This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in

Innovations in Education and Teaching International on 04/03/2017 available

online: http://www.tandfonline.com/ 10.1080/14703297.2016.1273789

1

Widening possibilities of interpretation when observing

learning and teaching through the use of a dynamic visual

notation

Clare Kell and John Sweet

Formerly Cardiff University, *Currently: Centre for Excellence in Learning and

Teaching, University of South Wales

Pontypridd

CF37 1DL

01443 654331

Clare.Kell@southwales.ac.uk

This paper shows how peer observation of learning and teaching (POLT) discussions can be

augmented through the use of a dynamic visual notation that makes visible for interpretation

elements of teacher: learner and learner: learner nonverbal interactions. Making visible the

nonverbal, physical, spatial and kinesics (eye-based) elements of teacher: learner

interactions goes beyond methods to neutrally record learning and teaching events and

requires interpretation of interactions. Such interpretation enables discussion and reflection

around the translation of educational theory into practice and Academic and Professional

Identity in action. Adopting a social perspective of learning, this paper uses theoretical ideas

from the sociology of work and education, and a novel notation system, to make visible the

minutiae of teacher: learner interactions to complement existing tools and approaches for

POLT. Future developments to include learner: learner interactions are discussed.

Keywords: Peer observation, non-verbal communication, proxemics, teaching, learning

Corresponding author. Email: clare.kell@southwales.ac.uk

2

Introduction:

This paper illustrates how the use of a dynamic visual notation can help in interpreting

processes observed in learning: teaching interactions by opening rich seams of dialogue

for observer: teacher, student: teacher and observer reflection. The paper draws on

social perspectives of learning to understand teacher performance as a practical

accomplishment (Sacks, 1984) i.e. that a teacher’s personal beliefs about teaching /

learning, their understandings of local expectations, and their prior habits and norms of

practice are made visible through an interpretation of their nonverbal communication in

teaching: learning interactions. This visualisation and associated interpretation can

become a resource for both observer and observed in Peer Observation of Learning and

Teaching (POLT) discussions.

Taking sketches or making videos during peer-supported observations of

teaching and screen capture of online activity in a blended approach can all provide

useful information for POLT. However, in the specific visual notation system outlined

here, no attempt is made to neutrally record events. On the contrary, the notation

provides a visual interpretation of learning and teaching events wherever they occur, but

with an emphasis on the teacher: learner interaction. Interpretive biases and perspectives

are teased out and depicted in ways that offer new opportunities for participant (teacher,

learners, observer) discussion around personal philosophies of practice, understandings

of higher education contexts, expectations and the interaction of these ideas into a co-

production of local higher education.

This paper will first orientate the reader to approaches and uses of peer-

observation in teaching in UK Higher Education settings. Two exemplars will then

illustrate how the visual notation system featured here is created and used to facilitate

peer discussion. The authors welcome feedback from, and seek discussion with, readers

3

interested in exploring the ideas offered here within their own teaching / learning

contexts.

Background:

Peer observation of teaching / learning support practice is a long-established feature of

UK Higher Education (HE). HE providers, keen to focus attention on the student

learning experience have, over time, championed different approaches to helping

teaching /learning support staff explore the impact of their practice on others’ learning.

A plethora of published works attest to the journey of peer observation ethos and

practices as the UKHE sector, and individual institutions / teams within institutions,

have tried to develop an approach that is contextually relevant (see for example Gosling

& O’Connor, 2009; Byrne, Brown & Challen, 2010). For some the approach is one of

peer judgement focussed on teaching / learning support ‘performance’, for others a

more peer-assisted reflection approach that includes the breadth of teaching /learning

support practices as ‘observable’ (Cosh, 1998) and a range of positions in between

(Gosling, 2002). In addition, some UK professions (for example nursing and

midwifery) have regulatory requirements for live, judgemental observations of

competence, and for many in the UK who aspire to recognition within the UKPSF (UK

Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Support of Learning) there is a

requirement to have the practices they claim to undertake authenticated by peers.

