1

A new learning theory derived from a phenomenological exploration of feelings, thinking and learning through practitioner action research.

Jennifer Anne Hawkins - PhD by research, Manchester Metropolitan University

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 1-4 September 2010

In 2000 as a former secondary main and special needs teacher living in the U.K., I set out to action research to improve my understanding of how feelings affected learning. As I proceeded I looked for ways to help fill a gap I perceived in educational literature due to a lack of participatory-based research data about ‘emotional intelligence’ in relation to learning theory. After seven years of data collection and three years of re-analysis and redrafting, I ended up by suggesting my own theory about the function of feelings in learning.

Introduction

In 2006 United Kingdom government initiatives (e.g. Every Child Matters - Department for Education and Skills (DfES) 2006) stated that the emotional wellbeing of children strongly influences their learning at school. This pronouncement appears to be based ongenerally accepted received wisdom and is one which few teachers would deny. However, the fact that such a comment became an influential populist policy statement taken up and quoted widely by educationalists appears to me to be significant. It shows that such policy statements are useful as statements of principal in order that educational practitioners may justify their work in human terms. However, on a deeper level from a working practitioner perspective there is a need for an ‘emotional’ learning theory to supplement existing learning theories in two important areas.Firstly teachers need to justify ‘emotional’ research with learners in all aspects of teaching i.e. preparation, curriculum adaptation and assessment of acquisition, motivation and results. Secondly teachers need to justify their work in engendering and allowing for learners emotional responses as they teach. In order to promote learning in conjunction with emotional wellbeing they needan understanding of why learners’ feelings (both physical and mental) are important for cognition. The qualitative practitioner research I undertook over ten years in this area involved collecting and analysing four strands of data explained below. In producing this paper I have only been able to present a summary and give a few brief examplesfrom the complex body of data collected.

Background

In undertaking research about the emotions, problems of authenticity, plausibility and balance are major ones. Feelings have tended to be discounted by science, perhaps because they seem ephemeral, illogical on occasions to others, hard to pin down and categorize (Niedenthal & Halberstadt, 2000). Traditional research has tended to avoid this ‘fuzzy’ area, possibly for some of the following reasons. In traditional quantitative research there is a difficulty in designing a range of agreed and predictable ‘outcomes’ in this field. For example, the problems encountered by Buchanan et al. (1996) in quantifying ‘love’ while investigating the effects of parental separation through divorce on young people, illustrate the difficulties of translating emotions into statistical data, when researching complex social problems.Open-ended outcomes in researching social problems using qualitative and/or mixed methods may uncover points, criticisms, and unsought and unexpected findings not within the research financier or researcher’s range of interest. People may have different attitudes to research topics; for example, different concepts of ‘self’ (Kircher & David, 2003). People are often not disposed to discuss feelings, which may hold private and/or painful associations for some and which they may not be able to deal with (Rogers, 1951, 1961). In Western culture, feelings have tended to be socially suppressed or have been simply ignored; their expression viewed as a weakness. This phenomenon is described by Pinker (2002) in his book The Blank Slate: the modern denial of human nature. Some feelings and thoughts are strong, but others are fleeting and hard to apprehend and describe. This type of thinking, with possible retrospective explanations of particular behavioural responses, is described by Gladwell (2005) in his book Blink: the power of thinking without thinking. Since feelings arise subjectively, perhaps from the subconscious (Freud, 1901; Jung, 1964), they may not be fully and consciously acknowledged and able to be easily put into words and described (Kelly, 1955; Elster, 1999, p. 408; Bennett-Goleman, 2001). There is a problem with semantics. Terms, names and words if they exist describe emotions in ranges of meaning, which are not universally agreed (Pinker, 1994; Niedenthal & Halberstadt, 2000). Participants’ and researchers’ interpretations may be viewed as too subjective by others, considered inaccurate and open to inconsistency and question. As in all socially based research, there are many individual ethical and practical implications in collecting and analysing data pertaining to feelings.

