16.6 Telling Case I
An email trail forms the foundation for Telling Case 1. From this email trail, we
present a series of analyses of references to lesson-planning processes and per-
formances identified through a form of discourse analysis of chains of interaction
between and among particular configurations of actors. By identifying all instances
of reference to lesson-planning in emails to both sets of actors (teacher-candidates
and supervisory team members), across the six-month period of the secondfield
placement for the teacher-candidates, we constructed a data set focusing on an
intertextual web of email exchanges between February 28 and May 17. The
assembly of this data set formed a basis for the insider–outsider ethnographic
analysis team to (re)examine what happened, who participated in decision-making,
and whose particular interpretations of what counted as lesson-planning led to the
epistemological differences observed previously. Table16.1(re)presents a pur-
poseful set of email exchanges identifed.
To analyze what particular actors inscribed in these email exchanges, we con-
structed three columns. Column 1 marks the date in which the emails were sent.
This column supported analysis of response time among intertextually tied email
exchanges. Column 2, Observation Visits Related to Email Exchanges About
Lesson-Planning, indicates who sent emails to whom, creating a basis for identi-
fying intertextually tied cycles of interaction among particular configurations of
actors. Column 3, Context and referential content of texts (re)presents the refer-
ential content and focus of the emails. The intertextually tied exchanges were
separated by blank rows, creating a visual chain for analysis that parallels work on
transcribing as theoretically guided action (Ochs 1979 ). Each chain, therefore, is
bounded by blank rows to make analysis of the referential information by particular
actors visible.
At the beginning, and throughout the ECTE program, teacher-candidates were
provided with a specific set of practices and a template regarding lesson planning.
One of the university-supervisor’s roles is to review and provide feedback to the
teacher-candidates on their lesson planning. As indicated in Table16.1, Column 1,
the earliest inscription of a frame clash in lesson-planning was identified in a
reflective email (February 28) to the other embedded ethnographer, in which
Denise, the supervisor, referenced a growing awareness about“missing lesson plans
for teaching from both candidates”. What this email also made visible was that
Denise had received “scarce written reflections from Brad, although weekly
reflections were required of both teacher-candidates. This growing awareness,
therefore, served as a rich point for further exploration of what Brad-as-a-tracer-unit
took up, or not, and what kinds of responses to requests for information or missing
lesson plans were made by each student.
The next reference to missing assignments,field journal (reflective logs), was
identified in email exchanges (March 4–7) between Denise and Brad. In this
exchange, she once again referenced missing assignments; however, in this
exchange with Brad, she also inscribed not only a request for the missing records
16 Researching the Intersection of Program Supervision and Field... 243