t h e i r t u t o r i n g experiences i t was. more u s e f u l than he thought i t was. Thinking i n Tutor Journals by Levels of R e f l e c t i o n Next, I describe l e v e l s of t h i n k i n g evidenced i n t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s . I base t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n on the h i e r a r c h y of l e v e l s of t h i n k i n g which Tom and I developed. In doing t h i s a n a l y s i s , I r e f e r to " j o u r n a l segments". A j o u r n a l segment i s a s e c t i o n of a j o u r n a l , o f t e n a paragraph, which appears to focus on one issue or to be based on one major I l l i d e a. For example, a segment might be a d i s c u s s i o n of a t u t o r i n g s e ssion w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r student, or a d i s c u s s i o n of a s p e c i f i c problem w i t h reference to the s i t u a t i o n s of one or more students. Journal segments ranged from as short as one sentence to as long as a t y p e w r i t t e n page. Many segments i n c l u d e d t h i n k i n g at more than one l e v e l of r e f l e c t i o n . L e v e l I : Reporting K r i s t a mainly wrote j o u r n a l s at t h i s l e v e l . Although near the end of the semester she began to r e f l e c t at higher l e v e l s , the m a j o r i t y of her j o u r n a l segments f i t i n t o t h i s r e p o r t i n g category. She o f t e n reported very g e n e r a l l y on her t u t o r i n g s e s s i o n s . For example, she wrote, "Marek1 and I are still ironing out what it is we should get together and do during our sessions" (J-K-Oct.18). I f there was any d i s c u s s i o n beyond t h i s simple r e p o r t i n g , i t u s u a l l y focused on how the s i t u a t i o n made her f e e l or what her i n t e n t i o n s were concerning appointment times. For example, she wrote: F e l i c i a gave one of her students to me.. Her'name is Florence Schmidt. She seems like she will be alright to work with. I have only met her once though. We have set up a regular time to come in on Wednesdays. I think this is about- the only time we could schedule together. (J-K-Oct .3) When K r i s t a mentioned approaches to working w i t h students, made e v a l u a t i v e comments or examined reasons f o r t h i n g s , i t seemed 1 I have replaced a l l student names w i t h pseudonyms. 112 s u p e r f i c i a l . She noted: Everything seems to be going fine with Amanda and Florence. We have set up permanent times during the week to get together. We only meet once a week even though they want more. I said to Florence to buddy up with a classmate because one time she wanted me to proof read a paper of hers, but she didn't have an appointment and I was all booked up. So she said that was a good idea. (J-K-Oct.18) • Because of Paul's log-book approach to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , he a l s o d i d a l o t of r e p o r t i n g . His r e p o r t i n g , however, was very-d i f f e r e n t from that of K r i s t a i n the l e v e l of d e t a i l he in c l u d e d . Furthermore, because Paul wrote about every t u t o r i n g s e s s i o n , the j o u r n a l provided ongoing r e p o r t i n g of h i s sessions w i t h i n d i v i d u a l students. In most cases, Paul's r e p o r t i n g was accompanied by some form of higher l e v e l t h i n k i n g , but the m a j o r i t y of h i s w r i t i n g was r e p o r t i n g . For example, he wrote: A student 'B' came in.and requested help on her paper. Basically she was on the right track. The paper was a comparison/contrast on Jamaica/England. I got her to explain what she was trying to do and then steered her around some minor constructions. I Xed a few spelling errors and she seemed to be buoyed by the help. As much from the fact that someone read her writing and understood it, as from constructive help she received. (J-P-Nov.8) 113 In t h i s segment, t y p i c a l l y , he not only reported on what he d i d w i t h a student but a l s o noted her needs and progress. F e l i c i a a l s o d i d q u i t e a l o t of r e p o r t i n g i n her j o u r n a l s . In her r e p o r t i n g segments, l i k e K r i s t a ' s , there was l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n of what she d i d w i t h students i n her sessions and frequent mention of how t u t o r i n g sessions made her f e e l . However, l i k e Paul, she put a l o t of emphasis on student needs and progress. Reporting was a feature of the j o u r n a l s of a l l t u t o r s i n the study. However, only these three t u t o r s had e n t i r e segments which f i t c l e a r l y i n t o the r e p o r t i n g category. Level I I : I d e n t i f i c a t i o n I d e n t i f i c a t i o n was a l s o a feature of the j o u r n a l s of a l l t u t o r s . However, Ann always moved from i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to higher l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n w i t h i n a segment. The other t u t o r s , at times, stopped at the l e v e l of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . F e l i c i a and Paul d i d so most' f r e q u e n t l y . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n t u t o r j o u r n a l s i n c l u d e d i d e n t i f y i n g successes, i d e n t i f y i n g problems and i d e n t i f y i n g e f f e c t s of t u t o r i n g . Tutors o f t e n i d e n t i f i e d the success of s t r a t e g i e s they used. F e l i c i a and K r i s t a would i d e n t i f y the success of a s t r a t e g y and then i d e n t i f y i t s e f f e c t s i n terms of how i t made them f e e l . For example, K r i s t a wrote: Well, I tried out my idea from my last journal. I liked it, because I knew exactly where the student was and what the student was talking about. It was nice, because I 114 didn't feel like I was being put on the spot. (J-K-Nov.16) B i l l y ' s approach to d e s c r i b i n g successes put more emphasis on the e f f e c t s of the techniques on student l e a r n i n g . For example, he wrote: I found this week that I was better able to question my .students in a way that made them do the thinking. By using questions that did not imply the answer or open ended questions I found I could make my students do their own thinking. This did provide for some awkward moments of silence, but I feel these are better learning experiences than pure dictation on. my part. (J-B-Nov.15) Tutors a l s o f r e q u e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d problems i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . Sometimes they simply described problems and asked f o r or i m p l i e d a request f o r help from Tom as the f o l l o w i n g example from F e l i c i a demonstrates. I saw Ali many times throughout the week to look at his essay.•I believe that he is coming along slowly but surely. He really seems to understand me when I am trying to explain things to him. The only problem is that if I am explaining things to him he tends to write down exactly what I have said. I just tell him things as an example and then I say to write it in his own words, but he still writes down my words. I do not know how to give him an example without him copying what I say directly. (J-F-Nov.4) At other times t u t o r s would more e x p l i c i t l y ask f o r help w i t h 115 problems they described. Tutors a l s o discussed the e f f e c t s of t h e i r t u t o r i n g . In some cases they explored the e f f e c t s of t h e i r t u t o r i n g on student l e a r n i n g . For example, F e l i c i a wrote: I had a very good experience this week as well. I worked with a student named Jennifer. She is a really good writer, she just needs a push and confidence. The only thing she really has difficulty with is with run-on sentences. She can spot them herself now. She will be reading her essay with me, and then she would say uh-oh there is another run-on. It is great to see that she can do it on her own now without me saying anything to her. It makes me feel good about my tutoring ability. (J-F-Oct.19) In other cases, t u t o r s explored t h e . e f f e c t s of t u t o r i n g experiences on themselves. For example, Paul wrote: My first appointment was another Iranian, a chap named Reza. He needs a lot of sentence structure help but he did the lessons Tom gave him and for the-most he seems to have gotten the drift of the exercise. He strikes me as being eager to master his problems. This makes my job easier in a number of ways. First, it helps to have someone who is willing to make the effort to improve. Second, I feel more secure when I know what the student wants. Third, when a student cares then I will make the effort to help as much as possible. Fourth, and finally, I find that having to translate, interpret, decipher et al. , that I am becoming 116 more careful and less sloppy in my own efforts to best utilize the language. Reciprocal help if you will. (J-P-Nov . 2 2 ) Level I I I : E l a b o r a t i o n A l l t u t o r s wrote some j o u r n a l segments which reached the l e v e l of e l a b o r a t i o n . However, K r i s t a wrote few e l a b o r a t i v e segments. Tutors elaborated by comparing or c o n t r a s t i n g , by i d e n t i f y i n g the purpose of s t r a t e g i e s , by e x p l o r i n g problems, by r e l a t i n g s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s to general p r i n c i p l e s , and by d e s c r i b i n g student needs i n d e t a i l . Tutors o f t e n compared or contrasted students or groups of students w i t h one another. For example, i n h i s f i r s t week of t u t o r i n g , B i l l y contrasted h i s p o s i t i v e and negative t u t o r i n g experiences: ' During the week I had several p o s i t i v e experiences as well as experiences which I felt were•awkward. In the p o s i t i v e experiences I felt I was able to help the person and the emphasis was on that person learning, not me telling them how to do something. I found that these people knew what they needed help with and did the work themselves using me as backup. However, in another case I was faced with a situation in which I felt I was expected to supply all the ideas. This man came to me with no ideas, no work completed and apparently no desire to generate either. I ' seemed to spend most of the appointment time trying to pry-ideas out of this man and juggling in my head the balance 117 between his work and my work. Although I was disappointed, I learned why my other experiences were positive and therefore why I might be able to react better in future experiences. (J-B-Nov .9) Tutors a l s o compared t h e i r previous knowledge w i t h t h e i r current experiences as peer t u t o r s . Both Chr i s t o p h e r and Paul c o n t r a s t e d r o l e s that were more f a m i l i a r to them w i t h t h e i r r o l e s as peer t u t o r s . For example, i n t h i s segment Paul c o n t r a s t e d the f a m i l i a r r o l e of e d i t o r . w i t h h i s new r o l e of peer t u t o r : My last tutoree(?) was an editing job. A student did a quite good paper for CREATIVE WRITING. She wrote a psychological thriller about sexual abuse. Some punctuation (every "it".possessive had ah apostrophe) problems, some jumping around, and the odd i n t e r j e c t i o n of a new character, but otherwise OK. I found myself wearing my editor's "hat" & I had to r e s t r a i n myself from doing the "redline s h u f f l e " . (J-P-Nov.8); C h r i s t o p h e r elaborated on a student's d i f f i c u l t i e s by comparing her to other students he knew: S i m i l a r l y , some of my friends, who are also the college students, have the same problems as Cathy's. But they don't want to spend time in studying ESL courses, for they find that these courses are not transferable. They watch Chinese movies and T.V., make Chinese friends, read Chinese newspaper, talk in either Cantonese or Mandarin. 118 Therefore, they can hardly improve their English. This make them hard to get into the main stream of the society. They may need a change for their living style. (J-C-Nov.l) B i l l y and Christopher sometimes elaborated on t h e i r purposes i n using s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i e s . In the f o l l o w i n g segment, Christopher i d e n t i f i e d the-purpose of s p e c i f i c tasks he gave a student and then reported on what those tasks were: Cathy is the only student I am now regularly dealing with. Last Friday, she finally dropped the Marketing course. . . which she has problems with. I. also recommended her to take an English assessment test in order to see if she needs to take any ESL courses in the coming semester. She may have the result within this week. What I am now doing is to maximize her exposure to the English environment, e.g. read two newspaper cuttings in a week, attempt fifty questions of the Listening part of. the TOEFL Test, write a short composition to me every week. She really did her work last time and this made me feel happy. I do hope that she would finally take her own initiative to improve her English standard. (J-C-Nov.17) Ann and F e l i c i a sometimes described a problem and then explored t h e i r understandings of the problem. For example, i n the f o l l o w i n g segment, Ann described a problem. She explored the problem and described how the s i t u a t i o n made her f e e l . The repeating question, "Do I have a thesis?" the repeating answerer, "I don't know, what is your thesis 119 statement?" Question: "I am asking you, if I have one?" Answer: "What is it that you are writing about in this paper?" And on it goes until the original question is answered. Often the thesis statement (and the conclusion) is all the student wants to be verified. Quite frequently it is difficult to find their thesis statement. I don't know whether this is because-so many papers pass under my eyes that it becomes hard to focus on what each student is writing about, or i f the statement itself is so poorly written that it becomes unrecognizable. I cannot say to them that this is your thesis if I am not sure that it is one. Also, I feel, very strongly, that they should be able to recognize this themselves. How else were they able to write a paper if'they didn't know what they were supporting. At times trying to answer this question makes me feel unsure of myself and my own competence. (J-A-Nov.2) Tutors a l s o elaborated by drawing, p r i n c i p l e s from s p e c i f i c cases. For example, F e l i c i a wrote: I worked with 2 different students on articles. I like it when more than one student works on the same thing because it helps me better understand it myself. (J-F-Nov.14) Paul, Christopher and Ann a l s o explored student needs i n d e t a i l , i d e n t i f y i n g problems underlying the students' most obvious d i f f i c u l t i e s . For example, a f t e r t e l l i n g about a s e s s i o n w i t h a student and the d i f f i c u l t i e s she was having w i t h 120 her w r i t i n g , Paul wrote, "I think part of her problem might be her outside life. She commutes to Victoria twice a week" (J-P-Nov.16). Level IV: Problem-solving and A p p l i c a t i o n The m a j o r i t y of the j o u r n a l segments of B i l l y and Ann reached t h i s f o u r t h l e v e l , as d i d some of C h r i s t o p h e r ' s . In c o n t r a s t , K r i s t a , F e l i c i a and Paul r a r e l y r e f l e c t e d to t h i s depth. Often segments at t h i s l e v e l i n cluded use of a l l four l e v e l s . The most common approaches t u t o r s took at t h i s l e v e l i n c l u d e d i d e n t i f y i n g problems and e x p l o r i n g s o l u t i o n s , e x p l o r i n g why something d i d or d i d not work and e x p l o r i n g a range of issues culminating i n d e c i s i o n s about f u t u r e p r a c t i c e . C h r i s t o p h e r and K r i s t a sometimes r e f l e c t e d at t h i s l e v e l about seemingly mundane issues, as d i d B i l l y on one occasion. In the f o l l o w i n g example, Christopher r e f l e c t e d about h i s f u t u r e i n t e n t i o n s concerning a student who had missed appointments:,. Since October, I have been working, with Kent. But for last 2 weeks, he didn't show up in the Learning Centre. Though I phoned him two times during working hours, I still couldn't find him. I know that he is going to take a Maths, assessment test shortly, but I think that he should do more exercises before he takes the test. So I'll continue to phone him in the coming weeks to see what's happening to him. (J-C-Nov.10) However, t u t o r s r e f l e c t i n g at t h i s l e v e l t y p i c a l l y d e a l t 121 w i t h issues of more substance. Ann, B i l l y , F e l i c i a and K r i s t a sometimes i d e n t i f i e d a problem and explored the causes of the problem. In some cases, they looked at the roots of the problem as Ann d i d i n the f o l l o w i n g example. I have only encountered one difficulty this week and that is trying to get a student to find the topic sentence and/or the main idea. He keeps saying that he cannot do it himself, that he .only sees the topic when we are doing it together. I think he is looking too hard and misses the point. It is like saying, "You can't see the forest for the trees!" Never the less, I find he lacks confidence in his own ability. He is afraid that what he chooses as the topic is not correct. I tried to get him to speak in generalities ie: in.simple terms what is this a r t i c l e saying. Also, pointed out the title and sub-headings to him (which he missed) and explained that these will usually give you an idea of what the story is going to be about. Speculate! You may be fight; you may be wrong. ( J -A-Nov.16) In many cases, t u t o r s not only explored the problem but a l s o i d e n t i f i e d i n t e n t i o n s f o r future t u t o r i n g . In t h i s example, B i l l y explored a problem and i d e n t i f i e d how he would deal w i t h s i m i l a r problems i n fu t u r e : One of the students I had this week insisted on blaming her teacher for the difficulty she was having. It put me in a difficult spot; I could either stick up for her 122 teacher and risk the peer relationship • or I could agree and irrationally blame her teacher for all her problems. I found that tricky. In the end I tried to be very neutral, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with her. I tried to explain to her that the teacher wasn't the cause of all her problems but it is extremely difficult to convince someone who has found a scapegoat for their problems. As well, I could relate to her in some ways. Teachers don't always provide the best learning situation possible; not that I blame them--they are only human. In that s i t u a t i o n I think I didn't do as well as I could. In the future I think the best way to get around the problem is to explain to the student that teachers aren't perfect but you have to take it into your own-hands (it' being your problem) and solve it yourself. I was frustrated by the experience because if I had not been in the Learning Centre I might not have acted the way I did. I may very well have agreed with her and not thought twice about it. (J-B-Nov.30) In a few other cases, t u t o r s i d e n t i f i e d s o l u t i o n s to problems without d e s c r i b i n g the problems themselves. For example, Paul wrote: After only three shifts at the L.C. I find myself ready to make a recommendation (only in these pages)., to have a universal test to determine level of oral, written and comprehensive English. It seems unfair to the student, the instructor and society-at-large (in terms of competency). 