This complex arena can make it challenging for those who champion peer-

assisted reflection to help colleagues extend a process that could be seen as instrumental

into one that is directly relevant and mutually beneficial to all participants involved.

Central to our work is a commitment to enable colleagues, and ourselves, to explore and

articulate an owned sense of self or academic identity that is authentically evidenced

4

within teaching/ learning support interactions with students (Kell, Fahnert, James,

Williamson & Coxall, 2009).

Providing space and support that enables colleagues to consider what they

conceive as important about their role in HE, and if and how this is bound to

understandings of discipline and local context norms, is challenging but reaps powerful

rewards (Kell & Camps, 2015). Billot (2010) describes Academic Identity (AI) as a

person’s understanding of what they think ‘the academic’ comprises, and Professional

Identity as the visible enactment of one’s AI in real teaching / learning situations

(Trowler & Cooper, 2002). Conceiving Academic and Professional Identity as linked

but different features of self-identity enables close peer dialogue ‘that is orientated not

just to questions of what works and what one is supposed to do, but also to ask “why

one does it and who benefits from it?”’ (Kreber, 2013, p. 858). The authentic educator is

thus one who acknowledges their biases and perspectives.

Pratt’s Teaching Perspectives Inventory (1998) provides a useful resource to

understand an individual teacher’s situation with an illustrative but static visual way of

relating teacher to students and discipline content. For instance, teachers with a bias

towards transmitting information to their learners are described as keeping subject

content close to themselves ready to deliver it to their students; those who see students

as essentially apprentices are said to act as a mouthpiece of the subject while effectively

hiding the content from the students. The notation system offered here augments the

currently available POLT toolkit to enrich discussions for all participants.

5

Making teaching / learning interactions visible:

Education sociologists have long recognised that the verbal and nonverbal (including

the use of space, bodies, facial and nonverbal noises) elements of communication

interact to accomplish a highly specialised and contingent form of activity that are

unique like a fingerprint (Heath & Luff, 2007, p. 236). Through our use of language, but

also our use of space, artefacts and movement, humans show others what to see and

how to see that which is locally conceived as important and relevant (Goodwin, 1996).

Thus an educator’s proxemics (the use of space: occupancy and movement flow;

Goffman, 1972), kinesics (the use of gaze, eye contact and paralanguage; Birdwhistell,

1970) and specialist artefacts (pens, clickers etc.) combine to create a spectacle of that

person’s Professional Identity in practice. Further, adopting a social perspective of

learning, challenges us to question if and how a teacher’s interaction fingerprint

influences learners’ reciprocal interaction with the teacher, each other and the focus of

the lesson i.e. how the interaction participants (teacher and learners) co-produce a

specific socially relevant learning output (Garfinkel, 1968). Experimenting with ways to

catch at the essence of proxemics and kinesics led to the development of the notation

system that we introduce and evidence below.

Proxemics and kinesics in learning interactions:

A major challenge in making interactions visible is what Pink (2007) describes as a lack

of visual literacy within the modern world. She argues that, with the advent of video

recording, we have lost the ability to describe and share what we can see. Thus, while

video recording may be commonplace in teaching / learning interactions, participants

can be left with a large amount of data (even with audio elements turned off) that they

find difficult to isolate and anchor into meaningful extracts. The human race has

6

however a long history of communicating using visual representation in the written

form. Streeck (2009) uses Egyptian art to show how visual representation can have a

narrative quality that is accessible to onlookers through its use of contextually

understood conventions. Thus those with an understanding of the onlookers’

expectations can depict or insinuate movement in media that are inherently still.

Building on the work of the sociologists Streek (2009), Heath (1986; 2013) and

Birdwhistell (1970), and the dance choreographer Laban (Laban & Ullman, 1984) one

of the authors developed the Kell Notation System.

The Kell Notation System uses stick figure drawings to capture two forms of

spatial interaction: the physical or territorial use of space and the individual’s movement

flow through that space. Movement flow is used to catch at the essence of participants’

interactional umwelt (Goffman, 1972) or confidence to move and use the interaction

space. Following the guidance of Streek (2009), the stick figures are biomechanical

representations rather than artistically accurate with the focus of each sketch hooking

into viewers’ understanding of centre of gravity and balance rather than limb length

precision.

