Caitlin M.

Araldi
EDPSY 503 A
Dr. Megan Bang
Observation #1
08 October 2014
1. Briefly describe the context you are observing in and why you choose this sight? What
practices do you anticipate seeing?
I observed in the context of a domestic flight from Seattle, Washington to Charlotte,
North Carolina. I chose it because I happen to be traveling, but also because of the
amount of rich and varied perspectives that can be encountered in an airport/flight travel
environment. I anticipated seeing a variety of practices because of the typically high
volume of travelers and employees existing in the space from many different cultural
backgrounds, with an assumed wide range of travel experiences. Specifically, I observed
the practices of security procedures in the airport itself and in-flight routines/interactions
occurring in the duration of air travel.
2. What are the forms of practice in the context that you are observing? Please try and
attend to different scales of practice? Consider the different participation structures.
Consider how power and or agency is embedded or not in the context.
The forms of practice in the airport/flight travel context of observation included different
scales and participation that could be partially seen as based on embedded power
structures. Beginning with security procedures, participants were subjected to a
positioning of power granted to employees of the TSA administration within the airport,
as well as to the positions of in-flight attendants while on the plane itself. With the threat
of severe legal repercussions, certain behaviors or practices were prohibited (carrying
weapons, smoking, disobeying crew instructions, etc.). A subtler positing of agency was

observed in the familiarity or comfort that travelers felt with the procedures experienced
within the context of both the airport and the flight.
3. What are the regularities and variation in these practices?
Regularities in these practices include consistent expectations for security protocols, and
interactions in a physically contained space, wherein particular social etiquette is
expected to be observed. Variation was widely based on presumptions about the range of
comfort levels of travelers and employees with the procedures of travel.
4. What new insights or unexpected insights did you have?
I experienced the unexpected insight of having to accept normally socially unacceptable
behavior from the travelers seated behind me due to the apparent developmental
challenges of their young daughter. Based on comments she made, the mother of the
child did not seem comfortable or familiar with the process of air travel. Although the
child made the flight very uncomfortable for me by shouting, crying and kicking the back
of my seat, I became accepting of her behavior and adjusted my own comfort based on
assumptions I made about the nature of her background and the limited interaction with
her parental figures that seemed to have an apparent affect on her own level of situational
comfort. I have experience teaching young children, and wondered if others would have a
similar or dissimilar reaction to her behavior if they were not observing outright.

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDPSY 503 A
Dr. Megan Bang
Observation #2
05 November 2014
Reasoning behind choice of site:
I first attempted to observe in a restaurant setting, in anticipation of connecting my own
firsthand experience as a server to the role-play of agency and identity in the food service setting.
I have noticed that there seem to be two dominant (most discussed/dissected) perspectives
situated in the interactions of this environment, those serving and those being served. One might
anticipate seeing assumptions made by both parties about the other that impact how participants
are perceived socially, which is often negotiated and renegotiated quickly throughout the
unfolding of the interaction (fast-paced context, limited depth of dialogue). I ended up officially
conducting my observation in a busy, corporate coffee house in the University District because
interaction proved to be limited at the particular restaurant location I chose, but the reasons for
choosing the site remains the same.
Context:
The caf wasnt completely full, but there was a consistent line of about five people
waiting to order, and a large portion of the available seating was occupied with individuals
seated with laptops, books and/or engaged in conversation with others. The pace of interaction
between guests and employees was fast, the music was loud and upbeat, and a trainer and trainee
were seated at the drink hand-off area, engaged in a new-hire orientation process. This particular
coffee chain is also highly retail-driven, as evidenced by the variety of displays offering many

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDPSY 503 A
Dr. Megan Bang
Observation #2
05 November 2014
different types of contextually relevant products for sale (mugs, snacks, newspapers, etc.), in
addition to the hand-crafted beverages it is well-known for.
Having also worked behind the counter at this particular company for four years, the
interactions I observed are not unfamiliar to me, and the ways in which agency and identity are
represented seem to be evident in widely varying snippets veiled in a common, shared ritual.

Agency/identity/self:

As you mentioned in class, there are actually a lot of assumptions made in the
interactions in a setting as simple as a coffee shop. The following is what I was able to observe,
although the level of noise made it difficult to hear the specifics of some dialogue:

I waited in line briefly, placed my order, noticing that the employees did not seem
highly engaged in the interaction and only participated in the dialogue necessary
to make the purchase

Trainer (male, late twenties-early thirties) and trainee (female, early-midtwenties) are seated at the bar beside the drink hand-off area, and are looking at
training materials together

The trainer appears comfortable maintaining a casual, light-hearted interaction

with the trainee and other employees behind the bar, laughing/joking often; does
not seem to be concerned about trainees relationship with the material to any
degree of great intensity

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDPSY 503 A
Dr. Megan Bang
Observation #2
05 November 2014