123 (J-P-Nov.8) In other cases, t u t o r s described problems they were f a c i n g , i d e n t i f i e d a s o l u t i o n and went on to explore p o s s i b l e p i t f a l l s w i t h t h e i r s o l u t i o n . For example, i n the f o l l o w i n g segment, K r i s t a i d e n t i f i e d p o t e n t i a l p i t f a l l s of a technique she had not yet t r i e d : • ' I feel that the paper reading idea may work better with non-ESL students just because they would be able to identify the problems, and have an easier time solving them. One problem that may arise is that it might raise the noise level in the learning centre to the point of being bothersome. I also just remembered that when Florence reads her on (sic) words she changes what is actually on the paper. So, I guess follow along while she is reading. I'll try it and see how it goes. I'll let you know. (J-K-Nov.22) Tutors, a l s o explored the reasons f o r successes and f a i l u r e s . In the f o l l o w i n g example, B i l l y explored the reason f o r h i s success w i t h a student: J had the i n t e r e s t i n g experience this week of having to work with a student who was in the same course as me. In fact, she was in the same class. Although I found some d i f f i c u l t y and awkwardness initially, I thought the experience was a productive one. It was productive most l i k e l y because I was able to help her s p e c i f i c a l l y . I knew what the assignment was and what the teacher was looking 124 for. I would suggest that it must be comforting for a student to have someone to talk to who can r e l a t e specifically. I would also suggest that this type of situation works best because the peer tutor acts less like a teacher or tutor and more like a peer. (J-B-Nov.23) A few t u t o r s a l s o wrote journal- segments which i n c l u d e d t h i n k i n g at a l l four l e v e l s of the hi e r a r c h y . The tendency f o r j o u r n a l w r i t e r s to r e f l e c t at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s w i t h i n one j o u r n a l segment has a l s o been noted by Hatton and Smith (1995) and Surbeck et a l . (1991). Ann d i d t h i s most f r e q u e n t l y , but B i l l y and Christopher a l s o included segments of t h i s type. In t h i s example, Ann reported on a student's need, explored that need i n more d e t a i l , r e l a t e d the student's needs to those of other students, reported on what happened i n the s e s s i o n , i d e n t i f i e d her i n t e n t i o n f o r future sessions and r e f l e c t e d on her f e e l i n g s about working w i t h the student. One of-my new students has difficulty understanding how to go about answering essay questions during an exam. He knew the content but became quite nervous and really blew it when he was required to use essay form for his answers. (Actually he had expected more multiple choice and true/false questions.) He tried brainstorming, but his efforts had failed. Like so many students he did not know the process of how to outline or how to jot down the main points and develop his answer from this. He also in some cases did not answer what was asked. I have encountered 125 t h i s problem a few times over the past week; when students were required to do a summary and had trouble finding or sticking to the main ideas. Anyway, this new student and I went through his exam questions and we developed a procedure for answering them. I asked him to search for old exam questions or to develop some of his own questions for his next session so that we would work on answering them in essay form. .As well,' I have decided to discuss, with him, the key words that could be used in questions so that he is aware of what would be required in the answer. This should help him and I am looking forward to giving him some encouragement. (J-A-Nov.2) Thinking i n Tutor Journals: Overview This i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of l e v e l s of t h i n k i n g i n t u t o r j o u r n a l s obscures some of the i n d i v i d u a l issues f o r i n d i v i d u a l t u t o r s . In t h i s s e c t i o n , I provide'an overview of l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n , i n the j o u r n a l s of i n d i v i d u a l t u t o r s and l i n k t h e i r r e f l e c t i v i t y to other issues.described e a r l i e r in. the paper. K r i s t a wrote minimally r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l s . This was p a r t i c u l a r l y true of her e n t r i e s e a r l y i n the semester. However, near the end of the semester, as she began to understand Tom's purpose f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , she wrote one j o u r n a l which was f a r more r e f l e c t i v e than any of her previous j o u r n a l s . The only j o u r n a l she wrote a f t e r the r e f l e c t i v e one was her f i n a l j o u r n a l of the semester and i t d i d not show a s i m i l a r l e v e l of r e f l e c t i o n . As a r e s u l t , i t i s unclear whether 126 her new-found understanding would have l a s t i n g r e s u l t s i n terms of the l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n i n her j o u r n a l s . F e l i c i a , on the other hand, a f t e r r e c e i v i n g the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g g u i d e l i n e s , began to w r i t e more r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l s than she had p r e v i o u s l y . In her j o u r n a l s , she most o f t e n focused on assessing student needs and progress and d e s c r i b i n g the e f f e c t s of techniques on her own f e e l i n g s . As the semester progressed her j o u r n a l w r i t i n g decreased i n r e f l e c t i v i t y . Her main d i f f i c u l t y seemed to be the problem of t h i n k i n g of new t h i n g s to w r i t e about and- her d i s l i k e of r e f l e c t i n g about t u t o r i n g techniques. By the end of the semester her j o u r n a l s showed l i t t l e evidence of r e f l e c t i o n . O v e r a l l , her j o u r n a l w r i t i n g could be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as moderately r e f l e c t i v e . Paul's e a r l i e s t j o u r n a l was l e a s t r e f l e c t i v e . In subsequent j o u r n a l s , i n part at my urging, he began to r e f l e c t more. Because of his•approach to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , h i s r e f l e c t i o n s continued to be concrete, focusing on i n d i v i d u a l t u t o r i n g sessions. His j o u r n a l s gave l i t t l e evidence of a b s t r a c t t h e o r i z i n g about t u t o r i n g . However, h i s approach to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g allowed him to r e f l e c t on the development of students', s k i l l s and of h i s t u t o r i n g over time. Because he wrote so few j o u r n a l s i n the study, i t was d i f f i c u l t to assess the value of t h i s documentation feature of h i s j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n terms of r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g . Paul's l a t e r j o u r n a l s could be d e s c r i b e d as moderately r e f l e c t i v e . C hristopher's j o u r n a l s were d i f f i c u l t to assess f o r 127 r e f l e c t i v i t y . In par t , t h i s may have been a r e s u l t of the f a c t that he d i d l e s s t u t o r i n g than the other t u t o r s . His j o u r n a l s tended to be more a b s t r a c t , focusing on issues l e s s e x p l i c i t l y t i e d to h i s t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e . Another is s u e may have been h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n c u l t u r a l and l i n g u i s t i c background. His r h e t o r i c a l s t r a t e g i e s d i f f e r e d from those of the other t u t o r s . This d i f f e r e n c e may have a f f e c t e d the way he ordered h i s ideas, the l e v e l of abstractness he employed and the l o g i c a l development of h i s ideas. A f u r t h e r f a c t o r i s the degree to which j o u r n a l segments Christopher wrote were i n t e r r e l a t e d . C h r i s t o p h e r followed ideas'from one j o u r n a l to the next, o f t e n without r e f e r r i n g to h i s previous t h i n k i n g . As a r e s u l t , h i s j o u r n a l s looked more r e f l e c t i v e when examined i n a group than they d i d when examined i n d i v i d u a l l y . An attempt to see beyond these c o m p l i c a t i n g f a c t o r s suggests that Christopher's j o u r n a l s were q u i t e r e f l e c t i v e . B i l l y ' s j o u r n a l s were very r e f l e c t i v e . There was no evidence of change i n t h e i r l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i v i t y , during the study. His j o u r n a l e n t r i e s were the shortest i n the study, averaging 2 63 words per entry. When he wrote he analyzed reasons f o r h i s successes and f a i l u r e s and e i t h e r suggested f u t u r e courses of a c t i o n , r e f l e c t e d on the impact of the experience on h i s understanding of the r o l e of t u t o r or i n f e r r e d a request f o r assi s t a n c e from.the t r a i n e r . Ann's j o u r n a l s were a l s o very r e f l e c t i v e . They were a l s o the longest j o u r n a l s i n the study w i t h her e n t r i e s averaging 128 73 9 words i n length. She explored student needs, t u t o r i n g techniques, reasons f o r successes and f a i l u r e s , and her i n t e n t i o n s f o r future t u t o r i n g . She r e l a t e d .her t u t o r i n g experiences to one another as w e l l as to her previous experiences of teaching and to her general approach to t u t o r i n g . Ann's choice not to w r i t e about some i s s u e s u n t i l she had thoroughly thought them through i s evident i n her j o u r n a l s . T r a i n e r Perspective on Levels of R e f l e c t i o n i n Tutor J o u r n a l s Tom expressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the depth of t u t o r s ' r e f l e c t i o n s i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . He used, two s t r a t e g i e s to t r y to i n c r e a s e the amount of r e f l e c t i o n t u t o r s d i d . F i r s t , he developed the g u i d e l i n e s . Second, he made comments on t h e i r j o u r n a l s which he hoped would encourage the w r i t e r s to r e f l e c t more on issues they had r a i s e d . Of the two s t r a t e g i e s , the g u i d e l i n e s had the most evident impact. Tom, however, had some concerns about the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the g u i d e l i n e s . He s a i d : I thought the handout [guidelines] I gave'them e a r l i e r could give them a l o t of questions they could j u s t go back to and ask themselves. But I'm f i n d i n g that they don't q u i t e understand i t , or i t i n t i m i d a t e s them so they don't want to deal w i t h i t . And I'm not sure i f that's j u s t because I made i t too complicated f o r them, and i f I would have made i t somehow e a s i e r they could have done i t more e a s i l y , or i f the concept i t s e l f of a n a l y t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n i s 129 more the graduate l e v e l k i n d of s k i l l that students at t h i s l e v e l j u s t aren't used to d e a l i n g w i t h , r e f l e c t i n g on t h e i r own p r a c t i c e , and so i n a sense I'm asking more of them than I should be. (I-T-Nov.17) Lat e r i n the semester, Tom was more p o s i t i v e about the a b i l i t y of t u t o r s to w r i t e r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l s . Besides the f a c t that there was increased r e f l e c t i o n i n many t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s , the h i r i n g of new tutor's who began j o u r n a l w r i t i n g from a f a i r l y r e f l e c t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e , encouraged him to b e l i e v e that t u t o r s could w r i t e u s e f u l r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l s . Despite the improvements i n the r e f l e c t i v i t y of t u t o r j o u r n a l s , Tom continued to think that i f t u t o r s r e f l e c t e d more deeply, they would gain'more from j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . This was p a r t i c u l a r l y true of K r i s t a , F e l i c i a , Christopher and Paul. Another d i f f i c u l t y Tom had i n assessing the usefulness of t u t o r j o u r n a l s was the degree to which he found i t necessary to make inf e r e n c e s about t u t o r t h i n k i n g .as he read t h e i r j o u r n a l s . Because t u t o r s ' l i n e s of t h i n k i n g were oft e n not e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d , Tom of t e n found i t necessary to i n f e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between ideas t u t o r s expressed. Thus, Tom would i n f e r , f o r example, that two segments i n a j o u r n a l entry were r e l a t e d and together showed some new understanding. He was a l s o aware, however, that h i s inferences were not n e c e s s a r i l y accurate. Tom found the r o l e of the tutor, t r a i n e r a d i f f i c u l t one because i t was inf o r m a l , g i v i n g him only l i m i t e d power to 130 a f f e c t t u t o r behaviours. Although he d i d have the power to f i r e t u t o r s , he would only have done so f o r gross incompetence, not f o r i ssues around j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . He described h i s dilemma t h i s way: I can't give marks, and the only way I evaluate or have a k i n d of e v a l u a t i o n of these and how they're doing i s comments I make on them, but I can't g i v e t u t o r s a grade, so i t ' s not a p a s s / f a i l k i n d of t h i n g , and so t h i s k ind of t u t o r t r a i n i n g , because i t ' s not i n , i t ' s not set i n a formal s o r t of teacher t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n , where they e i t h e r pass or f a i l , t here's not the same formal power and c l o u t i n products t h a t . . . t u t o r s give me. (I-T-Nov.17) He went on to describe'some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s he faced i n t r y i n g to encourage t u t o r s to w r i t e more r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l s without damaging t h e i r self-esteem or h i s c o l l e g i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h them. He s a i d : I guess I don't f e e l comfortable i n , s o r t of g i v i n g t h e i r j o u r n a l s back to them and saying, no t h i s i s n ' t what I wanted, do i t again, or because I know they're busy people, I don't want to keep coming back at them, r e i n f o r c i n g the f a c t that they're not g i v i n g me what I want, because there's no p a s s / f a i l i s s u e here.... Because we want to keep a s o r t of c o l l e g i a l f e e l i n g , I don't want to keep coming back at them, g i v i n g them that sort of negative reinforcement that 131 you guys aren't g i v i n g me what I want. Um, so that leaves me w i t h a l i t t l e b i t of a dilemma of how can I encourage them to make t h i s u s e f u l f o r themselves as l e a r n i n g e x e r c i s e s rather than j u s t busy work because Tom wants i t . (I-T-Nov.17) T r a i n e r Perspective on the Value of J o u r n a l W r i t i n g At the semester's end, Tom f e l t that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was worthwhile and intended to continue using i t as an i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g task the f o l l o w i n g semester (I-T-Dec.l). The value he saw i n j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was that i t to some degree f u l f i l l e d i t s purposes. The task provided a s t r u c t u r e whereby t u t o r s r e f l e c t e d on t h e i r t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e s and experiences and learned from them. The.task a l s o gave him in f o r m a t i o n about what t u t o r s were doing w i t h i n d i v i d u a l students and what other t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s would be most appropriate. He f e l t that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g had var y i n g degrees of b e n e f i t f o r i n d i v i d u a l t u t o r s but that a l l t u t o r s b e n e f i t t e d to some degree. He saw Ann's and B i l l y ' s j o u r n a l s as very u s e f u l f o r them. He f e l t they were able to t a c k l e issues and develop t h e i r t u t o r i n g s k i l l s through the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. He saw Paul's and C h r i s ' s j o u r n a l s as moderately u s e f u l and K r i s t a ' s and F e l i c i a ' s j o u r n a l s as l e s s u s e f u l . However, he f e l t that a l l t u t o r s b e n e f i t t e d from t h e i r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g and that there were some signs that what t u t o r s gained from j o u r n a l w r i t i n g could be increased over time. He f e l t that the value of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g f o r t u t o r s i n the centre could be increased by him 132 modifying h i s approach to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g and other t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s . The m o d i f i c a t i o n s he intended to put i n t o p l a c e are desc r i b e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . T r a i n e r Plans f o r Future Use of Jo u r n a l W r i t i n g At the end of the semester, Tom noted that there were a number of things he intended to do the f o l l o w i n g semester to help t u t o r s b e n e f i t more from the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. He planned t o : (1) change the feedback he wrote on j o u r n a l s ; (2) provide t u t o r s w i t h more t h e o r e t i c a l background about i s s u e s of teaching and l e a r n i n g ; and, (3) help t u t o r s recognize the l e a r n i n g p o t e n t i a l of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . He a l s o planned to i n s t i t u t e a procedure which allowed t u t o r s to share t h e i r j o u r n a l s w i t h one another. He intended to modify h i s feedback on j o u r n a l s by using more probing questions and by modeling higher l e v e l s of t h i n k i n g . Modeling of higher l e v e l t h i n k i n g i s seen by McAlpine (1992) and Newman- (1988) as an e f f e c t i v e form of feedback. In the s t a f f meetings., he intended to introduce more t h e o r e t i c a l issues about l e a r n i n g and teaching. He saw t h i s as g i v i n g "them more of an a n a l y t i c a l frame or schema, almost, to r e f l e c t on t h e i r t u t o r i n g " (I-T-Dec.8). He hoped that p r o v i d i n g t u t o r s w i t h more perspectives from which to examine t h e i r t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e would a s s i s t them i n r e f l e c t i o n . Hatton and Smith (1995) suggest that an appropriate knowledge base i s needed i f teachers are to r e f l e c t meaningfully. P r o v i s i o n of d i f f e r i n g p e r s p e c t i v e s could a l s o be seen as an i n d i r e c t way of 133 c h a l l e n g i n g t u t o r s ' p r i o r assumptions, a st r a t e g y recommended by McAlpine (1992) and Newman (1988). Tom hoped to help t u t o r s recognize the l e a r n i n g p o t e n t i a l of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g by r a i s i n g t h e i r awareness of that p o t e n t i a l . In a s t a f f meeting, he intended to "get them to t a l k about what they see as the b e n e f i t of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , and get them t o . . . almost own i t themselves" (I-T-Dec.l). This echoes Newman's (1988) a s s e r t i o n that j o u r n a l w r i t e r s need to have purposes of t h e i r own f o r w r i t i n g t h e i r j o u r n a l s . Another change which Tom planned to make was to provide an oppor t u n i t y f o r t u t o r s to t a l k about t h e i r j o u r n a l s w i t h one another. Through the semester he came to the c o n c l u s i o n that " f o r j o u r n a l s to be most u s e f u l f o r students [ t u t o r s ] , they have to t a l k about them wi t h somebody" (I-T-Nov.24). 