Ethnography of a school- Interaction among the participants in the classroom

Introduction
This paper is based on ethnographic accounts of a field work done in a central school, Kendriya
Vidyalaya in Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The research problem is to understand the
kind of interactions that take place in a classroom setting. The interactions involve transaction
between teachers and students and among students. Policy makers in education mainly focus on
the financing and other aspects of education. It is generally argued that the crux of the problem in
education lies in funding. In spite of several incentive schemes designed to increase enrolment
the dropout rate among children has not fallen significantly. Thus is it imperative that one
understands the processes that happen inside the classroom. It is not the curriculum that is taught
in schools. Students learn from each other and there is a potential socialization which constructs
a different set of knowledge which is different from textbook learning. It is in this way that social
capital gets formed. It is through socialization that children inculcate values, understands norms
and learn from each other. It is this aspect of learning that make learning as a process interesting
for children. Thus the research problem is to understand how interaction happens in classroom.
Schools can be thought of as organizations rendering certain ethos in children which connect
them to the society. Children from different backgrounds come together in such a setting. These
interactions shape certain kind of identities in children which become evident during games
period and recess. This research problem can only be dealt with if we employ qualitative
methods because what we want to look at depends on observations. We can thus attribute
meanings to the observations made which falls under interpretive paradigm where the researcher
is not separate from the object under study. It is the meaning that connects the researcher with the
social world. Against this backdrop, the research question may be formulated as 1) how are
students interacting among themselves in classrooms? 2) How is a teacher interacting with
students? 3) Is there any group formation that happens inside classroom during recess or in
games period? These questions are pertinent to our understanding of what students do other than
textbook learning. The research method is chosen such that it fits the research questions being
asked. The questions are centred on how and in what manner the students interact among
themselves and with the teachers in the classroom. I believe that qualitative approach is more
suitable for answering my questions. It is through this method one can see through the eyes of
the people being studiedThe social world must be interpreted from the perspective of the
people being studied, rather than as though those subjects were incapable of their own reflections
on the social world (Bryman 2004,p.399). One of the reasons behind doing qualitative research
is that I wanted to tease out the small details to be able to grasp the research questions under
study. I was doubtful whether problems of social life can be reduced largely to their quantitative
dimensions (Appadurai, 1990, p.277).During the course of my fieldwork I have encountered
that there are issues emerging out of the data which my research questions have not addressed.
This became clear as I proceeded with my research questions in mind. The method I employed
here micro ethnography which involves focusing on a particular aspect of a topic- in this case
1

interaction in the classroom. The next section discusses the method of ethnography in general
and school ethnography in particular.
On ethnography as a method
Ethnography as a method reflects on every lives of people- their culture, practices, norms,
activities. The method is useful in understanding the processes in a detailed manner. It is not just
gathering of what you observe. The observations are to be backed by interpretations as Clifford
Geertzs terms it thick description. The same act renders different meanings in different
cultures. What is important is to understand the contextualized happenings which form the basis
of ethnography. It is important how the object under study is also a part of knowledge. In school
ethnography one looks at school as a social organization where various factors form an
interlocking web. This so-called organizational ethnography consists of analysing organizations
as cultures (Corbetta, 2003). The action of an individual inside this organization is colored by
race, class, caste and gender. There are layers of meaning of a particular event which otherwise
does not come out at the outset. The task of an ethnographer is to tease out the micro details of
any event. This method will answer the research questions asked. Ethnography, in particular
micro ethnography is the most suitable method to deal with the classroom interaction as it deals
with one particular aspect. The findings are divided into themes as there are certain patterns
which emerged from the data. This particular research problem i.e. interaction in the classroom
requires in depth observations of the processes inside the classroom. For instance, the power
structure inside the classroom can be best analysed with this method.
Local context and the field sites- On Methodology and settings
Before dealing with the collection of data and its interpretation, it is necessary to give an
overview of the local context of the field. I have purposively selected the field site i.e. a central
school- Kendriya Vidyalaya in JNU campus, New Delhi. This is due to the fact that I have an
easy access to the site. That would ensure that I can get data as much as possible. Also being a
student of the campus gave me the chance of interacting with the respondents in an easier
manner. The school was established in 1972 in IIT Delhi campus which shifted to its present
location in 1983. I visited the primary section of the school. My fieldwork lasted for three days.
The first step I took before entering the field was to review some secondary data on the school
from the websites in order to get an insight to the way the school functions. As my focus was on
classroom interaction, I chose a class per my convenience. Classroom of standard four, section G
was the class I had chosen. The purpose of choosing a higher class in the primary section is that
in the higher classes certain things or processes become easily visible than in lower classes.
These include childrens interaction with an outsider, their response in the class, the act of
resistance, gathering of information. It is easier to gain information from the older pupils than the
younger ones. I interacted with the children in group. Also, I made them speak on a particular
subject in groups. It was just to see how people react when in groups. Conversations with the
respondents also helped me appreciate the complexities of their everyday transaction in school.
2

