Meaning Making and (Mis)understanding in Postobservation Conferences

• In Event: Leadership and Evaluation for Improving Instruction

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine what meanings each participant constructed from postobservation conferences and what factors may account for any disparities in understanding. This qualitative field study used elements of conversation analysis, discourse analysis, politeness theory, and hermeneutics. Teacher interpretations of conferences fell into three categories: “I do not value this feedback,” “I do not understand this feedback,” and “I have a lot of growing to do.” While some teachers felt empowered to make changes in their practice, others were defeated by excessive negative feedback or more feedback than they could process. Implications and recommendations for practitioners and researchers include, but are not limited to, the need to employ “best” teaching practices during conferences.

Author

• Deborah Lynn Teitelbaum, NC Center for the Advancement of Teaching