134 S e c t i o n S i x : Tutor Thinking around Jo u r n a l W r i t i n g In t h i s s e c t i o n , I explore the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the t h i n k i n g represented i n t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s and the t h i n k i n g they reported to me i n interviews as being i n i t i a t e d by the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. This focuses on my t h i r d research que s t i o n . I i d e n t i f y three f a c t o r s confounding accurate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t u t o r t h i n k i n g i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . I a l s o d e s c r i b e the e f f e c t s of the i n t e r v i e w process on t u t o r s ' t h i n k i n g about i s s u e s . Tutors' j o u r n a l s v a r i e d i n how a c c u r a t e l y they represented the t h i n k i n g t u t o r s d i d as a r e s u l t of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . B i l l y ' s j o u r n a l s f a i r l y a c c u r a t e l y represented the t h i n k i n g he d i d about i s s u e s . He was e x p l i c i t about h i s l i n e s of t h i n k i n g i n h i s j o u r n a l s . He reported l i t t l e f u r t h e r t h i n k i n g a f t e r w r i t i n g h i s j o u r n a l e n t r i e s . I t should be noted, however, that due to scheduling problems, I fre q u e n t l y i n t e r v i e w e d B i l l y on the same day that he had completed h i s j o u r n a l e n t r i e s . The j o u r n a l s of the other t u t o r s gave a. much l e s s accurate p i c t u r e of the t h i n k i n g i n i t i a t e d by the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. K r i s t a ' s j o u r n a l s were mainly simply reports of t h i n k i n g she had done before j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . The j o u r n a l s r a r e l y a s s i s t e d her i n developing her t h i n k i n g f u r t h e r . The j o u r n a l s of F e l i c i a and Paul were decei v i n g i n that two very s i m i l a r segments might i n one case represent a great deal more t h i n k i n g than was evident i n the j o u r n a l s and i n the other case a c c u r a t e l y represent t h e i r t h i n k i n g . Interviews w i t h Christopher showed 135 that he d i d a great deal of r e f l e c t i o n which was not evident i n h i s j o u r n a l s . The interviews a l s o provided evidence that he connected some of h i s abstract d i s c u s s i o n s to t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e more than was evident i n the j o u r n a l s . Furthermore, he o f t e n thought a great deal more about issues a f t e r w r i t i n g j o u r n a l e n t r i e s . Ann's j o u r n a l s were'the t i p of the i c e b e r g . They showed evidence of r e f l e c t i o n , but.she a l s o r e f l e c t e d a great deal more on the issues before,' during and a f t e r w r i t i n g her j o u r n a l s . Powell ( 1985) suggests c a u t i o n ' i s needed i n assuming that w r i t t e n comments accurately.represent r e f l e c t i v e thoughts prompted by a task. The data i n t h i s study supports the need f o r c a u t i o n . In f a c t , the study suggests that i t . i s impossible f o r a reader to appreciate the r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g prompted by the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task based on t h e i r reading of the t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s . Factors Confounding Accurate Representation of Thinking i n Journals Factors which made i t impossible f o r a reader to get an accurate p i c t u r e of t u t o r t h i n k i n g r e s u l t i n g from the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task i n c l u d e d : t u t o r r e p o r t i n g of p r i o r r e f l e c t i o n , incomplete r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the r e f l e c t i o n which occurred, and f u r t h e r t h i n k i n g which occurred as a r e s u l t of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Tutor Reporting of P r i o r R e f l e c t i o n .' A l l t u t o r s reported t h i n k i n g i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s that they had done p r i o r to focusing on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . In many of these 136 cases, w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l s . d i d not f u r t h e r t h e i r l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n . For example, K r i s t a reported that what appeared to be one of her most r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l segments was simply a report of r e f l e c t i o n she had done anyway. She wrote: I would like to start off by talking about the idea I brought up at the meeting last Wednesday. I mentioned, that we should try to spend the first part of the appointment on exercises and then the second half, or what is left, could be used to look at the essay. I feel that in this way we can kill two birds with one stone. Not only would the students be keeping to their learning plans, but it would cure the dilemma the tutors are facing in being able to find the time to.brush up on these exercises. It would also alleviate some of the pressure felt from constantly editing papers, and allow for more i n t e r a c t i o n between the student and the tutor. I don't know about the rest of the tutors, but I almost feel like I have to edit the student's paper if they bring it in. Somehow, I feel that this learning centre was not set up for that purpose alone. (J-K-Nov.22) Thus, d e s p i t e the f a c t that K r i s t a described a s t r a t e g y , gave a r a t i o n a l e f o r the strategy and r e f l e c t e d on the purpose of the l e a r n i n g centre, her j o u r n a l w r i t i n g d i d not encourage her to r e f l e c t any f u r t h e r than she had done already. Christopher and Ann a l s o reported on p r i o r t h i n k i n g without r e f l e c t i n g f u r t h e r during j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . In some 137 cases, these j o u r n a l e n t r i e s showed considerable r e f l e c t i o n . Both Christopher and Ann reported that they had not developed t h e i r ideas f u r t h e r while w r i t i n g these segments because they d i d not have a r e f l e c t i v e purpose i n w r i t i n g them. T y p i c a l l y these segments were included because t u t o r s wanted to communicate things to Tom, the"segment was simply p a r t of the i n t r o d u c t i o n or conclusion to a j o u r n a l , or i n Ch r i s t o p h e r ' s case, the segment helped him provide c o n t i n u i t y f o r the readers of h i s j o u r n a l s . For example, Ann appeared to r e f l e c t about about the causes of student.attendance problems i n the f o l l o w i n g segment. A few of the new students have cancelled or not shown up for their sessions. I think part of the problem is that they have too much of a work, load and that they have not done any of the exercises given to them, or do not understand what, is required. Therefore, it is easier to avoid coming or cancelling with a simple excuse and putting off the inevitable. (J-A-0ct.5) In our i n t e r v i e w , Ann sta t e d that t h i s segment d i d not i n c l u d e any new t h i n k i n g . Her purpose i n w r i t i n g the segment was to give a message to Tom that he was g i v i n g the students too many tasks at the beginning of t h e i r work i n the centre (I-A-Oct.13). Thus, despite evidence of r e f l e c t i o n i n the j o u r n a l , w r i t i n g the segment d i d not c o n t r i b u t e to Ann's t h i n k i n g on the i s s u e . 138 Incomplete Representation of R e f l e c t i o n Often t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s d i d not show evidence of the r e f l e c t i o n that occurred during the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g process. One f a c t o r was that t u t o r s sometimes only h i n t e d at i s s u e s which they had thought about e x t e n s i v e l y i n the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g process. Another f a c t o r was.that they sometimes chose not to i n c l u d e any s i g n of t h i n k i n g they had done. A t h i r d f a c t o r was r h e t o r i c a l features of t h e i r w r i t i n g . '• Frequently t u t o r s only touched on issues which they thought about a l o t during the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g process. In the f o l l o w i n g j o u r n a l segment, Ann discussed issues of content i n student papers. In many instances I have had to point out to students that the examples or quotes they were using were not relevant or did not support what they were saying. Once again rather than go over the paper I switched, to a discussion of their topic. I guess I am doing this because I am trying to get them to think about the subject and what is wanted rather than presume. Also, when I tell them that they should give an explanation, quite frequently I get back the answer that it isn't necessary because their instructor knows what they mean or their i n s t r u c t o r doesn't want them to do it that way. My comment is usually that they should not be writing specifically for one person that someone else may have to read their writings. The example I can use now is that I was asked by a student 139 (permission given by her instructor) to evaluate her paper and give my comments on the writing. Perhaps this will show some students that their writings .could for a larger audience (sic). (J-A-Nov .23) In our d i s c u s s i o n , however, she made c l e a r that the most c r u c i a l l e a r n i n g she d i d i n w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l was only h i n t e d at i n the j o u r n a l segment: I guess what I wanted to say i n that paragraph i n the f i r s t place was that I want to teach them to t h i n k . I s t a r t e d out d i f f e r e n t l y I guess w i t h the problems that they have. They don't understand what they're doing so i t ' s changing my t a c t i c s of going over t h e i r paper w i t h them, and I want them to think, t h i n k about t h e i r t o p i c and t h i n k about what they have to say and v e r b a l i z e i t , brainstorm i t w i t h somebody, a f r i e n d , me, anybody, but f o r goodness sake, get a f e e l i n g , get an enthusiasm f o r i t , l i k e Y i n Wing's got, f o r t h e i r work. They j u s t w r i t e a paper, 'cause ' t h i s i s an assignment.I've got to do' and i t shows i n t h e i r work... so t h i s i s something I've learned to do t h i s semester and I thi n k i t ' s worked r e a l l y w e l l . . . and i f they s t a r t to th i n k more about t h e i r papers next semester then I ' l l have accomplished something. (I-A-Nov . 2 4 ) She went on to t e l l me that a b i g goal of her work, that she had not seen so c l e a r l y before w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l , was to help students l e a r n to think about t h e i r papers. 140 At times, t u t o r s chose not to incl u d e ideas i n j o u r n a l s which they had thought about i n the process of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . This was t y p i c a l of Ann who p r e f e r r e d not to w r i t e about issues u n t i l she had thought them through. In one case, Ann planned an e n t i r e j o u r n a l i n her head about a problem she was exper i e n c i n g . She subsequently discarded the idea because she had not yet come up wit h a s o l u t i o n to the problem. She s a i d : My j o u r n a l t h i s week was going to s t a r t out w i t h a dialogue l i k e question, answer and going through that k i n d of t h i n g , and l i t e r a l l y go through what I sometimes go through i n the f i r s t ten. minutes of a se s s i o n w i t h somebody who wants to know i f they've got a t h e s i s or not.... I dropped that idea..(I-A-Nov.3) In another case,.' i n her j o u r n a l K r i s t a suggested a t u t o r i n g technique and provided a r a t i o n a l e f o r using that s t r a t e g y ( J -K-Nov . 7 ) . What she d i d not report, was that she had.already t r i e d out the technique w i t h three students (I-K-Nov . 9 ) . R h e t o r i c a l features of t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l s r e s u l t e d i n some of the discrepancy between the t h i n k i n g evidenced i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s and the t h i n k i n g of the t u t o r s about i s s u e s . As the t r a i n e r recognized, t u t o r s often d i d not make t h e i r l i n e s of t h i n k i n g e x p l i c i t i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . Christopher, f o r example, fr e q u e n t l y wrote h i s j o u r n a l s at a f a i r l y a b s t r a c t l e v e l . One of the t r a i n e r ' s complaints about Christopher's j o u r n a l s was that he d i d not apply h i s a b s t r a c t t h i n k i n g to t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e . However, as the f o l l o w i n g 141 example shows, t h i s was i n some cases a matter of Christopher's choice of what to i n c l u d e i n the j o u r n a l . He wrote: Having been working for more than two and a half months, I have to say that I learn more than I give. In the Centre, I have more chances to polish up my written and spoken English. I also could build up more self-confidence while working with students with different ethnical backgrounds. I find that I am now.easily get along with my classmates other than Chinese. I also feel more confidence in expressing my idea in front of my classmates of different races. (J-C-Dec .8 ) In our d i s c u s s i o n , Christopher provided more i n f o r m a t i o n about h i s l e a r n i n g . He a l s o noted.that h i s experiences i n the centre of working w i t h students from other c u l t u r a l backgrounds had shown him that he needed to t u t o r students from d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l backgrounds d i f f e r e n t l y . He gave examples of Kent, who was from A f r i c a , and Cathy, who was from Hong Kong. Chri s t o p h e r suggested that c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s needed to a f f e c t the pacing of t u t o r i n g and the t u t o r ' s expectations of students' a t t i t u d e s . He s a i d t h i s point was a new i n s i g h t he gained w h i l e w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l . Thus, a j o u r n a l segment which appears to be an a b s t r a c t d i s c u s s i o n of Christopher's l e a r n i n g as a r e s u l t of t u t o r i n g a c t u a l l y i n v olved concrete t h i n k i n g about t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e . , Christopher's ideas i n h i s j o u r n a l s a l s o o f t e n appeared to l a c k l o g i c a l development. For example, he wrote: 142 During the time while I was helping Cathy, I asked myself what role I should play in order to provide the most effective help. Sometimes I even get confused in being a peer tutor in the Learning Centre and being a private tutor. Genuine speaking, the assistance I offer to her is very limited, and I cannot push her too hard. Probably the main problem I am facing is how to make Cathy start her studying on her own. (J-C-Nov.17) In the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n , Christopher described some of h i s t h i n k i n g behind t h i s i s s u e . The t h i n k i n g shows the l o g i c a l connections between the po i n t s made i n the j o u r n a l . This excerpt begins near the end of di s c u s s i n g . a previous segment. J : You say you're worried that maybe you're h e l p i n g her too much, that you're sort of g i v i n g her the study method and she's j u s t doing i t ' . • C: Yeah, that's the point I mention i n the next paragraph.