1. Summary of Quantitative Data

The style of the discussion was as a conversation. The number of contributions to the conversation attracted attention. An overview of some of the quantitative data is presented below (Table 3.1).

 

Quantified Items	Quantity
Start Date	1/10/01
Archive Date	6/3/02
End Date	31/3/02
Number Contributions	184
Number Participants	167
Number Re-participants	12
Number Males	55
Number Females	106
Number Gender unknown	6
Expressions of Thanks	12
Re-participants Expressing Thanks	3

 2. General Observations

There were many contributions that satisfied the opening remark and also expressions of appreciation for such contributions, for example

"If we are honest, we would say that the vision for the school is driven by the headteacher. We all recognise that the other stakeholders need to consulted, but ultimately the headteacher leads/manages the school and as a result needs to move the school forward in a way that they think is right. Show me a headteacher that strives for a vision that they do not believe in! So how do we get others on board? Perhaps you could ask all the stakeholders, including the parents (you will have to expect criticism) what three things could we do to improve the quality of teaching and learning in the school? You may find the results interesting! But it will give you an insight into what stakeholders want from the school (their vision)."

"Your vision must reflect your values so surely these would be apparent in whatever kind of school you find yourself. You will find that processes and outcomes will vary but the vision lives on. I do like the idea of three key points from all stakeholders to drive a vision forward. Thank you for that."

There was also much discussion and exploration of vision itself. E.g. defining, interpreting and exploring vision as the example below shows:

"Thanks to everyone for their insights- they have really helped me in my thinking. Isn't vision simply "WHAT I BELIEVE" in a school/headteacher context? I thought Suzannes comment about walking ahead...is true- its about leading and checking that the track is still clear enough for everyone to see where they are going."

Many heads also used the discussion to raise their own issues, difficulties or problems rather than for sharing strategy. Many of these contributions received responses however there was little re-participation to say if these responses were useful.

A number of recurring themes emerged from the discussion. These are shown in Table 3.2 together with the number of times they recurred. These could be arranged in more general themes; management issues, clarifying vision, effecting vision etc.

Recurring Theme		Recurring Theme con't
Ownership	115	Managing change	14
Heads role in process	61	Faith	14
Continual re-evaluation	45	No vision	10
Exploring/defining vision	41	Busy staff/heads	8
The children	36	Managing conflict	8
Communication	32	Managing vision skeptics	8
Creating or inheriting a vision	31	Celebrate achievements	6
Mission/vision statement	23	Others	9
Consultation	16
Reference to module or f2f training	16	Total	493

Table 3.2, Recurring themes in discussion.

3. Evidence for Community

Evidence for community was seen in contributions after they were classified according to Table 3.3 below.

Categories of Indicators to Community	Number
Me and my school	87
Disclosure & Venting	34
Agreement or reference to other participant	109
Ownership (proposing actions)	42

 Table 3.3, Classification of contributions for evidence of community

• All 184 contributions were analysed, most were assigned classifications according to Table A3.3.
• Approximately 80 contributions displayed multiple entries, i.e. two or more different indicators of community within a single contribution.
• 90-100 contributions had a single entry in the community section.
• 10-15 contributions showed no indicators for community.

above.

4. Evidence for Learning

The categories in Table 3.4 (below) are indicators of learning. Contributions to this discussion were analysed for these indicators.

 Table 3.4, Classification of contributions for evidence for learning.

• All 184 contributions were analysed, 50 were classified as in Table 3.4.
• Only 2 contributions displayed multiple entries.
• 48 contributions had a single entry.
• 137 contributions showed no indicators of learning.

5. Gillian Salmon's Taxonomy of Active & Interactive Thinking

• 97 contributions were analysed using an adaption of G.Salmon's taxonomy. These were the first 94 contributions (2 were duplicates) and the last 5 contributions.
• The effectiveness of the modified taxonomy is being investigated with a view to future use in discourse analysis. It is likely that it will be further modified.

Table 3.5 (below) shows the modified taxonomy and the results of the analysis using the modified taxonomy. Each item in the taxonomy has been coded, all later references to the taxonomy will use this code.

The three major changes are defined in the 'comments' column. They were introduced to suit the nature of the data, specifically to facilitate the process of discriminating between categories. In doing so the number of multiple entries (of codes for contributions) was reduced. However the analysis still recorded multiple entries because while this makes interpretation of the totals more complex it provides extra depth and detail as compensation.

	Taxonomy Category (adapted from G.Salmon)	Notes	Single Entry	Multiple Entry	Total
S1	Offering ideas/ resources and inviting critique of them		1	7	8
S2	Asking challenging questions		3	18	21
S3	Articulating, explaining and supporting positions on issues	Raising an issue	6	9	15
S4	Exploring & supporting issues by explanations & examples	Congenial reply	31	32	63
S5	Reflecting and re-evaluation ones personal position		0	4	4
S6	Critiquing, challenging, discussing & expanding others' ideas	Adversarial reply	1	14	15
S7	Negotiating interpretations, definitions and meanings		1	10	11
S8	Summarising, drawing together threads		3	7	10
S9	Proposing actions on developed ideas		1	15	16

Table 3.5, Adaption of G.Salmon's taxonomy and summary of the analysis.

The column 'single entry' shows the number of contributions that are entirely defined by each code. 'Multiple entry' shows the number of contributions that are partly defined by each code. For example, code S2: 18 contributions were partly defined by containing challenging questions and partly defined by one or more other Salmon categories; whilst 3 contributions were entirely defined by code S2. In total 21 contributions had S2 assignments. The frequency of single and multiple entries is shown below (Table 3.6).