Once the basics of the stick figure have been drawn it is possible to capture

participants’ kinesics (gaze and eye direction) through the addition of hashed lines. The

Kell Notation System weaves together proxemics sketches, kinesics staves, snippets of

talk and field notes that set the visual records in the context of time, lighting, smells and

other environmental features. We illustrate the visual notation elements in the following

sections.

7

Capturing the essence of a teacher’s interaction practices:

In this section we illustrate how real time teacher proxemics are drawn. The focus here

is on the teacher for purposes of clarity: the worked example later in the paper captures

teacher: learner interaction progression.

Figure 1 records four different features of one teacher’s proxemics and eye gaze

kinesics in one small group session. In each case only the ‘essence’ of the space has

been captured. Deciding what is important or likely to be important when drawing

proxemics sketches in real time requires researchers / peer reviewers to ‘make real time

judgements about the most analytically interesting features of the emerging scene’

(Hindmarsh & Pilnick, 2007, p. 1400). From the start notators realise that they will

interpret and distort reality (Berger, 1972). Encouraging the observer to discuss their

choice-making is an essential and explicit element of the post-observation conversation.

In this way the observer is encouraged to consider how their AI has informed what they

thought were interesting and recordable moments in the observed interactions. This

observer critique affords powerful mutual reflection for both observer and teacher.

8

Figure 1: Making visible teacher proxemics and eye gaze. The series of four video recording screen shots are transformed into proxemics sketches. Each sketch is accompanied by a short drawing guide.

Figure 1a: Setting up an activity

Figure 1b: Drawing out responses

Figure 1c: Using responses Figure 1d: demonstrating relevant and moving on

Screenshot

Proxemics Sketch

Drawing guide

The artefact seems to be the focus of attention. Draw this and contact points first. Hashed lines represent eye gaze direction.

Body stillness is noticeable here. Start at head and include noticeable artefacts: pen in both hands, and flipchart.

Body complexity key here. Top and bottom of body working across different anatomical planes. Also strong artefact presence. Draw spine line first, then point of contact with major

Teacher has just picked up another artefact (clicker). Moves away from flipchart. Symmetry and use of hands and eyes key. Draw from head down with flipchart receding.

9

artefact.

10

Figure 1 demonstrates the transformation of a teacher’s spatial use and eye gaze

into proxemics sketches and describes key features of the drawing decision-making. In

each instance the observer has paused and considered what they think is going on, what

it is about the context and actions that lead them to think that (body movement, use of

artefacts, position of artefacts and teacher etc.) and then focussed the sketch building on

these features. In common with Jordan & Henderson’s (1995) recommendations, where

two body parts (of the same of other people) are in contact, it is wise to draw outward

from the point of contact. In Figure 1c however, where the complexity of the teacher’s

postural work is important, this needs to be captured before the person moves, with the

flipchart artefact being drawn in later.

Observations from the study of this teacher’s proxemics and eye gaze use:

Focussing closely on the proxemics and kinesics of this teacher’s practice enabled the

observer to make visible some practical features of the teacher’s interactional

fingerprint (Heath & Luff, 2007). Firstly, sequences of proxemics/kinesics appeared to

repeat throughout the lesson. To the observer these repetitions mapped to internal cycles

of the lesson plan, enabling the observer (and perhaps the learners too) to anticipate

interaction expectations and mutual requirements to ensure the lesson progressed as

planned (Lynch & Macbeth, 1998). The emergence of core patterns of non-verbal

interactions and communication devices (use of eye gaze, stillness, silence, hand

gestures and arm sweeps etc.) were completely unknown to the teacher, yet their

cyclical appearance within the class suggested that they constitute her choreography of

practice (Pastore & Pentassuglia, 2015). Further, although Figure 1 records no sense of

11

the learners’ contribution to the interaction, the whole observation data set compiled by

the observer suggested that the learners recognised and responded to / complied with the

norms of practice of the learning setting and did not seek to upset or challenge the

unfolding spectacle of education (Lynch & Macbeth, 1998).

