Hot stuff, shoes and Learnometer

The Learnometer team and this post: The secret to calm classrooms? Lose the shoes got me thinking and as writing helps me sort out what I am thinking about here goes...

I am and always have been a 'hot person' the kind of chap who is wearing shorts and sandals in February while others are still in winter coats and who likes the central heating set to about 16C or left switched off and the windows open. I get twitchy hot feet at night and spent a fair bit of my time in school with my feet slipped out of my shoes (just the toes in so teacher wouldn't notice) while sat at a desk. I work from home and rarely wear shoes during the day unless I have to head out into public spaces. When I spotted the Lose the Shoes article in Twitter I was into it in seconds - at last someone who acknowledges shoes on is not essential for good learning.

There is a lot of variation in how people perceive temperature, a fine body of research that shows that in general the ladies feel the cold more than the gents but there are hot and cold people of both genders. A key factor here is that when the environment is too cold it is possible to put more clothes on, if it is too hot there is only so far you can go as far as removing layers goes. What I experienced in school is not dissimilar to what all of my 5 children have reported and they range in age from 12 to 34 so that covers a fair time period, 60s-70s, 80s-90s and 2005-2916.

In the height of summer I was expected to wear a black blazer, long sleeved shirt tucked in and done up to the top button with a tie just make sure there was no possibility of ventilation. We also had to wear long black trousers, black socks and black shoes.

Black soaks up heat, solar water heater panels are painted black for that reason - don't ever design a black school uniform its totally the wrong colour.

Even way up in Geordieland perched on the north east coast that uniform was a bit uncomfortable to say the least in summer. What do boys do at break time? Well for me it was move around a lot - a whole host of playground ball and chase games and girls to impress ensured we came back into class panting for air, gasping for water and pretty much spent the first part of most lessons broiling alive wrapped cosily in the uniform. The only reasons for wearing such kit seemed to be to teach us to be smart and to do what we were told and to develop endurance during adversity skills. The lesson in how to be smart could be learned at home easily enough, I didn't need 5 years of immersion to take on board what smart meant.

So there I am in French with Mrs X who seemed to be aged about 120 but was probably in her 60s and had spent break sat down drinking tea and chatting in a light summer dress so would make sure that the classroom windows were closed on all but the most scorching of days. If there was a breeze through the window she was cold and it did not matter that we were all boiling alive, twitching and shuddering with the heat. Blazers were allowed to be taken off in class but anyone who loosened a tie or undid their top button was in for a look, a reprimand or a whacking. Fortunately corporal punishment has gone but sanctions are still deployed for uniform infringements. With around 30 people pumping body heat into Mrs Xs class the sealed room got hotter, we robbed it of oxygen, filled it with CO2 and tried to learn despite the environment. We also learned to resent the teacher and the uniform and that rules was rules even if they were not based on any tangible thread of common sense or logic. It is hard to respect someone or a school system when it places you in discomfort for no apparent reason. My two boys just arrived back from school as I am writing this, they both came through the door red faced and hot then threw off the uniform and are sitting in shorts chilling. OK it wasn't like that for me every day, neither is it for my children, but it certainly was often enough to stick in my memory as a thing I hated about school.

When I read about the Learnometer Kickstarter project my first thought was of that classroom and wondering whether Mrs X might have taken notice of the evidence and let some cool and some O2 in, put her cardigan on, let us loosen our shirts, slip off our shoes and chill. Then reading the shoes off article reminded me of the times I have raced to undo walking boots and plunge my sweltering feet in a mountain stream, raced from car to sea and felt the joy of cool water on my feet taking the head from my body, stepped out of trainers after a cycle or run and let the wet grass sap the heat away. Feet, hands and heads are the things outdoor folk know to cover up when the temperature plummets and the same three places are the ones to cool when you are overheating.

It is easy to respect someone who cares for your comfort, who will say go on slip your shoes off the smart police are off duty in here, ye open your shirt and slip the tie off if your too hot or wear a short sleeved shirt that's fine. Its easy to keep still and to focus when your body is not screaming at you, easier to listen and to learn and to enjoy life. I can't see any persuasive arguments against being comfortable or in favour of sitting in an airless hothouse.

I have not yet experienced what LOM devices do first hand but knowing the team who made them I have every confidence that they will do what it says on the tin. It is hard to please everyone, no one size/temperature/humidity fits all but there are ranges within which comfort is likely and Learnometer seems to be designed to help identify how to stay within sensible environmental parameters, There are attitudes to clothing that can help children personalise their own micro environment and help them be comfortable. Putting the two together makes sense, I don't know if that would enhance attainment and progression but it is unlikely to have a negative effect. I do feel it is likely to have a positive effect on pupil's comfort and well-being, on their willingness to be in school and on their respect for the adults in school.