The trainee indicates an opinion about the training materials (either that she was
confused by the inclusion of something or felt that it was unnecessary, I couldnt
hear)the trainer engages with her only briefly, and then leaves

First noting some of my bias in coming to this setting, I had previously encountered
assumptions made with frequency about the way customers order their beverages, and even
associations made by employees about the types of beverages ordered by the perceived
identities of said customers. For example, the giving of overly specific orders were interpreted
to mean that the customer was demanding and possibly conceited; someone who ordered an
excessive amount of extra syrup/whipped cream and was physically larger in size was
criticized for making poor health choices. Most commonly, employees became irritated when a
customer did not order in the correct format used to code the beverages customizations, or
when they failed to specify a particular detail during the ordering process and the drink had to be
remade afterward.
Inherent in these reactions seemed to be a disconnection between the assumption made
and the depth of the interaction allowing for understanding. While there seems to be a prevalent,
unspoken premise that the customer is always right in the service industry, employees of this
particular company are guided by corporate standards that privilege an educated way of
ordering. The beverages offered by this company are expensive compared to those of its
competitors and it boasts placing high quality and customer satisfaction as its primary goals of

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDPSY 503 A
Dr. Megan Bang
Observation #2
05 November 2014
service. Consequently, it often felt as though customers were justified in being particular or
demandingyet the low hourly wage, fast-paced environment and low-skill labor that
employees participate in often seemed to create a power dynamic that reflected tension easily
agitated by lack of agency in either party. Agency is not guaranteed by either participant because
of these underlying factors, and assumptions seem to be made about positionality from the first
greeting, but can change over a brief period of time due to the constraints of the interaction.
In this particular observation, I questioned much of what I had experienced as an
employee related to these tensions; for example, my name was not taken for my order (an
expectation of the company), and I wondered how this small attempt at personalization seemed
to make a difference in the interaction with the employee, and yet ultimately was a practical
function to prevent customers from retrieving the incorrect beverage. What happens to names
that are difficult to spell or pronounce in English? In my experience, not a lot of effort is made
toward these for the sake of efficiencywhat does that say about the interaction and
assumptions made, however inadvertent?

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDPSY 503 A
Dr. Megan Bang
Observation #3
19 November 2014
Domain focus: Literacy in early childhood
Observation location: Classroom of 2-3 year olds during circle time

The lead teacher, a young female in her early 20s, opens circle time with a rhyming song, and
review of the previous weeks Letter of the Week, C. She uses of a small whiteboard on
which the letter has been written in upper- and lower-case to review words starting with that
letter, written below it in a previous session. The same procedure done with C is repeated with
the all letters in the alphabet, one in focus per week. Shape of the Week and Color of the
Week are also represented and reviewed at the same time on the same whiteboard, but are
chosen at random by the teacher for each weekly curriculum plan.

After reviewing the previous weeks letter focus, she introduces the next letter in the alphabet,
D, and gathers the same information, asking students first if anyone recognizes the letter
before naming it herself; then if they know what sound it makes; then if they can think of words
that begin with that sound. This is repeated around the circle for the first 10 minutes of the
designated circle time (about 20 minutes total), with students considering the sound, a few
shouting out answers immediately, while others remained quiet. The standard classroom
expectation at circle time is to raise a quiet hand in order to be called on, and students talking
out of turn are not acknowledged. If an answer was incorrect, i.e., did not correspond to the

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDPSY 503 A
Dr. Megan Bang
Observation #3
19 November 2014
letter D, the teacher would say something like Hmm, not quite, can someone think of another
word? She would also interject with suggestions if students were quiet and not responsive.

I observed that this procedure seemed to encourage students to repeat what others who were
acknowledged in the accepted way said, and that there was a range of comprehension and
attention levels in the activity due to age. Many of the students had very recently transitioned
from the Toddler Room (ages 1-2), and did not seem to have a concept of letters as
representative of sounds.

The activity was abruptly ended once students became noticeably disengaged with answermaking (about 12 minutes), and a new song was practiced as part of the remaining circle time
agenda, before concluding the meeting and preparing to go outside. Students who were quiet and
cooperative were called on first to go get coats.

This observation made me take note of how meaning is constructed as a group, particularly since
only certain behaviors and responses were acknowledged, and levels of attention/comprehension
were mixed. The dialogue used to discuss symbols seemed generally ambiguous and without
context, since it is unlikely that the children remembered from week to week the alphabet
sequence; on the other hand, they were at least made to think of words that they had encountered,

Caitlin M. Araldi
EDPSY 503 A
Dr. Megan Bang
Observation #3
19 November 2014
making the connection somewhat personally relevant. Names beginning with the letter were
especially easiest to recognize, but again, the power of dialogue used to redirect away from
undesired answers or behaviors prevented it from being truly meaningful as an observer.