As people think and learn they experience all kinds of feelings, which have a profound effect on individual human life and society in general (Eich, 2000). Looking to extremes, feelings can have beneficial outcomes; for example, great acts of invention and humanitarianism. They can also develop disastrously, devastating people’s lives; for example, the holocaust, murder, terrorism, and suicide bombers. Both extremes have far reaching effects upon society and appear to be based in some kind of complex learning and logic (however misplaced or inspired). Education is fundamental here since through teaching, teachers have access to a range of human emotions and feelings, which they and their students may need to make sense of. In this research it was possible to explore record and make some sense of subjective data, in spite of the difficulties and limitations. This was done by interpreting and adapting some ideas, principles and methods from existing qualitative methods and working collaboratively, even though this produced an abundance of complex data.

This research is open to interpretation in relation to several methods and domains. It might be seen as eclectic and/or combined, but there is a thread of narrative throughout, presented in different forms. Campbell et al. supports my stance:

No one methodology dominates practitioner research and it is possible to be eclectic. However, issues of increasing importance are the justification for one's methodology, the consideration of ethical matters and the social context of research in the workplace. (2004: 81)

Some of the related domains, whose principles have informed the work, are: grounded theory (Charmaz 1995; Bryant & Charmaz (eds), 2007); action/practitioner research (Craft 2000a; Campbell et al., 2004); narrative research and ethnographic research (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000; Whitehead, 2001; Goodson, 2001; Clough, 2002; Goodley et al., 2004); phenomenological reduction (Benner, 1994; Leonard, 1994; Bruzina, 2004); auto-ethnography (Freeman, 1993); counselling (Rogers, 1951, 1961; Rogers & Freiberg, 1983) and communities of practice (Freire, 1972; Park et al., 1993; Wenger, 1998; Kagan, 2005). There are many crossover points and similar aspects present. All of these domains and methods of qualitative research investigate individuals, looking at idiosyncratic phenomena and situations using descriptive data, a concern with process and a search for meaning (Charmaz, 1995; Mason, 2002; Bogdan & Knopp Biklen, 2003).

In the present research, I adapted data collection methods deemed to be appropriate and expedient, influenced by others but not exactly replicating. My overall action research method has evolved with a participatory bias (Freire, 1972; Park et al., 1993; Wenger 1998; Kagan, 2005). Citing Dewey (1963) and Friere (1970c), Park et al. find that:

from the point of view of pedagogic theory, participatory research captures the

ideal of goal-orientated, experiential learning, and transformative pedagogy. (1993: 3)

In participatory research it is often the case that in any given project the ‘partnership with the researcher’is about collective political action by oppressed people. My work has elements of this, since power relations are important and influential in complex ways in learning. However, while acknowledging negative experience, it is more directly aimed at self-education and the raising of awareness, both for me and for participants. By using this approach in various ways, it was possible to elicit feedback about some of the transformational effects of feelings in learning and the thinking strategies, which may contribute to cognitive development; for example, comments about difficulty and achievement, personal and professional experiences, observations and realisations about learning acquisition and the curriculum.

Method

The methodological development of the analysis of each of the strands was performed as appropriate as a type of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, according to my personal rationale. I used my learning experience to inform my work as I shifted frames of reference within the main focus of exploring the relationship between feelings, thinking and learning; such as my different roles as a learner, a teacher, a mentor and an evaluator and participants’ own perspectives. The strands have sometimes appeared as consecutive areas of enquiry following a ‘logical’ progression and at other times have overlapped and existed in parallel. There was a reiterative current of ideas flowing throughout, informed by theoretical literature, my own and my participants’ experience. All of this indicates that I (and my participants also, to some extent) have been involved in a process of phenomenological reduction in carrying out the research (Bruzina, 2004).In pursuing my own route, I created a hybrid methodology, exhibiting ideas found in IPA and Grounded theory (Willig 2001). I used a combination of thematic analysis and Claxton’s observed learning behaviour categories (2002) in the form of an already established, potentially useful, coding paradigm in the analysis.