- That's the d i f f e r e n c e between a peer t u t o r i n the l e a r n i n g centre and a p r i v a t e t u t o r , i n my op i n i o n . J : Yeah, that was something I wondered when you s a i d t h i s . What i s the d i f f e r e n c e ? C: The d i f f e r e n c e i s that, yeah, f o r to be a p r i v a t e t u t o r I th i n k i t ' s r e a l l y a r o l e of problem s o l v e r , yeah, whenever a student come to any problem, he or she may seek help from you and i t ' s our job f o r her 143 mom or her parents pay me, yeah, i n order to get help from me, yeah. For peer t u t o r our r o l e of course a l s o give help to student but most of the job d u t i e s are study s k i l l i n s t e a d of help her to solve the problem. Yeah. Therefore we do hope that she can s o l v e the problem by h e r s e l f a f t e r seeking our advice. J : So w i t h the peer t u t o r i n g the goal i s more to make them independent? C: Yeah, that's r i g h t . That's the p o i n t I want to make....I want to c l a r i f y . I t ' s a l s o my problem too, I f i n d that I got confused i n my r o l e i n h e l p i n g Cathy, yeah. I wonder whether I should work i n a d i f f e r e n t way i n s t e a d of j u s t g i v i n g her t h i s photocopied s t u f f to l e t her read i t at home and do the composition. I t seems to be a r e a l , g e n e r a l l y a teacher i n s t e a d of a peer t u t o r . . . . In f a c t I got q u i t e adapted to teach or conduct the o r i e n t a t i o n sessions of word p e r f e c t , (inaudible) i s my r o l e the same as the r o l e I had i n Hong Kong. Just conduct the c l a s s . So I f e e l very comfortable i n doing so. Yeah. But to give advice to student how to develop t h e i r study s k i l l or how to help them develop t h e i r own method of studying i s maybe a l i t t l e b i t d i f f e r e n t . Yeah. J : Yeah. I can see that. This idea of the d i f f i c u l t y between being a p r i v a t e t u t o r and being a l e a r n i n g 144 centre t u t o r , was that an issue which you thought of wh i l e you were w r i t i n g or had you been t h i n k i n g about that before? C: ... In f a c t , t h i s was a point I thought of w h i l e I was making my o u t l i n e l a s t n i g h t . I developed i t more when I wrote i t today. (I-C-Nov.17) Chris t o p h e r reported that t h i s was a l l new t h i n k i n g he had done w h i l e planning and w r i t i n g h i s j o u r n a l . Another aspect of t h i s l a c k of e x p l i c i t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of l i n e s of t h i n k i n g i s that sometimes t u t o r s d i d not show the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between ideas i n d i f f e r e n t j o u r n a l segments. Chris t o p h e r o f t e n appeared to w r i t e about a wide range of d i f f e r e n t i ssues i n h i s - j o u r n a l . -In the i n t e r v i e w s , however, he expla i n e d that many of the issues were r e l a t e d . This was not evident to the reader both because he d i d not show the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the ideas and because he o f t e n wrote about other issues between segments he regarded as r e l a t e d . This l a c k of e x p l i c i t n e s s about, the connections between ideas a l s o occurred across j o u r n a l e n t r i e s . In Ann's f i r s t j o u r n a l she wrote the f o l l o w i n g segment: I enjoy working with the matue (sic) students who are returning to school after many years of being out of the system. They bring with them a lot of background knowledge and living experience that can be applied to their class papers. Most of these students just need some reassurance and a little help with how to go about writing their 145 required papers. (J-A-Oct . 5 ) In her j o u r n a l two weeks l a t e r , Ann mentioned i n passing, "I have also asked them to tell me what it is that they would l i k e to work on so that I am helping them with what they need to learn" (J-A-Oct.1 8 ). In our in t e r v i e w , she noted that t h i s statement was a d i r e c t outcome of the t h i n k i n g she had done about mature students e a r l i e r i n the semester. However, i n her l a t e r j o u r n a l she showed no such connection. As a r e s u l t , the l a t e r statement showed no evidence of the depth of t h i n k i n g u n d e r l y i n g her a c t i o n s . Another r h e t o r i c a l feature that i n t e r f e r e d w i t h understanding the l e v e l s of t h i n k i n g t u t o r s achieved i n j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was t h e i r choice of words-. In one i n t e r v i e w , f o r example, Paul implied.that he regarded a d e s c r i p t i o n of student need as a statement of what he intended to do w i t h the student i n t h e i r next session. My last student was' Rhonda and in the four times I have seen her I notice some big changes. She is quite taken with the 'brainstorming' suggestion and today she came in with 6 pages of notes. Most in progression (thoughts). Still having a bit of a problem with focus and organization but I feel she is gaining confidence and s t a r t i n g to pick up speed. (J-P-Nov . 2 2 ) In our d i s c u s s i o n , Paul reported that he was r e f l e c t i n g both when he i d e n t i f i e d her progress and when he noted "what to focus on next, o r g a n i z a t i o n " . He s a i d , "So i t ' s a note to me 146 when I go back and read i t I can say d i d I do that or didn't I do t h a t , d i d i t work or didn't i t work" (I-P-Nov.24). Thus, although i n h i s j o u r n a l he described o r g a n i z a t i o n as a need, i n the i n t e r v i e w he described o r g a n i z a t i o n as what he intended to work on w i t h her next. Considering Paul's penchant f o r d i s c u s s i n g student needs i n h i s j o u r n a l , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that he equated h i s d i s c u s s i o n of student need w i t h a statement of i n t e n t f o r future t u t o r i n g of the student. I f , i n examining Paul's j o u r n a l s , one regarded a l l statements of need (Level I i n the hierarchy) as statements of i n t e n t f o r f u t u r e t u t o r i n g (Level IV i n the h i e r a r c h y ) , h i s j o u r n a l s would have to be regarded as more r e f l e c t i v e than they otherwise appear. In another example, B i l l y made c l e a r that h i s p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of a technique- could-be equated w i t h an i n t e n t i o n to continue using the technique. He wrote: I found this week that I was better able to question my students in a way that made them do the thinking. By using questions that did not imply the answer of open ended questions I found I could make my students do their own thinking. This did provide for some awkward moments of silence, but I feel these are better learning experiences than pure dictation on my part. (J-B-Nov.15) Part of our d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s segment f o l l o w s : J : Then here, but you f e e l that they're b e t t e r l e a r n i n g experiences than pure d i c t a t i o n on your p a r t , i s that something you were aware of f e e l i n g when you were doing 147 i t ? B: No, I was more f e e l i n g awkward and then afterwards, probably when I was w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l , I thought they were b e t t e r l e a r n i n g experiences. J : So would you say then that w r i t i n g t h i s j o u r n a l helped encourage you to keep working at .'that? B: Yeah, a l i t t l e b i t , yeah,- 'cause i t j u s t k i n d of r e i n f o r c e s , I mean i t ' s s t i l l awkward a b i t but w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l helped a l i t t l e b i t , yeah. J : Do you t h i n k i f you hadn't w r i t t e n the j o u r n a l , that you would have acted any d i f f e r e n t l y ? B: Um, I may have, I may have j u s t f e l l back to asking yes or no questions. (I-B-Nov.16) R h e t o r i c a l issues have a l s o been suggested by Hatton and Smith (1995) as a f a c t o r confounding the assessment of r e f l e c t i o n i n j o u r n a l s . They suggest that, " I t may w e l l be the case that i n any research, the evidence f o r r e f l e c t i o n i s being d i s t o r t e d by students' lack of a b i l i t y to use p a r t i c u l a r genre c o n s t r u c t i o n s " (p. 42). I would suggest that evidence f o r r e f l e c t i o n can be d i s t o r t e d not only through w r i t e r s ' i n a b i l i t i e s to use p a r t i c u l a r r h e t o r i c a l devices but a l s o through t h e i r preferences f o r p a r t i c u l a r devices. The evidence suggests that t h i s issue may be p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n a s s e s s i n g the j o u r n a l s of those whose f i r s t language i s not E n g l i s h . However, i t a l s o shows that r h e t o r i c a l choices a f f e c t the assessment of n a t i v e E n g l i s h speakers' r e f l e c t i v e w r i t i n g . 148 Thinking a f t e r Journal W r i t i n g Most t u t o r s reported t h i n k i n g f u r t h e r about issues a f t e r w r i t i n g t h e i r j o u r n a l s . In some cases, simply r e p o r t i n g on t u t o r i n g sessions l e d to f u r t h e r r e f l e c t i o n . In other, cases, new i n s i g h t s gained while j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n i t i a t e d f u r t h e r r e f l e c t i o n . In many cases when t u t o r s simply reported on a t u t o r i n g s e s s i o n i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s , they subsequently r e f l e c t e d f u r t h e r on the se s s i o n . As F e l i c i a noted i n one i n t e r v i e w , " i f you w r i t e i t down then i t might c l i c k i n your head" (I-F-Oct.11). Focusing on issues and c l a r i f y i n g t h e i r ideas w h i l e w r i t i n g j o u r n a l s may have enabled t u t o r s .to r e f l e c t . For example, Paul wrote: The next hour of tutoring was on WP [word processing]. So I did a Level 2 with a student, got him to do some simple exercises, showed-him a couple of quick steps and recommended a couple of texts for him to check. (J-P-Nov.8) In d i s c u s s i n g t h i s segment, Paul s a i d , " A f t e r I had w r i t t e n t h i s and I was t h i n k i n g about what Tom had s a i d i n the meeting, I r e a l i z e d that I had done too much and he probably d i d n ' t l e a r n much. I t was more a d i s p l a y of my s k i l l s " (I-P-Nov.10). In t h i s case, Paul d i d not problematize the t u t o r i n g s e s s i o n u n t i l a f t e r completion of the j o u r n a l entry. In other cases a f t e r w r i t i n g about problems i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s , t u t o r s r e f l e c t e d on s o l u t i o n s to those problems. In 149 the f o l l o w i n g example, a f t e r w r i t i n g her j o u r n a l Ann focused on the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the issue f o r future t u t o r i n g . She wrote: One concern that I have, is regarding a paper that is returned by an instructor and is so badly marked with corrections that it is difficult to read the original work. I realize it is necessary"for an instructor to indicate grammar errors, etc., but a paper graded and returned like this must be very discouraging for a student. The student didn't seem too unhappy about this but looked at it as an opportunity to improve. Therefore, we used this paper as a. tool for learning. We went over the paper and discussed why these things were wrong and how to apply this to future writings. Later, I chastised myself for not correcting her paper more thoroughly before she handed it in to her instructor. I was more intent on the contents and logic of her work and only pointed out the more noticeable.grammar errors. But then, we would not have had the' scarred, paper as the. basis for. learning. ( J -A-Oct.25) Ann t o l d me that only the l a s t sentence of t h i s segment was new t h i n k i n g r e s u l t i n g from w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l . She had thought about a l l the r e s t p r i o r to t h i n k i n g about her j o u r n a l . However, she a l s o reported f u r t h e r t h i n k i n g she had done as a r e s u l t of c l a r i f y i n g her t h i n k i n g about the s i t u a t i o n . She had decided what to work on i n future w i t h the student. She f e l t that they needed to pay more a t t e n t i o n to word choice i n the 150 student's w r i t i n g . She had a l s o thought about the r a m i f i c a t i o n s of the problem i n a broader sense. She decided that i n f u t u r e she would encourage students to get feedback twice on t h e i r papers, once on content and o r g a n i z a t i o n and once on word choice and grammar issues (I-A-Oct.27). The j o u r n a l w r i t i n g had served as a c a t a l y s t f o r f u r t h e r high l e v e l r e f l e c t i o n . In other cases, new t h i n k i n g done i n the process of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n i t i a t e d f u r t h e r t h i n k i n g about i s s u e s . Sometimes, t h i s seemed to occur as a r e s u l t of the " c a t h a r t i c " f u n c t i o n of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g described by McAlpine (1992) . For example, i n one j o u r n a l Christopher wrote: Last week, Cathy was late for her appointments two times. I did feel a bit disappointed with her, for she didn't care what she has promised to me. I'd better give her a last warning before I put her name on the b l a c k l i s t . (J-C-Nov.10) Christ o p h e r described' the f u n c t i o n w r i t i n g - t h i s segment served. The time when I was w r i t i n g .this I f e l t a l i t t l e b i t disappointed, not r e a l l y angry, but disappointed so t h a t ' s why I wrote a l a s t warning... but I modified i t a l o t , . . . w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l . . . r e a l l y helped me to give her a moderate warning. (I-C-Nov.10) He had got out h i s f e e l i n g s on paper and then modified h i s i n t e n t i o n to a l e s s extreme a c t i o n . Often f u r t h e r t h i n k i n g a f t e r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g r e l a t e d to i m p l i c a t i o n s of r e f l e c t i o n s i n j o u r n a l s f o r t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e . 151 In the f o l l o w i n g example, Paul described r e f l e c t i n g f u r t h e r about a new i n s i g h t he had gained while w r i t i n g h i s j o u r n a l and as a r e s u l t changing h i s approach to a student. In h i s j o u r n a l , he wrote: One [student] forgot to bring anything with her. No notes, no questions, just her referral. It looks like she was not real clear on the concept of what we do. I gave her some exercises that coincided with Tom's notes and suggested she come prepared with some problems she felt she needed help with. (J-P-Jan.27) Paul s a i d that the only new t h i n k i n g which he d i d i n w r i t i n g t h i s segment was to note that perhaps the' student was not c l e a r on the concept of g e t t i n g t u t o r i n g . He s a i d that p r i o r to w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l he had simply regarded her as an "empty v e s s e l " . A f t e r w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l , while he was proo f r e a d i n g i t i n f a c t , he thought f u r t h e r about the s i t u a t i o n . He f e l t that he had been c o r r e c t about her not being c l e a r on the concept and that he would need to "lead her step by step" to help her l e a r n how to use the centre e f f e c t i v e l y . He f e l t that h i s i n i t i a l r e a c t i o n had been "a l i t t l e too harsh" and reassessed the s i t u a t i o n a f t e r w r i t i n g h i s j o u r n a l (I-P-Jan.27). Paul's r e c o g n i t i o n while j o u r n a l w r i t i n g of the student's l a c k of understanding caused him to r e f l e c t f u r t h e r about the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s r e c o g n i t i o n a f t e r w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l . At other times, j o u r n a l w r i t i n g seemed to spark l a t e r 152 t h i n k i n g about issues not touched on i n the j o u r n a l s themselves. In the f o l l o w i n g example, Ann wrote about one is s u e i n d e a l i n g w i t h p a r t i c u l a r students and saw t h i s as a c a t a l y s t f o r t h i n k i n g about another issue i n r e l a t i o n to some of the same students. With [one group of] students it has been necessary to help them develop their thesis (and for them to be able to recognize that they have a thesis.statement) before they can continue with their paper. Once again, I encountered the over use of quotes. One student had nothing but quotes in her paragraphs. She did not understand that quotes were only to be used to support what she was saying, and that she should not use too many of them in each paragraph. One paragraph consisted of approx. five sentences all of which were paraphrasing and quotes. After our discussion, I think she finally got the idea and went away to do a rewrite. She will drop it off for me to proof read. (J-A-Nov.16) Our d i s c u s s i o n on t h i s segment went l i k e t h i s : A: A f t e r I f i n i s h e d [ w r i t i n g the j o u r n a l ] , I r e a l i z e d something that happened w i t h regard to one of these i n c i d e n t s that I should have continued on about. And that was the f a c t that before I came to t h i s p o i n t about quotes that I had already met with two of these students and I'd already discussed t h e i r t h e s i s and how they would o u t l i n e i t and everything. And they went away and were pleased 153 about i t and I was r e a l l y pleased about how that s e s s i o n had gone. And then they came back w i t h t h i s and t h i s was on my mind rather than, I guess I should have looked at t h i s and why, why d i d t h i s happen? And I'm t r y i n g to f i g u r e out why i t happened. And I s t i l l haven't come to the c o n c l u s i o n why one week they were set w i t h t h e i r mind what they had to do and then completely reversed back to what they d i d before anyway. So w r i t i n g t h i s down, w e l l , j u s t made me th i n k about i t and I guess the only t h i n g I can do about i t i s send them away and make them r e w r i t e i t so that I can have something to work w i t h and t h a t ' s about i t . . J : Yeah, so that t h i n k i n g about how t h i s f i t w i t h what you'd done p r e v i o u s l y , you .thought about a f t e r w r i t i n g t h i s ? A: That's c o r r e c t . • .