This involved interviewing the same respondents again on consecutive visits. By that time I
became an insider to them and hence communicating with them became easier. I noticed that I
came out with certain issues which are relevant to my research but did not cross my mind. It was
through open ended and semi structured interviews that I got some interesting insights. It was a
move towards gaining a view from within and recognizing the fact that a researcher is also a
part of social reality which is under scrutiny. Often the teachers complain of students being not
motivated enough and the students complain of teachers not teaching well enough. I was
convinced that individuals behave differently in groups because of the intensity of conversation.
They have different interpretations of the same situation they face. For instance, when asked
about favorite subject, different students gave different answers. The field visits were during
games period and interval. It is because during this period the interaction with the students
becomes possible. The class I visited consisted of 35 students in total. Out of 35 students two or
three students remained absent each day. The classroom consisted of a blackboard, Indias map,
time table; some crafts work in the shelf. Some of the tables in the classroom were broken.
Children seemed to have no complaint about it.
The methodological tools used are semi structured interviews with teachers and students, focus
group discussions with students. It was a purposive sampling. The observations are divided into
certain themes. The first is the power structure in the classroom to explain the relation between
students and teachers. The second is group formation and identity construction in the class- these
show how students interact among themselves.
Field observations and interpretations
The operation of power in the classroom
There is an element of power in the classroom. The dynamics of the relation between the
teacher and the students is composed of multiple cognitive and emotional patterns.
Classroom thus becomes a space where several incentives are designed in the form of
rewards or punishment to get a particular work done. The teacher wins submission of
students by threat. This can be considered as a condign power. This form of power, as
Galbraith (1983) argues threatens the individual with something physically or
emotionally painful enough so that he forgoes pursuit of his own will or preference in
order to avoid it (p.14). What we can see in the classroom is that the power is not always
exerted from the above. It is not only the teacher who can exert power. One of the
observations made is as follows:
The time table says that it is a games period. As soon as the bell rang the students rush out of the
class to play games. So (Keneth, 1983)me of the students remain in the class. After a minute or
two all the students came running inside the class as if they were chased by someone. It was the
teacher who followed them. The teacher scolded them for going out of the class without
permission and asked them to keep their heads down. Although it was not her scheduled class she
sits in the class and do not let them talk. The children were found mumbling saying to each other

that it was a games period. Some of them continue to make noise in spite of the teachers
presence.1

This observation shows the exercise of power in the classroom. There is a conflict of
interest which gets reflected in the classroom. The teacher wants the class to be
disciplined even though it is a games period. It is interesting to note that there is an
element of surveillance which is always present even though the period is games period.
Students are disciplined in a certain manner. Students resistance is another form of
power. By making noise in the class, they are exerting power. It has been observed that it
is usually the boys who disrupt the class. Power need not be in the form of coercion. It
can be in the form of persuasion or rather resistance.
Group formation- Group formation is a part of socialization process. Group is formed on
the basis of similar likings with regards to games. In the classroom setting group
formation helps in communicating knowledge. An observation is given below as to how
children learn from each other.
Soon after the class got over, the children gathered around a boy who was making sketches effortlessly. The
children asked him as to how he could do that. He took up the role of a teacher and started explaining them
that the paper he uses has already got some images in it. It is just by running pencils that the image gets
prominent and that are how he makes sketch. He looked at others and smiled triumphantly saying bahut
easy hai. Aise aise karna which means it is very easy. Do like this.2

This observation gives us an idea that the children come to the school not only to learn
from the teachers but also from the peers. Peer interaction helps them in getting
acquainted with many things which is otherwise not taught at home or in the class.
One interesting aspect of such an in interaction is that the group formation is very much
gendered in this particular class. The sharp divide becomes explicit in the games period.
Girls choose to play ludo and other indoor games. On the other hand, boys rush out of the
room and play outdoor games like football and badminton.
Thus what one can observe is that groups get formed on the basis of gender and similar
likings.
Identity construction- There different ways that identities get formed in a school. They
are formed out of interpersonal relationships. The students identify the other as good or
bad. They also have their own understanding of a good teacher. A bad student is one
who cannot answer questions asked in the class. An observation made is given below:
A girl in the class pointed out to a boy saying he is a bad student. His problem is that he studies but he
cannot answer the question asked. 3

Thus answering in the class becomes the criteria of a good student. On the other hand a
good teacher is one who teaches well in the class. What we notice is that it is from early
1 Interview taken on 29.4.2016
2 Field observation made on 29.4.2016
3 Interview taken on 29.4.2016
4

childhood that the notion of identities gets constructed. All the children in the class were
Hindi speaking students except one. The students pointed out at once that the boy is
different because he speaks English and not Hindi. This is how identities in the classroom
get formed.
Critical reflection and limitation
I cannot claim that the method adopted in my analysis is unquestionable. Since it is a subjective
analysis of an event it cannot be generalized. But it does give some insights into the classroom
interaction and the way students behave in the class. My study is based on interpretive paradigm
where individual motivation, their values, their approach towards a particular problem is
accorded primacy. My relationship with the respondents was also an important aspect of my
research. According to Corbetta (2003), in order to obtain interviewees full cooperation the
interviewer has to be able to establish a relationship of trust not as a professional but as a person.
Although the days visited are not enough to establish trust in a way, I succeeded in getting
acquainted with the respondents. In this way I have immersed myself in the field and the social
context in which my study is embedded. I increasingly realized that a researcher cannot be
separated from the subject of research. I have taken into account ethical considerations while
interviewing respondents. Their consent was taken and I have provided them with an overview of
my research focus so that they can fully participate in my research. I have considered the issue of
anonymity of the participants and informed them accordingly. I have recorded the interviews
with the consent of the interviewees but whenever I have found them reluctant I have taken field
notes. Subjective interpretation of a particular event has many limitations. It is the researchers
way of explaining the reality which is complex and have layers to it. Deconstructing the meaning
becomes essential for a researcher. How far the reality gets revealed is a question as we have
limited cognition.
References
Appadurai, Arjun(1990) Small scale techniques and Large Scale Objectives, in Pranab
Bardhan(ed). Conversations between Economists and Anthropologists: Methodological Issues in
Measuring Economic Change in Rural India. New Delhi :Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corbetta, P. (2003). Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques. London: Sage
Publications.
Keneth, J. G. (1983). The Anatomy of Power. Boston: Houghton Miflin Company.