The aims at PhD transfer were as follows:

  1. To discover some reasons why students’ labelled as school refusers are disaffected with education and consider their comments and points of view from data gained through home-tutoring them (Inquiry Strand 1: Tutoring twelve school refusers).
  2. To evaluate my own learning and teaching experiences in helping students re-engage in education using a reflexive, ethnographic qualitative research method (Inquiry Strand 2: The author’s learning process).
  3. To investigate and compare other teachers’ experiences of learning and teaching through mentoring them (Inquiry Strand 3: Mentoring eight teachers as learners).
  4. To explore the potential to inform and illustrate significant strategies/interventions regarding professional practice and theory without being prescriptive (Inquiry Strand 4: Evaluating a primary school Arts festival: observations of feeling based learning in action).
  5. To disseminate findings, relating material from psychology, education, and counselling literature to teachers and teacher trainers through mentoring, presentation and educational publication (All four inquiry strands).

The methodology was based on the original aims 1, 2 and 5 and as the research developed, aims 3 and 4 were added with associated data collection. This was a pragmatic approach, each stage of the research informing the next, as the work moved broadly from considering deficits to possible ways of answering learners’ needs through education. I was circumspect throughout, tentatively crosschecking participants’ comments with possible environmental influences and behaviours, avoiding hasty judgments as far as possible, mindful that I could not have been aware of all the influences upon participants. Sometimes a participant’s interest and enthusiasm was a driving factor, when communicating spontaneously in volunteering unsolicited information. The method, in taking a deliberately ‘open minded’ approach, was able to accommodate the unexpected within the overall research focus. The action research proceeded in cycles as each strand followed each of my research aims. In Inquiry Strand 1, I sought to discover reasons why students, labelled as school refusers, were disaffected with education, considering their points of view by collecting data while home-tutoring. I looked at emotional blocks to learning, their possible causes, how they might be addressed and what this might reveal in relation to learning. I produced twelve analytic narratives over four years performing thematic analyses. These revealed a range of ecological factors (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The experiences of these young people had a profound effect upon my own learning at an emotional and professional level.

The young people’s stories included in Strand 1 inspired me to the task of addressing my own emotional learning difficulties. In Inquiry Strand 2, after much reflection and heart searching, I asked myself how my own learning and teaching was affected by feelings. My inquiries led to a further investigation in Inquiry Strand 3 to compare and contrast other teachers’ experiences and feelings about their learning and teaching. I then took my new found perceptions back into actual teaching contexts, in order to explore the usefulness of my new understandings. In Inquiry Strand 4, I explored the potential of my ‘feelings theory’ to inform and describe significant teaching strategies while witnessing practice without being prescriptive,observing and recording ‘feeling based’ learning in action. In dealing with professional adult learners, Strands 2, 3 and 4 were analysed thematically, but with additional reference as stated above to Claxton’s Effective Learning Profile (2002) used as a retrospective coding frame.

All of the participants readily understood the research focus, immediately accepting feelings as important to their learning, although they had not explored their significance previously in the same way. This research focus necessitated enlisting participants’ interest and it was relatively easy to engage them in expressing their feelings about their learning. It was a subject of immediate and significant interest to them, a finding in itself. I researched with participants rather than simply about them. I took what they said incidentally as potentially serious data and often found it to be so. In this way the research process was indeed phenomenological in looking at some of the participants’ points of view (primary pupils, teenagers and adults) and witnessing and supporting them in their own inquiries and development. Within this process I also drew my own phenomenological conclusions based on real teaching observations and interactions with individuals, including a consideration of my own idiosyncratic learning problems. I questioned my own, my participants’ and other people’s assumptions. This method, in acquiring new and un-circumscribed information, was a successful approach and appeared to fit the research purpose. The amount of detailed information collected in the thesis appendix created a dilemma in deciding what should be included in the thesis. The only solution was to strongly recommend the reader to take time to read the data, particularly the stories, which offered convincing evidence in support of my conclusions. In spite of this problem, it was a method which I found informative and which, with appropriate adaptation, I recommend to others in carrying out social research.