• J : So i t sparked some t h i n k i n g that was u s e f u l ? A: Yeah. Yeah. D e f i n i t e l y . (I-A-Nov.17) . W r i t i n g about one problem l e d to t h i n k i n g about another r e l a t e d problem. E f f e c t s of the Research Process on Tutor Thinking The i n t e r v i e w process l e d to f u r t h e r t u t o r t h i n k i n g about i s s u e s . F e l i c i a noted, "when we t a l k about i t [an i s s u e ] , I t h i n k about i t a l o t more than usual, and i t s t i c k s i n my head a l o t more when we t a l k about i t " (I-F-Dec.7). Tutors recognized that I a f f e c t e d t h e i r t h i n k i n g i n three ways: by 154 f o c u s i n g them again on the issues they wrote about; by asking probing questions about t h e i r t h i n k i n g ; and, by o c c a s i o n a l l y sharing my p e r s p e c t i v e s on i s s u e s . One d i f f i c u l t y i n assessing the e f f e c t s of the research process on t h i s issue i s that I d i d not at the outset of the data c o l l e c t i o n focus on the issue of the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of the research process on t u t o r t h i n k i n g . A f t e r r e c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g the study as a form of a c t i o n research, I began to acknowledge and question the e f f e c t s of my i n t e r v i e w i n g on t u t o r t h i n k i n g . However, i n my e a r l i e r interviews I d i d not t y p i c a l l y question t u t o r s about the e f f e c t s of those, interviews on t h e i r t h i n k i n g . Many of the t r a n s c r i p t s of those e a r l i e r i n t e r v i e w s do not c l a r i f y whether f u r t h e r t h i n k i n g reported by t u t o r s occurred p r i o r to or during the i n t e r v i e w . The examples which f o l l o w , however, show t u t o r r e c o g n i t i o n of the e f f e c t s of the i n t e r v i e w process. The s t r u c t u r e of t u t o r interviews encouraged t u t o r s to t h i n k about issues again. This r e s u l t e d i n a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of f u r t h e r t u t o r t h i n k i n g on those i s s u e s . In the f o l l o w i n g example from an i n t e r v i e w w i t h Ann, she i d e n t i f i e d a new understanding t r i g g e r e d by the i n t e r v i e w process: I s t a r t e d to think about t h i s boy and what he was doing and from t h i s point i t kind of t r i g g e r e d i n my mind about some other students who I'd been working w i t h during the week who were developing summaries. This was the r e v e r s e . . . ! didn't make the connection when I wrote t h i s 155 but I d i d j u s t now t a l k i n g about i t . What I was doing w i t h him, I could do w i t h them too. (I-A-Nov.3) My questions i n interviews a l s o a f f e c t e d t u t o r t h i n k i n g . For example, F e l i c i a wrote a j o u r n a l entry about using a technique f o r the f i r s t time (J-F-Oct.28). In the i n t e r v i e w , she reported that she would use the technique again w i t h the student. When I asked her i f the technique would work w i t h other students, she s a i d i t probably would but that she had not thought about that u n t i l I asked the question (I-F-Nov.2). In some cases, I took a more a c t i v e r o l e i n a f f e c t i n g t u t o r t h i n k i n g . For example, Ann wrote about a problem she had h e l p i n g a student recognize main ideas i n reading (J-A-Nov.16). In our i n t e r v i e w , we had a long d i s c u s s i o n about t h i s i s s u e which changed Ann's per s p e c t i v e . I suggested a number of p o s s i b l e s t r a t e g i e s f o r h e l p i n g him w i t h the problem. Ann expressed considerable i n t e r e s t i n one of my ideas and suggested a m o d i f i c a t i o n to i t that she thought might work w i t h the student (I-A-Nov.17). I t should be noted that although I o c c a s i o n a l l y took an a c t i v e r o l e i n i n terviews by suggesting techniques they might use, I g e n e r a l l y only d i d so when t u t o r s seemed stuck and somewhat desperate to come up w i t h new ideas. I avoided t h i s f o r two reasons. F i r s t , Tom suggested techniques i n s t a f f meetings and I regarded t h i s as h i s r o l e . Furthermore, I d i d not have time i n interviews to conduct i n d i v i d u a l t u t o r t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s . Second, I f e l t t hat.ideas developed by the 156 t u t o r s themselves would be most u s e f u l to them. I d i d not want them to tu r n to me f o r ideas. I wanted them to use t h e i r experience to develop ideas of t h e i r own. Section Seven: C o l l a b o r a t i v e A n a l y s i s 157 In t h i s f i n a l s e c t i o n of Chapter Three, I desc r i b e the c o l l a b o r a t i v e a n a l y s i s of the data and the w r i t i n g of the t h e s i s . F i r s t , I discuss my w r i t i n g of i n d i v i d u a l case s t u d i e s and the r e a c t i o n s of p a r t i c i p a n t s to those s t u d i e s . Next, I des c r i b e how I inv o l v e d p a r t i c i p a n t s i n c o l l a b o r a t i n g on the a n a l y s i s of • the data and the ' outcomes' "of those e f f o r t s . F i n a l l y , I describe the process of w r i t i n g the t h e s i s and r a i s e some issues concerning v a l i d i t y . W r i t i n g I n d i v i d u a l P r o f i l e s A f t e r completion of the f i r s t phase of data c o l l e c t i o n , I wrote case s t u d i e s of the i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study. I c a l l e d these case studies " p r o f i l e s " . W r i t i n g the p r o f i l e s had two purposes. F i r s t , f o l l o w i n g Middleton ( 1 9 9 3 ) , I wanted p a r t i c i p a n t s to have the opp o r t u n i t y to vet inf o r m a t i o n that would be included about them i n the study before others had access to that i n f o r m a t i o n . The small number of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study and the personal nature of some of the informat i o n made me f e e l i t was necessary to give p a r t i c i p a n t s an opportunity to remove data from the study. I t o l d them about t h i s step at the outset. I hoped t h i s would reassure them that they could say what they l i k e d i n our i n t e r v i e w s , secure i n the knowledge that I would not make inf o r m a t i o n about them p u b l i c without t h e i r permission. Second, I wanted to give p a r t i c i p a n t s the opportunity to c o n t r i b u t e to 158 the t h e o r y - b u i l d i n g of the study. I hoped the p r o f i l e s would a l l o w me to t r y out my a n a l y s i s of the data about each p a r t i c i p a n t on that p a r t i c i p a n t . I d i d so w i t h the goal of a v o i d i n g what Said (1979) c a l l s " a p p r o p r i a t i o n " . A p p r o p r i a t i o n i s the tendency on the part of researchers to i n t e r p r e t meanings of subordinate groups f o r the researchers' own purposes. I a l s o wanted to put the data i n a form which allowed p a r t i c i p a n t s to access information about'the other p a r t i c i p a n t s . This access would enable them to t h e o r i z e about data c o l l e c t e d on, a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s . In w r i t i n g the p r o f i l e s , I d i d not attempt to cre a t e a t i g h t a n a l y s i s of the data. My goal was to create an account which allowed f o r v a r i e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the data. I d i d simple deductive a n a l y s i s of each p a r t i c i p a n t ' s j o u r n a l s and p e r s p e c t i v e s , and included extensive excerpts from j o u r n a l s and i n t e r v i e w t r a n s c r i p t s . Because each p a r t i c i p a n t ' s p r o f i l e had to stand alone, I d i d not use data c o l l e c t e d about the t r a i n e r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e s i n the p r o f i l e s of t u t o r s . This meant, that d i s c u s s i o n s of r e f l e c t i o n d i d not focus on the t r a i n e r ' s l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n . Instead, I described p a r t i c i p a n t s ' r e f l e c t i o n s i n more general terms. Each p r o f i l e c o n s i s t e d of general i n f o r m a t i o n about p a r t i c i p a n t p e r s p e c t i v e s on the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task as w e l l as information about content and r e f l e c t i o n s i n j o u r n a l s and about t h i n k i n g around j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . The p r o f i l e s were w r i t t e n using language I f e l t would be a c c e s s i b l e to a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s . The development of the 159 p r o f i l e s allowed me to create an i n d i v i d u a l p o r t r a i t of each t u t o r s ' j o u r n a l w r i t i n g behaviours and p e r s p e c t i v e s . P a r t i c i p a n t Responses to I n d i v i d u a l P r o f i l e s A f t e r completing the p r o f i l e s , I gave p a r t i c i p a n t s t h e i r own p r o f i l e s f o r a p e r i o d of two to three weeks. I asked p a r t i c i p a n t s to do two things. F i r s t , I wanted them to i d e n t i f y any aspects of my a n a l y s i s w i t h which they disagreed. Second, I asked them to i d e n t i f y any data which they d i d not want made p u b l i c . Three of the t u t o r s responded that the p r o f i l e s were accurate from t h e i r perspectives and that a l l i n f o r m a t i o n could be made p u b l i c . Four p a r t i c i p a n t s , Ann, Christopher, Tom and K r i s t a , agreed w i t h the o v e r a l l accuracy of the p r o f i l e s but asked f o r minor changes i n wording. These changes focused on connotations of s p e c i f i c words or phrases. Some of the problematic terms were terms I had used i n my a n a l y s i s of the data. In a few cases, terms they had used i n our i n t e r v i e w s were the problem. I discussed each change w i t h the p a r t i c i p a n t s and we agreed on s u b s t i t u t i o n s f o r the problematic words. I d i d not f e e l that these changes s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d the data or the a n a l y s i s i n the study. A f t e r making the necessary changes to the p r o f i l e s , I d i s t r i b u t e d a l l p r o f i l e s to a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s . Tutor C o l l a b o r a t i v e Meeting As w e l l as the p r o f i l e s of a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s , I gave each t u t o r a memo which c l a r i f i e d the purpose of the research and l i s t e d fourteen questions f o r t h e i r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Some 160 questions were general i n nature. They asked f o r such things as a general a p p r a i s a l of the value of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. Other questions focused on more s p e c i f i c issues r a i s e d by i n d i v i d u a l s . These included the t r a i n e r ' s a t t i t u d e s to l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n and content, the e f f e c t of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g on confidence, the preference f o r o r a l as opposed to w r i t t e n r e f l e c t i o n and the preference f o r r e p o r t i n g - s t y l e j o u r n a l s . In pr e p a r a t i o n f o r a .collaborative t u t o r meeting, t u t o r s were asked to read the p r o f i l e s of the t r a i n e r and at l e a s t one other t u t o r and think about t h e i r r e a c t i o n s to the questions I posed. Unfortunately, scheduling, the c o l l a b o r a t i v e meeting was d i f f i c u l t . It- was the end of the. f o l l o w i n g semester and t u t o r s were very busy. Furthermore, some t u t o r s were l e a v i n g town at semester's end. The best I could do was schedule a meeting at a time that f i v e t u t o r s could manage. U l t i m a t e l y , only four t u t o r s attended the meeting because one t u t o r got h e l d up w i t h w r i t i n g a f i n a l paper f o r a course. Ann, B i l l y , C h r i s t o p h e r and F e l i c i a attended the meeting. At the meeting, Ann and B i l l y reported that they had read a l l of the p r o f i l e s . Christopher and F e l i c i a had read only those of one other t u t o r and the t r a i n e r . I began the meeting by asking about d i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s they saw across the p r o f i l e s . We then discussed the questions I had provided. The meeting was two hours long. A l l t u t o r s present p a r t i c i p a t e d a c t i v e l y . I audiotaped and l a t e r t r a n s c r i b e d the d i s c u s s i o n . 161 Tutor C o l l a b o r a t i v e Meeting: Findings Below, I h i g h l i g h t some of the key f i n d i n g s of the c o l l a b o r a t i v e t u t o r meeting. D i f f e r e n c e s a f f e c t i n g l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n . A l l t u t o r s regarded a c r u c i a l issue a f f e c t i n g l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n i n j o u r n a l s to be the impetus f o r r e f l e c t i o n . They f e l t that t u t o r s who wrote j o u r n a l s f o r t h e i r own purposes wrote the most r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l s whereas those who wrote j o u r n a l s to s a t i s f y Tom's requirement wrote the l e a s t r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l s . This supports LaBoskey's (1993) f i n d i n g that more r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l w r i t e r s were more i n t e r n a l l y motivated whereas l e s s r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l w r i t e r s r e l i e d on e x t e r n a l motivation. F e l i c i a i d e n t i f i e d lack' of time as an important.factor which reduced the r e f l e c t i v e n e s s of her j o u r n a l s . She found that she d i d not have time to w r i t e her. j o u r n a l outside of her working hours and that during her working hours she was c o n s t a n t l y i n t e r r u p t e d . Wedman et a l . (1990) a l s o found time to be an important c o n s t r a i n i n g f a c t o r i n achieving r e f l e c t i v i t y . LaBoskey (1993) found that students who were overwhelmed and d i s t r a c t e d by other concerns were r e l a t i v e l y u n r e f l e c t i v e . Tutors a l s o discussed l e v e l s of confidence i n both t u t o r i n g and j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as p o s s i b l e f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n . Levels of r e f l e c t i o n . Tutors g e n e r a l l y agreed w i t h Tom's l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n . They f e l t that i n most cases statements at Level IV were most r e f l e c t i v e and most u s e f u l whereas those at Level I were l e a s t r e f l e c t i v e and l e a s t u s e f u l . B i l l y 162 p o i n t e d out that, rather than a hierarchy, these l e v e l s represented a progression, a progression he o f t e n f o l l o w e d i n w r i t i n g a j o u r n a l segment. B i l l y a l s o suggested that perhaps Level IV was not always best. He gave the example of an experienced t u t o r who may only need to i d e n t i f y a goal f o r working w i t h a student. Once the goal i s e s t a b l i s h e d , the course of a c t i o n may be obvious to the t u t o r so any f u r t h e r w r i t i n g would not show r e f l e c t i o n . Judging j o u r n a l s . The t u t o r s f e l t that j o u r n a l s should not be judged as l e s s or more u s e f u l by the t r a i n e r . They f e l t that i f j o u r n a l s are to be f o r the t u t o r ' s own b e n e f i t , they should have f r e e r e i n to discuss whatever they choose at whatever l e v e l of r e f l e c t i o n they f e e l comfortable' w i t h . They dis c u s s e d uses f o r j o u r n a l s outside the t r a i n e r ' s goals. These i n c l u d e d personal uses f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g such as h e l p i n g t u t o r s develop t h e i r s k i l l s as students and t h e i r confidence. Ann suggested that such a l t e r n a t e uses were productive f o r t u t o r i n g because they provided "a .springboard" f o r t h i n k i n g about t u t o r i n g even i f they d i d not focus on t u t o r i n g i t s e l f . She and others f e l t that these r e f l e c t i o n s a f f e c t e d t u t o r i n g but that the e f f e c t s may be long-term rather than immediate. C o n t r o l l i n g j o u r n a l s . Generally, t u t o r s f e l t that the f r e e r j o u r n a l s are, the more u s e f u l they are. They f e l t that i f the t r a i n e r places c o n t r o l s on what t u t o r s w r i t e about, i t i s more d i f f i c u l t f o r the t u t o r s to own the task. I f the t r a i n e r does not place c o n t r o l s on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , i t i s e a s i e r f o r 163 t u t o r s to see i t as f o r t h e i r own purposes. As a r e s u l t , the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s more productive. The t h r e a t of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . A l l t u t o r s f e l t that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was threatening because i t r e q u i r e d the t u t o r to expose t h e i r weaknesses to another person. The f a c t that the reader was the boss made i t doubly threatening. Most t u t o r s f e l t that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was most threatening f o r them when they were new t u t o r s . At that, p o i n t , they were l e s s confident about t h e i r s k i l l s and l e s s secure i n the job. As new t u t o r s , they a l s o didn't r e a l l y know what was expected i n a j o u r n a l . B i l l y f e l t d i f f e r e n t l y . He found that at the beginning he was not w o r r i e d about exposing h i s weaknesses because he f e l t i t was acceptable to make mistakes when he' had. j u s t begun the job. As time went on, he f e l t that he shouldn't be making mistakes any more so was more r e l u c t a n t - t o show h i s weaknesses. Emphasis on weaknesses. In d i s c u s s i n g j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , the t u t o r s put a l o t of emphasis on the issue of w r i t i n g about t h e i r weaknesses despite the fa c t that they recognized they could l e a r n from w r i t i n g about strengths. Some f e l t that w r i t i n g about, weaknesses was more productive; they learned more from i t . Others f e l t that the emphasis on weaknesses made the task more threa t e n i n g . When asked what the t r a i n e r could do to reduce the emphasis on weaknesses, they suggested two p o s s i b i l i t i e s . F i r s t , Ann suggested that the t r a i n e r ' s use of the word " c r i t i c a l " and " c r i t i c a l l y r e f l e c t " i n the g u i d e l i n e s may have been taken by t u t o r s w i t h i t s negative connotation of 164 ' f i n d f a u l t w i t h ' as opposed to a more n e u t r a l or academic connotation. Others suggested that g i v i n g new t u t o r s examples of t u t o r j o u r n a l s showing r e f l e c t i o n on both strengths and weaknesses would help by both reducing the threat of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g f o r new t u t o r s and by showing how l o o k i n g at p o s i t i v e aspects could be achieved. B e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g worth time spent. In general, t u t o r s f e l t that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was w e l l worth the time spent on i t . Some saw both j o u r n a l w r i t i n g and att e n d i n g s t a f f meetings as u s e f u l t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s which complimented one another. Others thought that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was more u s e f u l than s t a f f meetings because j o u r n a l s d e a l t w i t h i s s u e s that were important to the i n d i v i d u a l t u t o r . They found that the issu e s d e a l t w i t h i n s t a f f meetings were o f t e n not p e r t i n e n t to t h e i r needs. They d i d not f i n d f a u l t w i t h the t r a i n e r i n t h i s . Instead, they f e l t that l e a r n i n g needs of t u t o r s were so i n d i v i d u a l i z e d that the meetings could not address the needs of a l l t u t o r s . F e l i c i a f e l t that sometimes her j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was worth the time spent on i t . When she used her j o u r n a l s f o r her own growth they were w e l l worth the time, but when she wrote them simply to s a t i s f y Tom's requirement they were not worth the time. W r i t i n g b e t t e r than d i s c u s s i o n . A l l t u t o r s present p r e f e r r e d w r i t i n g about t h e i r experiences to d i s c u s s i n g them o r a l l y . They f e l t w r i t i n g helped them c l a r i f y t h e i r ideas. They a l s o f e l t w r i t i n g was l e s s anxiety producing than speaking w i t h 165 the t r a i n e r . In the i n i t i a l data c o l l e c t i o n , only C h r i s t o p h e r mentioned t h i s b e n e f i t of the task being w r i t t e n , but a l l t u t o r s at the meeting agreed that i t was a major b e n e f i t of the task. They found w r i t i n g gave them time to t h i n k through t h e i r ideas. I t should be noted that K r i s t a , who was most uncomfortable w i t h r e f l e c t i n g i n w r i t i n g , was not present at the meeting. Diary w r i t i n g vs. • r e f l e c t i v e w r i t i n g . Some t u t o r s f e l t that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g would be e q u a l l y productive or more pro d u c t i v e i f they were j u s t asked to w r i t e a l o g or d i a r y of t h e i r t u t o r i n g experiences. They f e l t that i n w r i t i n g a l o g , they would n a t u r a l l y r e f l e c t on issues that came up. Because the task would be l e s s threatening, they f e l t they would be more f r e e to r e f l e c t n a t u r a l l y and t h e r e f o r e gain more. B i l l y suggested that such an approach might work w i t h experienced j o u r n a l w r i t e r s but that new tutors' might see'the task as a mechanical one and not r e f l e c t on t h e i r . e x p e r i e n c e s . T a l k i n g about j o u r n a l s . A l l t u t o r s f e l t that t a l k i n g about t h e i r j o u r n a l s w i t h me had been very u s e f u l . I t had focused them again on t h e i r experiences, and my questions had prompted them to r e f l e c t more deeply. In the semester si n c e I had completed the i n i t i a l data c o l l e c t i o n , Tom had given t u t o r s o p p o r t u n i t i e s to read each o t h e r s ' j o u r n a l s and comment on them. However, t u t o r s f e l t that t a l k i n g about t h e i r own j o u r n a l s was more u s e f u l and encouraged.more r e f l e c t i o n than reading and t a l k i n g about the j o u r n a l s of others. 