The use of artefacts in Figure 1 provides further evidence of the ‘socially

organised ways of seeing and understanding events that are answerable to the distinctive

interactions of (this) particular social group’ (Goodwin, 1994, p. 606). Each proxemics

sketch records an artefact in use. Figures 1a and 1d show an artefact that links to an

out-of-sight electronic presentation suggesting the presence of a framework in which the

visible interactions are located. Within the visible field the teacher privileges hand-outs

(Figure 1a) and a flipchart (Figures 1b and 1c) which she both writes upon and touches

at length. What is striking about these paper artefacts is their simultaneous centrality

and their impossibility to read. Collectively these artefacts act as the recognisable

‘technologies of [teachers’] everyday practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 101) and

orientate all interaction participants to the ‘what is going on here’ (Garfinkel, 1968).

Finally, we think that the complexity of body movement in Figure 1c is worth

further exploration. In an earlier study using the notation system to make visible

teacher: learner interactions in a fieldwork setting, one of the authors struggled to

capture the movement flow of expert therapists (see Kell, 2014) because, unlike novices

whose movement was planar (i.e. they operated within two dimensions), expert

therapists embodied three dimensional movement freedom with body rotation a

consistent feature. Using the term ‘intracorporeal knowledge’ (after Hindmarsh &

Pilnick’s suggestion of ‘Intercorporeal knowledge’ to refer to body sense awareness

between co-working health professionals, 2007), Kell (2014) suggests that healthcare

professional expertise is embodied as three-dimensional movement flow. The cross- and

12

multi- planar movements captured in the data set for the teacher in Figure 1 suggest a

strong sense of movement freedom. Being able to make these personal movement

features visible opens up the potential for dialogue around the impact of enthusiasm,

confidence, anxiety, stress (resonating with Goffman’s unwelt), or restricted movement

flow (two-dimensional proxemics) on learners’ reciprocal interaction performance.

Collectively therefore, while the embodied movements in Figure 1 require the

co-occurring talk to explicate their precise nature and relevance, making proxemics and

eye gaze visible catches at the essence of the interaction and illustrates how ‘diverse

semiotic resources mutually elaborate each other’ to build a whole that is identifiable as

a teaching interaction (Streeck, Goodwin & LeBaron, 2011, p. 2). But what is being

taught? What is going on in Figure 1 in terms of the socially organised ways of seeing

and learning possibly being perpetuated as acceptable in this context? Do the teacher’s

embodied practices foreground something about her personal philosophy of education?

And how / do learners learn to extract meaning from these practices? Does an ability to

read the proxemics and kinesics of a teaching / learning interaction impact on a learner’s

ability to learn / access the learning in each specific environment? And what

occurrences have not been captured by the observer? Were there elements of the

interaction so familiar / unfamiliar to the observer that they have been overlooked?

These are just some of the questions that the notation system is enabling as, collectively,

we challenge ourselves and our peers to explore the outward-facing, interactional

elements of teaching / learning support practice and its alignment / dissonance with

espoused / imagined AI (Billot, 2010; Pratt 1998).

13

Building the notation to explore reciprocal teacher / learner interaction

practice:

The discussions above have focussed on a single teacher’s practice to help readers

orientate to and visualise the framing ideas and notation system in action. We now

extend the complexity of the proxemics to illustrate a short teacher: learner interaction

sequence using another teacher and their students. Figure 2 only uses proxemics

sketches to make the interaction visible to illustrate how the notation system enables

data collection without the intrusion of recording equipment, need for collecting video

recording consents from participants etc.

Figure 2 begins with a teacher, standing in front of, but at a short distance from,

two rows of four or five students. Each student has a hand-out in front of them on the

desk. As the sequence starts the teacher is summarising previous sessions ticking points

off with left hand fore-finger motions. He then takes a step forward (Figure 2a) and,

with his elbows kept to his sides and with circular hand movements, asks ‘What else?

