Introduction Comparison of teachers’ initial pedagogic habitus

209

Chapter 8 Discussions and Conclusions

8.1 Introduction

The findings of this study emerged from the detailed analyses of each teacher’s pedagogic habitus and the changes in pedagogic habitus through the engagement in self- evaluation as a mediational activity in Chapters 5, 6, and 7. Data were collected by video recording the lessons of the case study teachers, by observing the teaching practices, and through semi-structured interview. Bourdieu’s sociological theory was used to analyse each case study teacher’s pedagogic habitus. Alongside Bourdieu’s sociological theory, to obtain richer explanation, the change in teacher’s habitus was also explored from the perspective of sociocultural theory and other related theories. The first section of this chapter compares the pedagogic habitus identified in the three case studies. The discussion of the points of comparison aims to address the first research question: What is the nature of Indonesian English language teachers’ pedagogic habitus dispositions and beliefs? The second section of this chapter compares the teaching attributes and practices of the three case study teachers. The comparison will explore the durability of the teachers’ pedagogic dispositions and any changes to their pedagogic habitus, which occurred as a result of engagement in mediated self-evaluation. The discussion in the second part, therefore, will address the second research question: To what extent are Indonesian English language teachers’ pedagogic habitus capable of change as a result of engagement in mediated self- evaluation? The third section of this chapter discusses key factors influencing the change in the teachers’ pedagogic habitus. The fourth section of this chapter presents the four mediational tools and their values. Next, the key findings, limitations, and implications of this study are discussed. Finally, this chapter focuses on the concluding remarks of this study.

8.2 Comparison of teachers’ initial pedagogic habitus

As discussed in research methodology, the three case study teachers were chosen as the cases for this study, in part, due to the range of and differences among their personal histories and professional experiences, which structure their habitus. Habitus 210 does not act alone. Rather, it works in conjunction with the interrelated notions of capital and field to generate practice. Accordingly, this section compares the case study teachers’ initial pedagogic habitus by considering their field and capital. The comparison of the participants’ initial pedagogic habitus is summarised in Table 10 below: Case study teachers Cultural Capital Pedagogic habitus and dispositions Maya Personal institutionalised cultural capital: an experienced English teacher who is able to speak English fluently with good pronunciation Professional institutionalised cultural capital: graduated from a public university • Pedagogic disposition to dominance • Pedagogic disposition to formalitydistance • Pedagogic disposition to accuracyperfectionism Andi Physical embodied cultural capital: friendly face Personal institutionalised Cultural capital: choice of attire, sense of humour, confidence, enthusiasm for teaching, and ability to speak English fluently • Pedagogic disposition to informalityfun • Pedagogic disposition to dominance Joko Physical embodied cultural capital: tall body and loud voice Personal institutionalised cultural capital: ability to speak English fluently, punctual behaviour, great enthusiasm for subject being taught, confidence, and choice of attire Professional institutionalised cultural capital: graduated from public universities • Pedagogic disposition to dominance • Pedagogic disposition to informality Table 10: Comparison of the background, capital, and habitus of each case study teacher As shown in the table above, all three case study teachers have embodied and institutionalised cultural capitals, but Joko has the most capital, particularly in relation to personal institutionalised cultural capital. In addition, Joko has a passion for teaching 211 and this provides him with the strongest teaching “presence” among the participants and the highest degree of confidence when teaching. Although Andi is quite confident in teaching, he hides behind informality in an attempt to gain authority. Maya has the least amount of confidence in her teaching practices and she relies mainly on her mastery of the English language to achieve authority in the classroom. Unlike Andi and Joko, Maya did not have significant physical embodied and personal institutionalised cultural capitals. Both Maya and Joko attained superior professional institutionalised cultural capital because they graduated from public universities. As explained in Chapter 2, a public university is considered to be of a higher quality than a private university. Having graduated from a public university, Maya and Joko are regarded as being better trained and perhaps smarter teachers, than Andi who attended a private university. All participants are able to speak English fluently, but Maya also demonstrates a good English pronunciation skill. Moreover, Maya has the most English teaching experience as she has been teaching the subject for more than 10 years. This suggests that among three case study teachers, Maya has the most professional capital as an English teacher. Even though all case study teachers demonstrated various pedagogic dispositions, they all possessed a pedagogic disposition to dominance. This was evidenced through such teaching practices as dominating the classroom talk, determining which students are to answer the questions asked, and providing limited think-time to students to formulate their questions and responses, and so forth. Andi and Joko demonstrated both pedagogic disposition to informality and disposition to dominance. This indicated that they actually enjoyed interacting and having a positive relationship with their students, however they also practiced a teacher-centred instruction, which leaded them to be the dominant teacher. In consequence, they were able to make fun teaching and create a warm classroom environment but they did not encourage student engagement and participation in the class. Joko was the most “charismatic” of the case study teachers and this enhanced his authority as a teacher. However, Joko also possessed a disposition to informality towards his students, as he believed that having a warm relationship with the students was important. Maya was the most “serious” teacher. She had disposition to formality. She did not have a positive relationship with the students as she often made discouraging comments, was not familiar with her students’ names, and seldom complimented the students. Additionally, she had disposition to accuracyperfectionism 212 that required the students to use correct English during lessons. This disposition was greatly shaped by her education experiences in public schools and university. In contrast, Andi was a “fun” teacher. He had a disposition to informality that led him to be kind, friendly, and easy-going towards the students. He also often complimented the students, was familiar with their names, and often made jokes during lessons. A teacher’s personal experience as a student and her or his apprenticeship of observation yield the pedagogic habitus. Lortie 1975 explained that apprenticeship of observation occurred largely through the internalisation of teaching models during a long period of time spent as a student. This experience provides the student with both positive and negative role models. Therefore, in order to exercise agency, a teacher needs to challenge and think critically about the negative role models learned through the apprenticeship of observation for the purpose of enhancing teaching practice. Similarly, Maya’s, Andi’s, and Jokos’ pedagogic practice should be relevant to the needs of the students in their field. As explained in Chapter 4, the case study teachers’ field required them to be warm, friendly, and fun, and to establish a positive relationship with the students. The students also valued teachers who facilitated effective learning due to their low level English language abilities. It is therefore necessary for Maya, Andi, and Joko to accommodate the students’ needs by adopting their pedagogic habitus in order to shape their practice in ways appropriate to their field. The next section of this chapter provides a comparative discussion of the durability of each teacher’s pedagogic dispositions and the changes to their pedagogic habitus, which may have taken place.

8.3 Comparison of durability and change in teachers’ pedagogic habitus