166 F i n a l Trainer Interview F o l l o w i n g the c o l l a b o r a t i v e t u t o r meeting, I met w i t h Tom f o r a f i n a l i n t e r v i e w . P r i o r to the i n t e r v i e w , I had provided him w i t h the p r o f i l e s of a l l t u t o r s and a summary of key f i n d i n g s i n the c o l l a b o r a t i v e t u t o r meeting. In p r e p a r a t i o n f o r the i n t e r v i e w , I asked him to read the p r o f i l e s and the summary and consider what new i n s i g h t s he had gained concerning how to best approach j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n the l e a r n i n g centre. The i n t e r v i e w , which l a s t e d f o r about an hour, was focused on h i s developing understandings. However, I a l s o made suggestions about some of the i m p l i c a t i o n s I saw i n the research. I audiotaped and l a t e r t r a n s c r i b e d the i n t e r v i e w . F i n a l Trainer Interview: Findings Below, I describe Tom's perspect i v e on issues r a i s e d i n the p r o f i l e s and the c o l l a b o r a t i v e t u t o r meeting. Tom's per s p e c t i v e was that j o u r n a l s worked w e l l f o r some t u t o r s . However, f o r other t u t o r s they seemed l e s s u s e f u l . He f e l t a key iss u e was how to make the task more u s e f u l f o r those who d i d not take to the approach e a s i l y . Noting the d i f f e r e n c e s between t u t o r s evident i n the j o u r n a l p r o f i l e s , Tom f e l t that some degree of i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n was needed. He f e l t t u t o r s should have more choice of when to hand j o u r n a l s i n and how to do them. A major concern of Tom's was how to give t u t o r s i n t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . He suggested that t h i s might be achieved through how j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was introduced and how 167 j o u r n a l s were used a f t e r completion. Tom f e l t the g u i d e l i n e s he had used f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g needed adaptation. He f e l t they should be simpler and use language that was "not so heavy". He thought that the e x i s t i n g g u i d e l i n e s confused t u t o r s and that an adapted v e r s i o n should be much shor t e r , j u s t i d e n t i f y i n g ' a few key questions. He a l s o suggested other s t r a t e g i e s that he f e l t would introduce j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n a more f r u i t f u l way. He suggested that a key i s s u e was to represent j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as "an opportunity f o r growth" rather than "a way to improve" (I-T-Apr.26). He f e l t h i s previous emphasis on improvement had encouraged t u t o r s to focus on weakness and had rendered the task negative f o r some t u t o r s . Another poin t he r a i s e d was the importance of t r a i n i n g t u t o r s to do journal' w r i t i n g . He f e l t i t would be u s e f u l to provide new t u t o r s w i t h a range of examples of previous t u t o r j o u r n a l s . These j o u r n a l s could show t u t o r s the p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as w e l l as g i v e them models on which to base t h e i r i n i t i a l j o u r n a l s . He a l s o f e l t that g i v i n g t u t o r s the hierarchy of l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n would be u s e f u l . He f e l t t u t o r s should w r i t e at whatever l e v e l they wanted but that they could use the h i e r a r c h y to measure t h e i r own r e f l e c t i v i t y . This strategy would maximize choice and encourage t u t o r s to be r e f l e c t i v e about t h e i r own j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Hopefully, i t would increase t u t o r s ' i n t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Tom f e l t that j o u r n a l s should be used a f t e r they were 168 w r i t t e n . One way he f e l t they should be used was as a focus f o r d i s c u s s i o n between the t u t o r / j o u r n a l w r i t e r and the t r a i n e r . P a r t i c u l a r l y f o r those t u t o r s who seemed to gain l i t t l e from j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , he thought i f he interviewed t u t o r s about t h e i r j o u r n a l s that he could push them to higher l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n . He noted the b e n e f i t s that t u t o r s had gained from the process of being in t e r v i e w e d . f o r my. research. One concern he had about t h i s approach was the heavy demand i t would place on h i s time. Tom a l s o f e l t that j o u r n a l s should be shared among t u t o r s . He had done a b i t of that the previous semester and he f e l t that i t was productive. Also, i f i t were done s y s t e m a t i c a l l y he f e l t that t u t o r s could be motivated by the opportunity to share t h e i r ideas. He d i d have concerns, however, that some t u t o r s might use t h e i r j o u r n a l s more to show o f f than to r e f l e c t . I .suggested to Tom an idea of my own about how j o u r n a l s could be used e f f e c t i v e l y i n the l e a r n i n g centre context. Basing my argument on the b e n e f i t s of my i n t e r v i e w i n g t u t o r s about t h e i r j o u r n a l s , I suggested that t u t o r s might b e n e f i t most from t a l k i n g about t h e i r own j o u r n a l s as opposed to d i s c u s s i n g those of others. One of the other focuses of t u t o r t r a i n i n g was teaching t u t o r s to question students about t h e i r papers i n a way that the students and not the t u t o r provided the ideas. I suggested that t u t o r s could t e l l about is s u e s i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s and that other t u t o r s could question them w i t h the goal of h e l p i n g them think more deeply about the i s s u e s . 16 Tom was e n t h u s i a s t i c about t h i s idea.. He suggested that during i n i t i a l t r a i n i n g f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i t might be u s e f u l f o r t u t o r s to r e v i s e t h e i r j o u r n a l s a f t e r t a l k i n g about them. This would give them experience both w i t h more r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l w r i t i n g and wit h i n c o r p o r a t i n g new ideas i n t o a piece of w r i t i n g , something that t h e i r students f r e q u e n t l y had to do f o l l o w i n g t u t o r i n g sessions. He f e l t that once t h i s i n i t i a l phase was over, the r e v i s i o n phase of the task could be dropped. W r i t i n g the Study I wrote the study using the p r o f i l e s i n s t e a d of the complete body of data. This had both b e n e f i t s and l i m i t a t i o n s . One b e n e f i t was that I was working from an organized body of data. The process of w r i t i n g the study became one of amalgamating the data from the p r o f i l e s and t h e o r i z i n g on the b a s i s of the. amalgamation. • Another b e n e f i t was that the i n d i v i d u a l p r o f i l e s helped me to r e t a i n the vo i c e s of a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s . Opie (1992) as s e r t s that i n . o r d e r to avo i d a p p r o p r i a t i o n : the w r i t e r should consciously attempt to move away from a uniform t e x t u a l surface which represents only the researcher's v o i c e , to the c r e a t i o n of a report which i s more f i s s u r e d , that i s , one i n which d i f f e r e n t and o f t e n competing voices w i t h i n a s o c i e t y are recognized, (p. 58) The p r o f i l e s helped me avoid the tendency to lo s e s i g h t of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and d i s s e n t i n g data. The major 170 l i m i t a t i o n of the approach was that some data that would have a p t l y supported my l i n e s of t h i n k i n g was u n a v a i l a b l e to me. However, I f e e l t h i s d i d not have a major impact on the study. The c o l l a b o r a t i v e t u t o r meeting and the f i n a l t u t o r i n t e r v i e w a l s o provided data f o r the study. However, a c r u c i a l aspect of these meetings was the d i f f e r i n g p e r s p e c t i v e s they introduced to the data as a whole. These p e r s p e c t i v e s a s s i s t e d me i n my a n a l y s i s . For example, B i l l y ' s comment that perhaps higher l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n are not always the most u s e f u l f o r a l l t u t o r s encouraged me to reconsider the i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y of r e f l e c t i o n as opposed to i t s p o s i t i o n i n g i n terms of l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n . Conclusion Roman and Apple (1990) assert that: v a l i d research must use a methodology that (1) resonates w i t h the l i v e d experiences of the.group being researched, (2) enables members of the group to comprehend and transform t h e i r experiences of subordination, (3) reduces the d i v i d e between the researcher's i n t e l l e c t u a l work and group members' ordinary ways of d e s c r i b i n g and understanding t h e i r experiences, and (4) allows the researcher's p r i o r t h e o r e t i c a l and p o l i t i c a l commitments to be informed and transformed by understandings d e r i v e d from the group's experiences. (Eisenhart & Howe, 1992, p. 652-3) Although Roman and Apple work w i t h i n the c r i t i c a l i s t t r a d i t i o n , 171 t h e i r standards f o r v a l i d i t y are appropriate f o r a l l research w i t h emancipatory goals. In doing t h i s research, I have attempted to meet these goals. Eisenhart and Howe (1992) suggest that one standard f o r v a l i d e d u cational research i s the e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l value c o n s t r a i n t s of the research. B y - i n t e r n a l value c o n s t r a i n t s they mean the value of the research for- improving e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e . This study, by e l u c i d a t i n g the p e r s p e c t i v e s of j o u r n a l w r i t e r s on t h e i r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e s , enables p r a c t i t i o n e r s to approach j o u r n a l w r i t i n g w i t h a more complete understanding of the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of t h e i r p r a c t i c e on t h e i r students. By i n t e r n a l value c o n s t r a i n t s , Eisenhart and Howe r e f e r .to research e t h i c s . In t h i s study, not only d i d I make every attempt to provide p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h the opportunity to r e f u s e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study and to remove data from the study, but I a l s o attempted to make t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n of value to them. There i s ample evidence i n the study that t h i s aspect of the research was h i g h l y s u c c e s s f u l . 172 CHAPTER FOUR DISCUSSION In t h i s chapter, I discuss some f i n d i n g s of the study and l i n k those f i n d i n g s to those of other researchers. I d i s c u s s the content and l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n i n t u t o r j o u r n a l s and the r o l e of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n r e f l e c t i o n . From these, I draw i m p l i c a t i o n s of the study f o r educators and researchers. Findings Content and Levels of R e f l e c t i o n of Journals In the study, t u t o r s ' choices of content and types of r e f l e c t i o n were a f f e c t e d by a number of f a c t o r s . These f a c t o r s are discussed below. Understanding of the task. Tutors' understandings of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task a f f e c t e d t h e i r choices. For example, e a r l y i n the study tutors'understood the task to be one of r e p o r t i n g and so r e f l e c t e d l i t t l e at higher l e v e l s . A f t e r Tom had provided the g u i d e l i n e s , t u t o r s changed t h e i r perceptions of the task. S p e c i f i c aspects of the g u i d e l i n e s then seemed to impact t u t o r s i n t h e i r choices of what and how to w r i t e . For example, a key question i n the g u i d e l i n e s was "What have you learned?". Christopher took t h i s to mean he could d i s c u s s h i s own l e a r n i n g without s p e c i f i c reference to t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e . However, that was not the i n t e n t i o n of the t r a i n e r . S p e c i f i c word choices i n the g u i d e l i n e s were c i t e d by both the t r a i n e r and the t u t o r s as e f f e c t i n g a negative, weakness-oriented approach to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Tom saw "become a b e t t e r t u t o r " 173 and Ann saw the term " c r i t i c a l " as encouraging t u t o r s to see j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as a way of mending something that was o r i g i n a l l y flawed. The negative o r i e n t a t i o n of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g prompt may have encouraged t u t o r s to see j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as a remedial rather than a growth-oriented task. Furthermore, Tom suggested that the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g g u i d e l i n e s may have been too complicated and therefore were hard f o r t u t o r s to understand. K r i s t a c e r t a i n l y appeared to have some d i f f i c u l t y understanding the prompt. Once she had c l a r i f i e d her understanding of the task, she began to w r i t e more r e f l e c t i v e l y . These f i n d i n g s would seem to support the contention of Wedman and Martin (1986) that l a c k of r e f l e c t i o n on the part of students may be due i n part to weaknesses i n the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g prompt. Impetus f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Tutors who found t h e i r own purposes f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g seemed to r e f l e c t more on t h e i r p r a c t i c e a n d . r e f l e c t at higher l e v e l s . Those who d i d the task .only because i t was required by the- t r a i n e r wrote l e s s r e f l e c t i v e l y . This supports LaBoskey's (1993) f i n d i n g that more r e f l e c t i v e students had i n t e r n a l motivation whereas l e s s r e f l e c t i v e students were e x t e r n a l l y motivated. One f a c t o r which seemed to a f f e c t some t u t o r s ' motivation was t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of the locus of c o n t r o l . At l e a s t one t u t o r p e r c e i v e d the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g g u i d e l i n e s as t a k i n g away her c o n t r o l . This suggests that f o r some t u t o r s a j o u r n a l w r i t i n g prompt which introduces expectations of the t r a i n e r may encourage j o u r n a l 174 w r i t e r s to see the task as e x t e r n a l l y motivated and c o n t r o l l e d . I t may a l s o be that t u t o r s who are new to t u t o r i n g have a more inst r u m e n t a l need f o r r e f l e c t i o n whereas some of those who have more experience may f i n d i t more d i f f i c u l t to f i n d i n t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n f o r r e f l e c t i o n . F e e l i n g s of v u l n e r a b i l i t y . Hatton and Smith (1995) suggest that f e e l i n g s of v u l n e r a b i l i t y may cause t u t o r s to self-blame f o r t h e i r perceived inadequacies, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the locus of c o n t r o l i s seen as e x t e r n a l to themselves. Tutors i n the study who were most e x t e r n a l l y motivated, a l s o tended to be those t u t o r s who were anxious to avoid r e v e a l i n g t h e i r weaknesses to the t r a i n e r . This l e d them to avoid w r i t i n g about iss u e s they, saw as r e f l e c t i n g n e g a t i v e l y on t h e i r a b i l i t i e s . I t a l s o seemed to lead tutor's to choose what to w r i t e about w i t h an eye both to b o l s t e r i n g t h e i r . f l a g g i n g confidence and to making a good impression on the trainer.. ' Personal h i s t o r y . Tutors' v a r i e d backgrounds seemed to a f f e c t choices about what to w r i t e and how to w r i t e about i t . In C hristopher's case, h i s c u l t u r a l background, h i s own language l e a r n i n g experience and h i s teacher t r a i n i n g and experience a f f e c t e d h i s choices. In K r i s t a ' s case, her f e e l i n g s of being e x p l o i t e d i n her previous work experiences encouraged her to focus on issues of how to work wi t h students without being "used" by them. P a r t i c u l a r l y new t u t o r s who had experienced r e l a t e d r o l e s such as those of teacher, p r i v a t e t u t o r , f e l l o w student, language l e a r n e r and p r o f e s s i o n a l e d i t o r 175 tended to explore the t u t o r r o l e i n r e l a t i o n to those more f a m i l i a r r o l e s . Kennedy (1991; c i t e d i n Freeman, 1993) notes that l e a r n e r s " i n t e r p r e t new content through t h e i r e x i s t i n g understandings and modify and r e i n t e r p r e t new ideas on the b a s i s of what they already know and b e l i e v e " (p. 495). Both content and r e f l e c t i o n are a f f e c t e d by t u t o r s ' p r i o r knowledge and b e l