What comes next?’. Figure 2b captures the proxemics and eye gaze of the second row of

learners as their peers respond. When learner-generated responses are complete the

teacher steps back saying ‘So in other words…’. Walking to and fro in front of the

learners, and using his hands in circular movements, the teacher expands ideas. The

proxemics and eye gaze based interaction responses by the learners, the ‘mutual

embodied co-presence’ of the participants (Streeck et al., 2011, p. 3), is captured in the

accompanying sketch. These two forms of teacher: learner interaction responses repeat

and dominate the data records for this session.

14

Figure 2: Capturing the proxemics and eye gaze elements of a teacher: learner interaction sequence. Two linked phases make visible the cyclicalpractical accomplishment of teaching / learning work in this small group session.

Figure 2a: Seeking learner

response

Teacher proxemics sketch Matched proxemics of second row of learners

Teacher takes a step forward and asks: ‘What else? What comes next?’ Drawing guide: Finger and Hand movements dominate here so arrows

indicate movement direction.

Drawing guide: The table seems to be the connecting feature so was drawn first. Each individual was drawn in this order: head, spine, arms.

The row of hand-outs was drawn last.

Figure 2b:Teacher

expanding ideas

Teacher says ‘So in other words….’ Following the guide above the focus here was on individual ownership, handling and positioning of the hand-out.

15

These visual notations, while not artistic or physically accurate, offer another medium to

enable teachers to reflect on their practice. Together with the written record of snippets

of teacher and learner talk and other reflection triggers, for example Pratt’s Teaching

Perspectives Inventory (1998), this visual method affords greater accessibility to

educative reflection for many teachers. A dynamic succession of images that illustrates

relationships in practice in authentic real-time contexts goes far beyond standardised

static representations to elucidate change in motion and also where change could be

encouraged.

Discussion and looking forward:

The Notation System is making a valuable contribution to the everyday work of

education developers and colleagues curious about the teacher: learner relationship and

impact on learning at one UK university. Conceiving learning as a practical

accomplishment and the value of making this work visible are not new but are gaining

an increasing foothold in many professions and work places valuing the fresh focus on

‘everyday life in its own terms’ (Sharrock & Button, 2011, p. 37) that the approach

enables. Collecting detailed data about the minutiae of everyday practice with minimal

equipment opens up diverse learning spaces for personal and collective reflection and

critique. We think that the Notation System makes the close scrutiny of the co-

production of learning in the Higher Education sector accessible to all who teach and

support others’ learning.

The next step in the current peer observation project is to work with colleagues

and learners to explore the benefits of tripartite dialogue around both the reality of the

16

student learning experience and the potential co-production of learning environments

and associated staff and student Academic Identity.

Other opportunities for the Notation System lie in the wealth of technology

widely available for personal and institutional use. While the use of video recordings

offer some benefit in terms of access, their static setup in many teaching spaces can

make it challenging to capture teacher: learner interactions, but could enable observers

to focus on timed elements of learner proxemics and kinesics for later matching to the

teacher-focussed video. Further technology-support potential lies in the ability to

capture sketches on tablets and the use of colour to mark points of emphasis through

image manipulation. These tools can bring the sketches to life and create bespoke

images for teacher and learner practice reflection.

In conclusion

A dynamic visual notation system presents to the educational development community

opportunities to enhance the interpretation of processes taking place in a learning and

teaching situation. In particular, it affords visual-evidence-informed identification and

recognition of good practice and the celebration of the unique blend that some

practitioners achieve. By promoting an explicit mutuality of POLT benefit, the

notation system also presents direct challenges to the observer / scribe who must

acknowledge their own teaching presuppositions as they in turn interpret the processes

that they are observing.

We offer the Kell Notation System to the sector and welcome discussion about

its use and adaptation in different learning settings.

17

Acknowledgments

We thank the teachers and learners who let us into their learning spaces. We have full

permission to use the images presented in Figure 1.

