This paper analyses the thought processes of teachers and trainees (student teachers) of the Belgian French Community. The data collecting techniques were journal keeping, thinking aloud, classroom videotaped observation, interviews, and stimulated recall. A content analysis of the data was then performed to derive the planning and interactive decisions made and the reasons put forward for these decisions. Most decisions focused on teaching technique and educational strategy. The decisions made during the planning were also categorized as organizational ones (material, time schedule) whereas during interaction they were also qualified as transitional (sequencing and linking of activities) for the teachers and essentially managerial for the trainees (classroom management). Even if teachers and trainees mostly don’t explain their planning decisions, the reference for these decisions are the pupils (their performance, participation, behaviour …) or the educational context (available time, parents, external context as for example inspections’ or teacher trainers’ requirements). However, they differ in the first argument: teachers refer mostly to personal needs, impressions and interiorized routines whereas trainees refer to the activity (objectives, complexity …), its flow and the attainment of the trainers’ standards. Interactive decisions are mostly explained with factors referring to pupils and activity flow. Both teachers and trainees make interactive decisions according to a steering group of pupils who seem to understand or to master the taught skill or content. The principal focus of the trainees is to implement the planned lesson to reach the assessment standards of their trainers. Data also show that the trainees don’t like the pressure of the evaluation standards. They declare that these standards impede free decision-making and their own professional development. This demonstrates the need to improve the training and the associated assessment standards.

This research consists of 6 case studies (3 teachers and 3 trainees). Participants were observed between 2 and 10 times, depending on their availability. The purpose of these case studies was to analyse the thought processes that took place during planning and instruction processes. During the first step of these case studies, information about the teachers’ planning thought processes was recorded. The teachers and trainees were invited to note down the key-steps of a lesson (journal keeping). Afterwards, the teachers and trainees were asked questions and their responses recorded on audiotape (thinking aloud).

INSERT FIG1

During the second step, information about the teachers’ interaction thought processes was collected. A lesson was observed and videotaped by the researcher. After the observation, the teachers and trainees were asked to watch the observed lesson and to comment on some of its elements, again this was recorded on audiotape (stimulated recall). The audio taped interviews were then transcribed. A content analysis of the transcriptions and the planning and observation notes was then performed to extract the decisions and the explanations that were given. The decisions were classified into 4 types: pedagogical (teaching technique and educational strategy), organizational (the material, the time schedule), transitional (the sequencing and linking of activities) and managerial (classroom management). The explanations were described as belonging to 5 types: pupil (performance, participation, behaviour …), teacher (routines, personal needs …), activity (objectives, complexity …), interaction (processing, conditions …) and context (available time, parents, external context as for example inspections’ or teacher trainers’ requirements). 

2. Results

2.1. Planning

A similar decision pattern was observed for trainees and teachers. They both made a lot of pedagogical and organizational decisions, but few transitional ones and they rarely decided about management during lesson planning. But proportionally the teachers took more pedagogical and organizational decisions than the trainees and the trainees were more focused on transitional and managerial decisions than the teachers.

Results have shown that for the most part, neither trainees nor teachers explain their planning decisions. When they explain them, the teachers make pedagogical and organizational decisions according to factors concerning themselves, their pupils and the educational context. The trainees explain their pedagogical decisions according to factors concerning their pupils, the lesson and its context. Organizational decisions are explained with factors concerning the pupils, themselves and the lesson. Transitional decisions are explained both by teachers and trainees according to factors referring to the activities and its context. Whereas teachers explain their managerial decisions with factors referring to the educational context, the trainees explain them with forecasts of pupils’ behaviour and the intended activity flow.

2.2. Interaction

A different interactive decision pattern was observed between trainees and teachers. Whereas teachers made mostly pedagogical and transitional decisions during interaction, the trainees were interested in the sequencing of the activities in a calm teaching atmosphere. Teachers have developed a series of routines that facilitate their interactive decision-making. On the other hand, trainees implement their lessons in order to respond to the assessment standards of their trainers.

Both teachers and trainees explain most of the interactive decisions with factors referring to the pupils and the activity flow. The trainees refer to the pupils when they make managerial decisions and explain their organizational decisions referring to factors related to the pupils and the activity’s sequencing. Teachers mostly don’t explain these decisions. Both trainees and teachers explain their pedagogical and transitional decisions referring to their pupils. Both use a steering group of pupils they believe to understand and master the taught content or skill to decide how to pace the activity flow. This happens even if the teachers or trainees have identified pupils who don’t understand or master the taught content or skill.

3. Discussion

Some differences and similarities in decision-making and decision-explaining could be observed depending on the teaching phase and the professional experience of subjects. Most decisions could be characterized as pedagogical ones. The decisions made during the planning also are categorized as organizational ones, whereas during the interaction they are qualified as being also transitional for the teachers and managerial for the trainees. Concerning explanations, teachers and trainees mostly don’t explain their planning decisions. When these decisions are explained, teachers and trainees refer to the pupils or to the educational context. They differ in the first argument: teachers refer mostly to themselves and interiorized routines, whereas trainees refer to the activity, its flow and the attainment of the standards of their trainers. Interactive decisions are mostly explained with factors referring to the pupils and the activity flow by both teachers and trainees. Both teachers and trainees make interactive decisions according to a steering group of pupils who seem to understand or to master the taught skill or content.