i e f s . As LaBoskey•(1993) shows, these p r i o r understandings a f f e c t how r e a d i l y and i n what way students undertake r e f l e c t i v e tasks. Tut o r i n g experience. Tutors' p r i o r and current experience of t u t o r i n g a l s o a f f e c t e d t h e i r j o u r n a l s . For example, new t u t o r s seemed to focus t h e i r j o u r n a l s more on t h e i r r o l e s as t u t o r s whereas experienced t u t o r s tended to focus more on t h e i r r e a c t i o n s to t u t o r i n g experiences. Two of- the more experienced t u t o r s a l s o tended to have d i f f i c u l t y i n coming up w i t h things to w r i t e about that they f e l t were worthy of r e f l e c t i o n . Some degree of c o g n i t i v e dissonance and ambiguity has been seen as needed f o r r e f l e c t i v e o p p o r t u n i t i e s to lead to growth (McAlpine, 1992; Gipe & Richards, 1992; Pape & Smith, 1991). This study would seem to support t h i s contention. Two of the more experienced t u t o r s had d i f f i c u l t y d e c i d i n g what to w r i t e about i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s because everything seemed so much the same. This was p a r t i c u l a r l y true of F e l i c i a , many of whose students were working on papers f o r one course. She regarded her t u t o r i n g sessions as not worthy of r e f l e c t i o n because they were a l l the same. Current t u t o r i n g experience a l s o a f f e c t e d 176 choices of what to w r i t e and how to w r i t e about i t . Christopher, f o r example, who d i d l i t t l e w r i t i n g t u t o r i n g , wrote l e s s about w r i t i n g t u t o r i n g than the other t u t o r s . In Christopher's case, however, t h i s lack of p r a c t i c e a l s o a f f e c t e d how he wrote about w r i t i n g t u t o r i n g . He wrote about w r i t i n g t u t o r i n g on a more abst r a c t l e v e l than the other t u t o r s . Time. Many of the t u t o r s i n the study had heavy workloads. The two t u t o r s who had the most time, Ann and B i l l y , were the most r e f l e c t i v e i n t h e i r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . This would seem to support the contention of Wedman et a l . (1990) that time i s a c r u c i a l f a c t o r i n the a b i l i t y to r e f l e c t . LaBoskey (1993) a l s o found that haying a l o t of d i s t r a c t i o n s seemed to d e t r a c t from the a b i l i t y to r e f l e c t . Preference f o r w r i t i n g as a mode of l e a r n i n g . Most t u t o r s i n the study l i k e d r e f l e c t i n g i n w r i t i n g . I t should be noted, however, that t u t o r s were h i r e d i n part on the s t r e n g t h of t h e i r w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s . . They found that w r i t i n g allowed them to c l a r i f y and think through t h e i r ideas before passing them on to the t r a i n e r . They found the r e c u r s i v e and s e l f - p a c e d aspects of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g helped them r e f l e c t . These b e n e f i t s of r e f l e c t i o n through w r i t i n g support Emig's (1977) d e s c r i p t i o n of the ways i n which w r i t i n g f o s t e r s l e a r n i n g which I d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter Two. K r i s t a , however, d i d not f i n d w r i t i n g a comfortable mode f o r r e f l e c t i o n . This supports F u l w i l e r ' s (1982; c i t e d i n C a r s w e l l , 1988) contention that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g 177 i s not f o r everyone. M u l t i p l i c i t y of purposes f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Although j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was portrayed by the t r a i n e r as having the so l e purpose of h e l p i n g t u t o r s b e t t e r t h e i r t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e s , a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study used j o u r n a l s f o r other purposes as w e l l . For example, t u t o r s used t h e i r j o u r n a l s to communicate w i t h the t r a i n e r , to make a good impression on the t r a i n e r and to create a record of t u t o r i n g f o r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y purposes. The t r a i n e r used j o u r n a l s as a t o o l f o r needs assessment and f o r s u p e r v i s i o n . This m u l t i p l i c i t y of purposes had outcomes i n t u t o r choices about what to put i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . J o u r n a l segments that were l e a s t r e f l e c t i v e were o f t e n seen as f u l f i l l i n g purposes other than r e f l e c t i o n on p r a c t i c e . Role of Journal W r i t i n g i n R e f l e c t i o n As i n other studies (e.g. Ho & Richards, 1 9 9 3 ; J a r v i s , 1 9 9 2 ; C a r s w e l l , 1 9 8 8 ) , most t u t o r s f e l t , t h a t j o u r n a l w r i t i n g a s s i s t e d them i n r e f l e c t i n g on t h e i r p r a c t i c e , K r i s t a was the only t u t o r who was ambiguous about the b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . A l l other t u t o r s ranged from p o s i t i v e to very p o s i t i v e about the b e n e f i t s of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. The t r a i n e r was more s c e p t i c a l . He f e l t that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was very b e n e f i c i a l to B i l l y and Ann but that the b e n e f i t s to the other t u t o r s were l e s s c l e a r . This d i f f e r e n c e i n perception of the b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g between the t r a i n e r and the t u t o r s can be a t t r i b u t e d , at l e a s t i n p a r t , to the d i f f e r i n g l e v e l s of access of the 178 t r a i n e r and the t u t o r s to the b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . The t r a i n e r based h i s understanding of the b e n e f i t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g on the j o u r n a l s themselves whereas the t u t o r s were aware of b e n e f i t s that were not apparent from studying the j o u r n a l s . The j o u r n a l s provided imperfect evidence of the r e f l e c t i o n the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task i n i t i a t e d . This study has i d e n t i f i e d a number of f a c t o r s which confounded accurate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t u t o r t h i n k i n g i n i t i a t e d by j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . These i n c l u d e d r e p o r t i n g of p r i o r r e f l e c t i o n , incomplete r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of r e f l e c t i o n and use of r h e t o r i c a l devices which masked r e f l e c t i o n . R h e t o r i c a l issues may be p a r t i c u l a r l y important f a c t o r s i n assessing j o u r n a l s w r i t t e n by second language w r i t e r s . A f u r t h e r confounding f a c t o r was that t u t o r s o f t e n continued to r e f l e c t a f t e r completing t h e i r j o u r n a l s . Continued r e f l e c t i o n a f t e r the completion of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was o f t e n focused on the a p p l i c a t i o n of r e f l e c t i o n to t u t o r i n g p r a c t i c e . This instrumental impetus f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g seemed to be important i n encouraging f u r t h e r r e f l e c t i o n . These f i n d i n g s tend to confirm the assumption (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Richards and Lockhart, 1994; J a r v i s , 1992) that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g encourages more r e f l e c t i o n than i s evident from the j o u r n a l s themselves. Besides n a t u r a l l y r e f l e c t i n g f u r t h e r on i s s u e s , t u t o r s a l s o reached higher l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n when they di s c u s s e d t h e i r t h i n k i n g about j o u r n a l segments i n i n t e r v i e w s f o r the 179 study. This outcome suggests that follow-up to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g should focus on t u t o r s t e l l i n g about t h e i r t h i n k i n g . B e n e f i t s of r e v i s i t i n g issues w r i t t e n about i n j o u r n a l s were increased when t u t o r s were asked probing questions geared to push them to higher level's of r e f l e c t i o n . Such probing questions may have provided the moderate l e v e l s of c o g n i t i v e dissonance which are recommended by researchers (McAlpine, 1992; Gipe & Richards, 1992; Pape & Smith, 1991). This i s a l s o i n keeping w i t h P u l t o r a k ' s (1993) f i n d i n g s that s i t u a t i o n s i n which an i n t e r v i e w e r asked questions geared to increase higher order r e f l e c t i o n pushed students to r e f l e c t at higher l e v e l s . I m p l i c a t i o n s of the Study The goal of t h i s study was to explore the perceptions of j o u r n a l w r i t e r s i n order to b e t t e r understand the r o l e of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n t u t o r s ' r e f l e c t i o n s on t h e i r t u t o r i n g experiences.. Due to the l i m i t e d number of p a r t i c i p a n t s and the context-bound nature of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g .task, c a u t i o n i s needed i n a s c r i b i n g these perceptions to other j o u r n a l w r i t e r s i n other s i t u a t i o n s . However, t h i s study suggests a number of i s s u e s which have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t u t o r t r a i n e r s , teacher educators and researchers. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Tutor Trainers and Teacher Educators The study suggests a number of issues which may be u s e f u l f o r teacher educators and t u t o r t r a i n e r s to consider i n developing t h e i r approaches to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . These issues may be p a r t i c u l a r l y apt f o r those working w i t h practicum-180 j o u r n a l s and other p r a c t i c e - o r i e n t e d j o u r n a l s . F i r s t , c o n s t r u c t i o n of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g prompt should i n c l u d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s : 1. What i m p l i c i t a t t i t u d e s to l e a r n i n g through r e f l e c t i o n does the prompt convey: remedial or growth-oriented? A growth-o r i e n t e d approach may discourage'the tendency f o r j o u r n a l w r i t e r s to focus on weaknesses. 2. Does the prompt make e x p l i c i t the content areas deemed by the educator to be appropriate f o r r e f l e c t i o n ? Tutors i n t h i s study argued that they should be fre e to r e f l e c t on whatever aspects of the experience they f e l t were worthwhile. However, i f educators have s p e c i f i c content areas which they want students to focus on, the prompt should be e x p l i c i t about what those areas are. 3 . Does the prompt make the purpose of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g c l e a r ? A c l e a r understanding of the purpose of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g appears to a s s i s t students to r e f l e c t on t h e i r p r a c t i c e . 4 . Are there other purposes f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g which are unacknowledged but which may a f f e c t j o u r n a l w r i t i n g ? Non-r e f l e c t i v e purposes, st a t e d or unstated, may encourage non-r e f l e c t i v e w r i t i n g . 5 . How can j o u r n a l w r i t e r s be encouraged to f i n d i n t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g ? I t may be that a task prompt which provides f l e x i b i l i t y and which encourages j o u r n a l w r i t e r s to evaluate t h e i r own j o u r n a l w r i t i n g can increase i n t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n . Wedman et a l . ' (1990). suggest that students should 181 l e a r n to recognize the d i f f e r e n c e between r o u t i n e and r e f l e c t i v e thoughts. The t r a i n e r i n t h i s study a l s o f e l t that the a b i l i t y to assess l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n would a i d t u t o r s i n reaching higher l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n and encourage them to f i n d i n t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n f o r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Second, i t must be assumed that j o u r n a l s do not provide access f o r the t r a i n e r to a l l the r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g that the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task engenders. I f a purpose of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s to i n some way measure l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n of j o u r n a l w r i t e r s , j o u r n a l w r i t i n g may not be a u s e f u l task. Any attempt to measure the usefulness of the task should i n c l u d e c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h j o u r n a l w r i t e r s . I f , however, the goal i s to encourage j o u r n a l w r i t e r s to r e f l e c t on and l e a r n from t h e i r experiences, j o u r n a l w r i t i n g may be a very u s e f u l task even though a l l the b e n e f i t s of the task may not be apparent to the t r a i n e r . T h i r d , j o u r n a l w r i t i n g may best be. approached as a process r a t h e r than as the c r e a t i o n of products. Anderson (1993) notes that he does not mark jo u r n a l s f o r s y n t a c t i c and usage problems because he regards j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as w r i t i n g that i s " i n process" (p. 305). This study suggests that Anderson's approach to surface features of j o u r n a l s i s e q u a l l y appropriate f o r i s s u e s of content and l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n . Yinger (1990; c i t e d i n Copeland et a l . , 1993) describes r e f l e c t i o n as "an ongoing conversation of p r a c t i c e " (p. 349). R e f l e c t i o n s engendered by j o u r n a l w r i t i n g may be increased through o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r 182 f u r t h e r r e f l e c t i o n on issues w r i t t e n about i n j o u r n a l s . The study suggests that one way to increase the p o t e n t i a l of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g f o r i n i t i a t i n g r e f l e c t i v e thought i s to use j o u r n a l s as the focus of d i s c u s s i o n . Journal w r i t e r s expand on ideas they have begun to develop i n j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as a r e s u l t of r e f o c u s i n g on the i s s u e s . Questions.designed to push j o u r n a l w r i t e r s to higher l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n may increase the b e n e f i t s of the task. Some researchers (Hatton & Smith, 1 9 9 5 ; Hoover, 1994 ) suggest that c o l l a b o r a t i v e approaches to r e f l e c t i o n encourage students to problematize t h e i r p r a c t i c e . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Research The study attempted to f i l l two gaps i n the l i t e r a t u r e . F i r s t , l i t e r a t u r e on t u t o r t r a i n i n g and j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s scarce. This study helps to b u i l d a foundation f o r f u r t h e r research i n t h i s area. Second, the study c o n t r i b u t e s to the l i t e r a t u r e of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n education by examining j o u r n a l w r i t i n g from the • perspectives of j o u r n a l writers'. Yinger' and C l a r k (1985) assert that an apt metaphor f o r j o u r n a l s i s that they are "a window" (p. 28) on the t h i n k i n g of j o u r n a l w r i t e r s . This study provides evidence i n support of Yinger and C l a r k ' s a s s e r t i o n . However, i t a l s o suggests that the window i s imperfect i n a number of ways. F i r s t , the window i s o f t e n small compared to the s i z e of the room. In f a c t , through the window i t i s impossible to t e l l whether the room i s l a r g e or s m a l l . For example, i n t h i s study, one of the most r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l w r i t e r s had a l a r g e window; h i s j o u r n a l s 183 gave a f a i r l y accurate p i c t u r e of the t h i n k i n g he d i d as a r e s u l t of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. The other h i g h l y r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l w r i t e r had a large window on an even l a r g e r room. Her j o u r n a l s represented only a small p o r t i o n of the r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task engendered. Second, j o u r n a l w r i t e r s o f t e n obscure the window. Sometimes they p u l l the c u r t a i n to achieve p r i v a c y . This may be because they are unready to share t h e i r t h i n k i n g or because they f e e l s h a r i ng t h e i r t h i n k i n g may put them at r i s k . Other times they d i s p l a y things i n the window that serve to obscure things behind. For example, they w r i t e to please the teacher and thereby avoid w r i t i n g about problems. On other occasions, they i n a d v e r t e n t l y hide a c l e a r view of the room. Their t h i n k i n g i s masked by t h e i r r h e t o r i c a l choices. Researchers have used j o u r n a l s to measure j o u r n a l w r i t e r s ' p r o c l i v i t y and a b i l i t y to r e f l e c t on t h e i r p r a c t i c e . This study c a l l s i n t o question any measure of r e f l e c t i v i t y based s o l e l y on the evidence of j o u r n a l s . I t - suggests.that c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h j o u r n a l w r i t e r s may be needed i f researchers are to access the r e f l e c t i o n s of j o u r n a l w r i t e r s engendered by the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task. Yinger and C l a r k (1985) acknowledge that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g " i s an imperfect instrument f o r l e a r n i n g about human thought" (p. 28). However, they assert that using j o u r n a l s to understand the t h i n k i n g of j o u r n a l w r i t e r s involves l i t t l e danger of s e r i o u s e r r o r . This may be true i n most cases. However, I 184 a s s e r t that using j o u r n a l s to understand the e f f e c t s of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g on r e f l e c t i v i t y can lead to serious e r r o r . P u b l i c a t i o n of s t u d i e s which assume that j o u r n a l s provide an accurate measure of the r e f l e c t i o n s engendered by the task may lead p r a c t i t i o n e r s to abandon the use of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as a task f o r encouraging r e f l e c t i o n on p r a c t i c e . This study provides evidence that j o u r n a l w r i t i n g can be much more u s e f u l f o r encouraging r e f l e c t i o n than j o u r n a l s themselves i n d i c a t e . Researchers must b e . c a r e f u l i n how they present data about j o u r n a l s so as not to mislead readers. The l i m i t a t i o n s of j o u r n a l s f o r measuring r e f l e c t i o n must be acknowledged. The study a l s o suggests some areas f o r f u r t h e r research. These i n c l u d e : S t r a t e g i e s f o r i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n of j o u r n a l w r i t e r s . In t h i s study, lack of i n t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n was seen as an important f a c t o r leading to lower r e f l e c t i v i t y i n t u t o r j o u r n a l s . Various s t r a t e g i e s f o r i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n were suggested. These included reducing the c o n t r o l provided by the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g prompt, c h a l l e n g i n g assumptions of t u t o r s through feedback or d i s c u s s i o n and g i v i n g t u t o r s the r o l e of e v a l u a t i n g t h e i r own j o u r n a l s f o r r e f l e c t i v i t y . The ethnographic approach and l i m i t e d time d u r a t i o n of t h i s study d i d not a l l o w f o r an assessment of the usefulness of these v a r i o u s approaches. Studies of the e f f e c t s of these approaches would c o n t r i b u t e information valuable to p r a c t i t i o n e r s . 