References

Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation and

Penguin Books.

Billot, J. (2010). The imagined and the real: identifying the tensions for academic

identity. Higher Education Research and Development, 29, 709-721. doi:

10.1080/07294360.2010.487201

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context: essays on body motion

communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Byrne, J., Brown, H. & Challen, D. (2010). Peer development as an alternative to peer

observation: a tool to enhance professional development. International Journal

for Academic Development, 15, 215-228. doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2010.497685

Cosh, J. (1998). Peer observation in higher education: A reflective approach.

Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 35, 171-176. doi:

10.1080/1355800980350211

Garfinkel, H. (1968, February). The origins of the term 'ethnomethodology'.

Proceedings of the Purdue Symposium on Ethnomethodology. Lafayette:

Institute for the Study of Social Change.

Goffman, E. (1972). Relations in Public: microstudies of public order. Middlesex:

Penguin Books.

18

Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606-633. doi:

10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100.

Gosling, D. (2002). Models of peer observation of teaching. LTSN Generic Subject

Centre.

Gosling, D. & Connor, K. (2009). Beyond peer observation. London: SEDA.

Heath, C. (1986). Body movement and speech in medical interaction. Cambrdige:

Cambridge University Press.

Heath, C. (2013). The dynamics of auction: Social interaction and the Sale of Fine Art

and Antiques. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2007) Gesture and institutional interaction: figuring bids in

auctions of fine art and antiques. Gesture, 7, 215-240. doi:

10.1075/gest.7.2.05hea

Hindmarsh, J., & Pilnick, A. (2007). Knowing bodies at work: Embodiment and

ephemeral teamwork in Anaesthesia. Organization Studies, 28, 1395-1416. doi:

10.1177/0170840607068258

Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39-103. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2

Kell, C. (2014). Making practice education visible: challenging assumptions about the

patient’s place in placement environments. International Journal of Therapy

and Rehabilitation, 21, 359-366. doi: 10.12968/ijtr.2014.21.8.359

Kell, C., & Camps, C. (2015). Exploring e-journaling as a tool for academic identity

work: pilot study reflections. Educational Developments, 16, 18-22.

Kell, C., Fahnert, B., James, V., Williamson, K., & Coxall, S. (2009). Peer review of

learning and teaching: Cardiff University's approach to peer-assisted scholarly

19

reflective practice. In D. Gosling, & K. Connor (Eds.), Beyond peer observation,

(pp. 37-45). London: SEDA.

Kreber, C. (2013). Empowering the scholarship of teaching: An Arendtian and critical

perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 857-869. doi:

10.1080/03075079.2011.602396

Laban, R., & Ullman, L. (1984). A vision of dynamic space. London: Laban Archives in

Association with The Falmer Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.

Lynch, M., & Macbeth, D. (1998). Demonstrating physics lessons. In J. G. Greeno, & S.

V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp.

269-297). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pastore, S., & Pentassuglia, M. (2015). Teaching as dance: a case-study for teacher

practice analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 70, 16-30.

doi:10.1016/j,ijer.2014.12.001

Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography. (2nd Ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Pratt, D.D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education.

Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.

Sacks, H. (1984). On doing 'being ordinary'. In J. Maxwell Atkinson (Ed.), Structures of

social action: studies in conversation (pp. 413-429). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Sharrock, W., & Button, G. (2011). Engineering investigations: what is made visible in

making work visible? In M. H. Szymanski, & J. Whalen (Eds.), Making work

visible: Ethnographically grounded case studies of work practice (pp. 34-50).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

20

Streeck, J. (2009). Depicting gestures: examples of the analysis of embodied

communication in the arts of the West. Gesture, 9, 1-34. doi:

10.1075/gest.9.1.01str

Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodies interaction: Language and

body in the material world. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Trowler, P., & Cooper, A. (2002). Teaching and learning regimes: implicit theories and

recurrent practices in the enhancement of teaching and learning through

educational development programmes. Higher Education Research and

Development, 21, 221-240. doi: 10.1080/072943602200002074

21