Lancaster University home page
Home > Findings > crumb

Logbooks

 

The logbooks, completed by virtually all the students over the 4- month period to December 2004, confirm the findings referred to under Entretiens.  They also reveal the extent to which assistants were ready to re-evaluate their impressions of colleagues with the passage of time.  Mentors who appeared to be excessively friendly at the point of welcome declined in assistants’ estimation if they failed to sustain their interest in the assistants’ welfare, or if the mentor's personal involvement was at odds with their professional competence.  Many acknowledged nevertheless that being left to their own devices made them more self-reliant.  This did not, however, prevent them from criticising the system or the teacher for not providing them with consistent advice.  The most highly prized attributes of a mentor were ‘authentic concern’, 'making the time to answer questions' and 'reliability’.  Yet assistants were ready to modify their initially unfavourable perceptions as they got to know the mentor better. 

One aspect of behaviour to which the assistants were particularly sensitive was that of being used as a sounding-board or intermediary between conflicting colleagues.  They were quick to regard it as unprofessional, as they were the readiness of certain colleagues to share personal confidences with them.  Again, this was a view more commonly expressed by the English than the French.  At the same time, both national groups included cases where learning of other colleagues’ attitudes towards a teacher with whom they were themselves experiencing difficulties helped them form a clearer view of their own relationship with that person.  A clear distinction emerged between the roles of ‘intermediary’ and ‘mediator’.  Ideally, assistants saw the mentor fulfilling the latter role.  Their need for someone, at some point, to act as a spokesperson on their behalf in addressing a colleague, a school official, a bank or social security office was virtually universal.   

At the same time, the logbooks confirmed the students’ propensity for self-criticism.  When misunderstandings occur, the first reaction may be to blame the system or the teacher responsible.  The second is for the student to ask themself whether it is their fault and to weigh up the extent of responsibility on either side.  This dual reaction was most strongly expressed by assistants during the initial phase, when shortcomings in their knowledge of the target language made them especially vulnerable to misunderstanding.  At this stage, they are happy to be spoken to in their native language, or, better still, a mixture of both languages, according to circumstances.  They interpret being spoken to fast as a lack of consideration for them as foreigners, especially when they are anxious to understand what is being said.  This reaction was more common for the English than for the French.  For both groups, however, as their confidence grows, so does their desire to be spoken to in the target language; their tendency to react negatively if their own language is used increases accordingly.

Only exceptionally did the assistants of either nationality make their negative attitudes towards the system or their interlocutor known to a professional colleague.  Apart from routine problem-solving to do with attendance, discipline, assessment procedures and pedagogical guidance, there were few examples of interpersonal difficulties being confronted directly.  For the most part, the assistants were very conscious of being in a vulnerable position and realised that, even if they made their feelings known, they would be unable to change the situation.  Negotiating difficulties of this kind is one of the most valuable aspects of the assistants’ personal/professional development and of the programme as a whole.  Several assistants sucessfully arranged meetings with mentors to discuss particular issues and these discussions occasionally featured as mid-term entretiens.  More frequently, they were referred to in the logbooks together with a comment as to whether or not the meeting had led to change. 

 

 

 

 

 

| Home | About the Project | Data Collection | Data |
| Findings | Outputs | Calendar | The Team | Links | Contact Us |