185 The e f f e c t s of various c o l l a b o r a t i v e approaches as f o l l o w up to j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . This study shows that t u t o r s can f u r t h e r t h e i r t h i n k i n g about j o u r n a l w r i t i n g issues by t a l k i n g about t h e i r t h i n k i n g a f t e r they have completed t h e i r j o u r n a l s . My in t e r v i e w s w i t h t u t o r s gave them t h i s opportunity. Previous s t u d i e s and p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study suggest that t u t o r s ' s h a r i n g of t h e i r ideas about t u t o r i n g w i t h each other would be b e n e f i c i a l . Further research i n t o the a b i l i t y of peers to push j o u r n a l w r i t e r s to higher l e v e l s of r e f l e c t i o n would develop the understandings gained through t h i s study. Furthermore, the co-worker r e l a t i o n s h i p among t u t o r s i n t h i s study may a f f e c t t u t o r s ' a b i l i t y or p r o c l i v i t y to cooperate w i t h one another. As f e l l o w students, t e a c h e r s - i n - t r a i n i n g may react d i f f e r e n t l y to c o l l a b o r a t i v e opportunities.- Thus, studies examining the e f f e c t s of c o l l a b o r a t i n g f o r f u r t h e r r e f l e c t i o n should be c a r r i e d out with' both t u t o r s and t e a c h e r s - i n - t r a i n i n g . The r o l e of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n encouraging r e f l e c t i o n on no n - p r a c t i c e - o r i e n t e d i s s u e s . In t h i s study, the in s t r u m e n t a l value of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g appeared to encourage t u t o r s to r e f l e c t f u r t h e r on t h e i r p r a c t i c e . Journals which are not focused on p r a c t i c e may not i n i t i a t e as much f u r t h e r r e f l e c t i o n as was evident i n the study. Studies examining the perceptions and t h i n k i n g around j o u r n a l w r i t i n g of w r i t e r s of other types of r e f l e c t i v e j o u r n a l s such as academic j o u r n a l s would serve to c l a r i f y the importance of the motivation of on-going p r a c t i c e i n i n i t i a t i n g f u r t h e r r e f l e c t i o n on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s s u e s . 186 Conclusion This c o l l a b o r a t i v e study of t u t o r perceptions of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task and the r o l e of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n encouraging r e f l e c t i o n on p r a c t i c e was important to me, but i t a l s o p o s i t i v e l y a f f e c t e d the outcomes of the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task i n the l e a r n i n g • c e n t r e . The t u t o r t r a i n e r b e n e f i t e d through the opportunity to r e f l e c t on h i s purposes i n using the j o u r n a l w r i t i n g task and h i s c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the r e l a t i v e value of d i f f e r e n t types of t u t o r r e f l e c t i o n s i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s . Tutors b e n e f i t e d through i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r understanding of the c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e i r j o u r n a l w r i t i n g and through f u r t h e r i n g t h e i r t h i n k i n g on j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i s s u e s . I have attempted to w r i t e t h i s t h e s i s i n such a way that p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l continue to gain from t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n by having access to the r e s u l t s of t h e i r c o l l a b o r a t i o n . The p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the t r a i n e r and the t u t o r s not only i n p r o v i d i n g . t h e data f o r the study, but a l s o i n c o n t r i b u t i n g to the a n a l y s i s of that data strengthened the study. Their c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the a n a l y s i s served to h i g h l i g h t i s s u e s which I otherwise might have overlooked or which I might have seen as l e s s important. This experience underlines f o r me the importance of a c o l l a b o r a t i v e approach i n research p u r p o r t i n g to explore perceptions of p a r t i c i p a n t s . 187 References Anderson, J . (1993). Journal w r i t i n g : The promise and the r e a l i t y . Journal of Reading, 35(4), 304-309. B a r t l e t t , L. (1990). Teacher development through r e f l e c t i v e teaching. In J.C. Richards and D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 202-214). Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y . B o l i n , F.S. (1988) . Helping student teachers t h i n k about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 48-54. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . What i s r e f l e c t i o n i n l e a r n i n g . In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), R e f l e c t i o n : Turning experience into learning (pp. 7-17). New York: N i c h o l s . Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985a). Promoting r e f l e c t i o n i n l e a r n i n g : a model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 18-39). NewYork: N i c h o l s . Calderhead, J . , & Gates, P. ( 1 9 9 3 ) . Conceptualizing r e f l e c t i o n in teacher development. Washington DC: Falmer Press. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Knowing through action research. V i c t o r i a , Aus.: Deakin U n i v e r s i t y . C a r s w e l l , R. J . B. (1988). Journals i n a graduate c u r r i c u l u m course. English Quarterly, 21(2), 104-114. Connelly, F.J. and D.J. C l a n d i n i n (1990). S t o r i e s of experience and n a r r a t i v e i n q u i r y . Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2-14 . Copeland, W. D., Birmingham, C , De La Cruz, E., & Lewin, B. (1993). The r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i o n e r i n teaching: toward a research agenda. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(4), 347-359. Cruickshank, D.R., & Applegate,- J . H. (1981). R e f l e c t i v e teaching as a strategy f o r teacher growth. Educational Leadership, 38, 553-554. Dewey, J . (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery. Ei s e n h a r t , M. A., & Howe, K-. R. (1992). V a l i d i t y i n edu c a t i o n a l research. In M. LeCompte et a l . (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative.Research in Education '(pp. 644-680) . San Diego: Academic Press. E i s n e r , E. W. (1988). The primacy; of experience and the p o l i t i c s of method. Educational Researcher, 17(5), 15-20. Emig, J . (1977) . W r i t i n g as a mode of l e a r n i n g . College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128. Freeman, D. (1993). Renaming experience/ r e c o n s t r u c t i n g p r a c t i c e : developing new understandings of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(5/6), 485-497. F r e i r e , P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. F u l w i l e r , T. (1980). Journals across the d i s c i p l i n e s . English Journal, 69(9), 14-19. 189 Gipe, J . P., & Richards, J.C. (1992). R e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g and growth i n novices' teaching a b i l i t i e s . Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 52-57. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g . Gorden, R. L. (1975). Interviewing: Strategies, techniques and tactics. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: P r i n c i p l e s in Practice. New York: Routledge. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). R e f l e c t i o n i n teacher education: towards d e f i n i t i o n and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49. Ho, B., & Richards, J . (1993). R e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g through teacher j o u r n a l w r i t i n g : myths and r e a l i t i e s . Prospect, 8(3), 7-24. Hoover, L. A. (1994). R e f l e c t i v e w r i t i n g as a window on p r e s e r v i c e teachers' thought processes. Teaching and Teacher Education,. 10(1),.83-93. J a r v i s , J . (1992) . Using d i a r i e s f o r teacher r e f l e c t i o n on i n -s e r v i c e courses. ELT Journal, 46(2) A p r i l 1992, 133-143. LaBoskey, V. K. (1993). A conceptual framework f o r r e f l e c t i o n i n p r e s e r v i c e teacher education. In J . Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 23-38). Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Lather, P. (1986). Research as p r a x i s . Harvard Educational Review, 56, 257-277. 190 Mann, A. F. (1994). College peer t u t o r i n g j o u r n a l s : Maps of development. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 164 - 1 6 9 . McAlpine, L. (1992) . Learning to r e f l e c t : using j o u r n a l s as p r o f e s s i o n a l conversations. Adult Learning, 3(4), 15,23,24. Mclntyre, D. (1993). Theory, t h e o r i z i n g and r e f l e c t i o n i n i n i t i a l teacher education. In J . Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 39-52). Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Middleton, S. (1993). Educating feminists: Life h i s t o r i e s and pedagogy. New York: Teachers College Press. Newman, J . M. (1988). Sharing j o u r n a l s : c o n v e r s a t i o n a l m i r r o r s f o r seeing ourselves as l e a r n e r s , w r i t e r s , and teachers. English Education, 134-156. Opie, A. (1992) . Q u a l i t a t i v e research, a p p r o p r i a t i o n of the 'other' and empowerment. Feminist Review,-40, Spring, 52-6 9 . Pape, S., & Smith, L. (1991, Feb). Classroom to classroom: Restructuring to meet field experience needs. Paper presented at the Annual General Meeting of the A s s o c i a t i o n of Teacher Educators, New Orleans, LA. ED330671 Por t e r , P. A., G o l d s t e i n , L. M., Leatherman, J . , & Conrad, S. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . An ongoing dialogue: l e a r n i n g logs f o r teacher p r e p a r a t i o n . In J.C. Richards and D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 227-240) . Cambridge: 191 Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. Powell, J . P. (1985). Autobiographical l e a r n i n g . In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker, (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 41-51). New York: N i c h o l s . Pultorak, E. G. (1993). F a c i l i t a t i n g r e f l e c t i v e thought i n novice teachers., Journal of,Teacher Education, 44{A), 288-295. Richards, J . , & Lockhart,, C. (199.4). R e f l e c t i v e teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. • • , Robinson, J . (1994) . Using peer tutors in a learning centre. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of S k i l l s , T r a i n i n g and Labour. Robinson-Armstrong, A. (1991). Using academic journals to promote the development of independent thinking and writ ing. skills. Urbana,- IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . ED329978 Roman, L. & 'Apple, M,. ,W. (1990) ..'Is n a t u r a l i s m a move away from p o s i t i v i s m ? : M a t e r i a l i s t and fe m i n i s t approaches to s u b j e c t i v i t y i n ethnographic research. In E. E i s n e r & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 38-73). New York: Teachers Col l e g e Press. Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism.- New York: Vintage Books. Schon, D. A. (1983) . The reflective p r a c t i t i o n e r : How professionals think in action. USA: Basic Books, Inc. 192 Smyth, J . (1989). Developing and s u s t a i n i n g c r i t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n i n teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 2-9 . Surbeck, E., Park Han, H., & Moyer, J . E. (1991). Assessing r e f l e c t i v e responses i n j o u r n a l s . Educational Leadership, 48(6) , 25-27 . Tom, A. (1985) . I n q u i r i n g i n t o I n q u i r y - o r i e n t e d teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(5), 35-44. V a l l i , L. R. (1993) R e f l e c t i v e teacher education programs: an a n a l y s i s of case s t u d i e s . In J . Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 11-22). Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Van Manen, M. (1977). L i n k i n g ways of knowing w i t h ways of being p r a c t i c a l . Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228. Wedman, J . M., & Martin, M. W. (1986). E x p l o r i n g the development of r e f l e c t i v e t h i n k i n g through j o u r n a l w r i t i n g . Reading Improvement, 23(1), 68-71. Wedman, J : M., Martin,' M. W., & Mahlios, M. C. (1990). E f f e c t of o r i e n t a t i o n , pedagogy and time on s e l e c t e d student teaching outcomes. Action in Teacher Education, 12(2), 15-24 . W e l l i n g t o n , B. (1991). The promise of r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e . Educational Leadership, 48(6), 4-5. Yinger, R. J . , & Clark, C. M. (1981).. R e f l e c t i v e journal writing: Theory and practice. (Occasional Paper No. 50) East Lansing: Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , I n s t i t u t e f o r 193 Research on Teaching. Yinger, R. J . , & Clark, C. M. (1985). Using personal documents to study teacher thinking. (Occasional Paper No. 84). East Lansing: Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , I n s t i t u t e f o r Research on Teaching. Zeichner, K. M. (1987),. Preparing r e f l e c t i v e teachers: an overview of i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s which have been employed i n p r e - s e r v i c e teacher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 565-575. Zeichner, K. M., & L i s t o n , D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to r e f l e c t . Harvard"Educational Review, 57(1), 23-48. Z u l i c h , J . , Bean, T. W., & Herrick, J . (1992). C h a r t i n g stages of p r e s e r v i c e teacher development and r e f l e c t i o n i n a m u l t i c u l t u r a l community through dialogue j o u r n a l a n a l y s i s . Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(4), 345-3,60. T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A 194 Appendix 1: Sub jec t Consent Form Department of Language Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel: (604) 822-5788 Fax: (604) 822-3154 Courier Address: 2034 Lr. Mall Road UBC, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z2 I am c u r r e n t l y doing research f o r my t h e s i s toward my Master of Ar t s degree i n Language Education. In my research p r o j e c t , e n t i t l e d " S t a f f J o u r n a l W r i t i n g i n a Learning Centre", I am examining the use of j o u r n a l w r i t i n g as an i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g technique f o r s t a f f i n the Learning Centre. My research i s being supervised by Prof. Margaret E a r l y , a f a c u l t y member i n the Department of Language Education. I would l i k e your permission to use i n f o r m a t i o n about you i n my research. I f you agree to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the research, I w i l l i n t e r v i e w you f o r 2 0 minutes a week f o r the r e s t of t h i s semester. In the in t e r v i e w s , I w i l l ask you about your j o u r n a l w r i t i n g , about your s k i l l s and about your experiences as a worker and as a student. I w i l l analyze the informati o n you give me and dis c u s s my a n a l y s i s w i t h you. Our di s c u s s i o n s w i l l take about 5 hours of your time during and immediately f o l l o w i n g the semester. I w i l l a l s o observe you . p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t u t o r t r a i n i n g . The i n f o r m a t i o n I gather i n doing my research w i l l be h e l d i n s t r i c t e s t confidence. I w i l l use pseudonyms f o r you, the Coll e g e and any students you mention.. You may change your mind and withdraw from the research at any time before, during or a f t e r p a r t i c i p a t i n g without p e n a l t y . You w i l l have an opportunity to check anything- I say about you and withdraw that i n f o r m a t i o n from-the research f o r any reason. A f t e r I have c o l l e c t e d the information, i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l have an o p p o r t u n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n ana l y z i n g the in f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d . I t h i n k you w i l l f i n d t h i s an i n t e r e s t i n g process that gives you v a l u a b l e experience w i t h research. You w i l l a l s o be given an o p p o r t u n i t y to read and c r i t i q u e my t h e s i s . I f you decide not to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the research, your employment s t a t u s at the c o l l e g e w i l l be unaffected. You w i l l continue to w r i t e j o u r n a l s because they are requirements of your employment, but your j o u r n a l s w i l l not be released to me. and I w i l l not i n t e r v i e w or observe you,. I f you have any questions about the research I am doing, please c a l l . me. at 873-4725 or my research s u p e r v i s o r , Prof. Margaret E a r l y , at 822-5231. • ' 195 Your s i g n a t u r e below s i g n i f i e s your g i v i n g permission f o r me to have access to your j o u r n a l s and to i n t e r v i e w and observe you i n the Learning Centre. Thank you, J u l i a Robinson I, , give my permission f o r J u l i a Robinson to have access to my Learning Centre j o u r n a l s and to i n t e r v i e w and observe me as described above. I have r e c e i v e d a copy of t h i s consent form (two pages) f o r my own records. s i g n a t u r e date 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078075/manifest

Comment

Related Items