I developed and adapted the research method in a creative manner, recording ‘emotional’ feedback, whatever the content, whenever it was given or observed. However, the guiding question and focus remained constant throughout my explorations. I analysed each of the four strands in relation to their own subsidiary question. In doing so I have found not only some information in answer to those questions, but some confirmation of evidence points across them, which answered my guiding question. In my final analysis I found that the data evidenced, being present in four different contexts, the conclusions and arguments I developed supporting my theory. The main findings of all four strands of the research were about the effects, both physical and mental, of ‘inappropriate’ and ‘appropriate’ emotional learning environments. These environments either restricted or enabled ‘freedom to learn’, affecting different learners, in different ways (Rogers & Freiberg, 1983). In doing this work I concluded that the effect of discounting emotional and subjective learning might result potentially in serious long-term costs to society. In the areas under investigation this tended to be towards the wastage of school-refusers, under achievers and even teachers as a human resource.

The methods chosen were pragmatic choices influenced by the research aims and the personalities, needs, agendas and circumstances of the participants as well as me as researcher. At each stage I developed‘appropriate’methodological approaches.The diagram below gives an overall view of the action research process.

Table 1: Diagram of the thesis with questions, methods, theoretical domains and data

Inquiry Strand 1:Tutoring twelve school-refusers

My employment as a home tutor led to aim one and resulted in the data set of Strand 1. I set out to find reasons why a group of school-refusers were disaffected with education and to develop my skills in teaching them. I encouraged their comments and points of view and made observations. Data was collected to investigate the question: “Emotional blocks: what do they tell us about the learning process?” These blocks appeared to me to consist of ‘emotional’ problems with learning which initially I was unable to understand or explain. I prepared for this research by taking a counselling skills course sanctioned by the British Association for Counselling to improve my skills and inform my work (Rogers, 1951, 1961: Rogers & Freiberg, 1983; British Association for Counselling, 2000; Gardner et al., 2004). I home tutored GCSE level school refusers, between 1999 and 2004, keeping records of my experiences. I analysed data from six boys and six girls aged 15 to 16. At my request, my education authority chose young people for me to tutor, who were school-refusers in their final two years of compulsory education. None of the students were excluded for bad behaviour and all of them appeared to have ability. Other avenues of help had failed to get these young people back to full time attendance at school.I worked with them for varied periods over four years and observed their emotional problems, considering the possible reasons for their truancy (Teachernet, 2005). Periods of teaching time for each person varied from as much as seventy six hours spread over two years to as little as three hours over half a term. Eight pupils had twenty hours or more and four pupils over forty hours of tuition.

In each lesson I used a work record to track the pupils’ progress: a straightforward record of appropriate work, incorporating an element of choice. At the end of each lesson we both wrote and exchanged comments stating how we felt about the lesson and set targets. The following lesson the student chose their own course of action from the possibilities available. This process had to be modelled by me to include both triumphs and difficulties. In so doing I employed my own reflective and reflexive strategies in my written comments; for example: “Good pupil. I enjoyed this lesson too”(Me) and “Pleased to be finished with this bit!”(Pupil) (Case study 2 Andrew 2000: Student feedback from work record). The work record was duplicated and one copy kept by the pupils by using carbon paper. This form of research data appeared appropriate because it allowed for an un-prescribed open response and gave ownership of the resulting material to the students to reflect upon and respond to in their own way. It gave the parent the possibility of looking at the process if the students were able to share it and it allowed me as researcher to collect the type of data which might answer my guiding and subsidiary questions. The acknowledgement of feelings created by this ‘respectful’ approach also set the scene for various potentially ‘revealing’ discussions and behaviours to be shared with me as a ‘non-judgmental expert’ which sometimes allowed me to make retrospective observations, with the benefit of hindsight.