Then there is all the science to learn - how does LOM react when variables are introduced; what was it reading in an empty room? What happens after the same room has been full of people for 30 mins? How does a room in shade change when the sunshine starts to come through the windows? How does outdoor weather affect indoor environment? Do conditions vary in different parts of a room? Does leaving a tray of water out really affect humidity; do those effects vary depending on other conditions in the room? 0h there are loads of things to ask it. I am interested in experimenting with one in my house and if I was still working in a school would be persuading management to sign up for a couple at least.

Interviewing and tapes

For a book revised in 2016 Real World Research by Robson and McCartan has a rather dated feel. In chapter 12 repeated references to "taping" interviews reinforce this feeling regularly, I doubt anyone has used a reel to reel, cassette tape recorder or VHS camera to capture interviews for at least a decade. OK they might be referring to more modern mini-DV tape formats but these are digital recordings and easily imported into computers where the data can be manipulated so the problems mentioned would not be relevant.

The statement from page 287 about transcription is what makes me feel this is referencing pre-digital machines:

"Tapes if used require whole or partial transcription (allow something like a factor of ten between tape time and transcription time unless you are highly skilled; i.e. a one hour tape takes ten hours to transcribe fully)." 

Unless there are compelling unstated reasons to use pre-digital tapes the authors should just have advised against using this kind of tape recording and then quoted the problems with transcription. I started using digital tools to capture interview data in 1998, the key advantage of this is that it is easy to use digital software to slow the playback speed to match my typing speed. For me this results in the time taken to transcribe a one hour interview being only around 90 minutes rather than the 10 hours suggested by Robson and McCartan. Anyone taking 10 hours to transcribe a digital recording would have to still be learning to type. This strategy is such an obvious advantage I can't see why it is ignored in a book that has much sound advice to offer. Digital recording obviates the need to spend many hours transcribing text or of falling back on the less useful option of paying for a third party transcription service. Clearly the immersion in the data is greater when the researcher does the transcription, digital tools also allow the researcher to listen to the recording several times at normal speed to add any observational notes about the tonal emphasis that could indicate depth of conviction or level of uncertainty. Video of F2F, Skype, FaceTime or Periscope interviews also has the advantage of allowing for interpretation of visual signals.

On page 296 in box 12.4 the authors offer advantages and disadvantages of the telephone interview, it is not clear why they state:

"They need to be relatively short (usually less than 30 minutes) face-to-face interviews can be up to an hour in many cases."

There is absolutely no justification for this statement, most phone contracts offer free calls for up to an hour (and have done for years) and the cost of going over an hour is minimal and far less than the cost of travelling long distances to meet face-to-face. I can not think of one reason why a phone call needs to be shorter than a face to face conversation. Although telephones are still relevant today the advantages offered by video services such as FaceTime or Skype include allowing contextual information to be gleaned, no limit on the length of call, and there is also the potential for live sharing of relevant documents or images via instant file transfer. Recording is not difficult, for example on a Mac just open QuickTime, select 'new screen recording', start recording then start the interview.  If you want a double indemnity approach set up a camera or smartphone on a small tripod pointing at the screen and off you go.

The authors do mention VOIP briefly at the top of page 298 but refer the reader to older sources dating 2006-2009 which are less than contemporary. they then go on to expand on advantages / disadvantages of several methods but repeat the categorisation into approaches where social cues are or are not relevant and continue to fail to cover digital video recording adequately.

I find the same in Social Research by Punch from 2014, on page 151 the author talks about tape recording and references sources from an era before digital devices were common - 1985 - 2002. Recording equipment in 1990 was very different to that available on any smart phone today and situations where there is no opportunity for electronic recording in the field are now rare indeed as long as mobile devices are well charged in advance.

Some comparisons between digital recording and analogue tapes:

Digital  - no specialist equipment needed beyond that available in most households, no training needed.
Analogue  - hardware is not commonly available, some basic training might be needed.

Digital - easily copied at no extra cost to create backups.
Analogue - copying tapes requires a special recorder or a second machine, not difficult but might have a cost implication.

Digital - easy to create video or audio extracts from the raw data.
Analogue - not so easy to make and not so easy to use unless digitised.

Digital - files can be stored securely online and accessed easily by password holders from any internet enabled location. On local devices folders containing files can be password protected for security - it takes about 10 seconds to do.
Analogue - secure storage has to be in a physical device such as a locked file cabinet or safe, this has implications in regard to convenience of access.

Ye I'm having a moan but come on publishers; recently revised books should include current information in-line with the recent evolution of technologies.

Tapes Pah!