Critical Analysis
Three levels of analysis
| Level | What it does |
|---|---|
| Ethno-methodological | Examines taken-for-granted assumptions and rules of everyday social behaviour |
| Hermeneutic phenomenological | Reflects on interpretation of the learner’s experience and the phenomena being experienced |
| Discursive | Probes how speech and texts construct social truths |
One-line takeaway
Critical analysis is breaking the experience down into parts and examining the relationships among the parts and with the whole.
Choosing the level
The three levels are tools, not a hierarchy. Pick the level that fits the problem.
A teacher hits a problem they cannot solve with intuition. The problem is real, the situation is complex, and a guess will not do. Critical analysis is the disciplined way through. It rests on a definition, three levels of analysis that suit different kinds of problem, and the judgment to pick the right level for the question.
The basic move is the same throughout. Break the situation into parts. Examine the parts and the relationships among them. Build an understanding that holds up under questioning.
What critical analysis is
Analysis involves breaking down information into its component parts and examining the relationships within these parts and with the whole. By doing this, the teacher shows the ability to differentiate and distinguish between the components of their experience.
All critical analysis is built around one basic assumption: applying theory to practice. The teacher is not just describing what happened. They are using theory to explain it, and using the explanation to plan the next step.
Three levels of analysis
Different problems call for different kinds of analysis. Three levels cover most cases.
Ethno-methodological analysis
This level examines taken-for-granted assumptions and rules of everyday social behaviour.
The classroom has dozens of unwritten rules. Who speaks first when the class enters. How loudly students may disagree. What counts as a good answer. These rules are usually invisible until you analyse them.
Ethno-methodological analysis surfaces the rules. A teacher using this approach asks, “what is the unspoken rule that students are following here?” The answer often explains a behaviour that seemed inexplicable until the rule was named.
Hermeneutic phenomenological analysis
This level reflects on the interpretation of the learner’s experience and the phenomena being experienced. The goal is to move beyond the partiality of previous understanding.
The teacher asks, “what is this experience like from the student’s side?” Not what the student should be experiencing, but what they actually are. The analysis tries to enter the student’s perspective and understand the lesson from inside that perspective.
This is harder than it sounds. The teacher’s own frame keeps interfering. The work involves repeatedly setting aside the teacher’s view in order to see the student’s.
Discursive analysis
This level probes how speech and texts construct social truths.
The words the teacher uses, the words the textbook uses, the words students use to describe the class: all of these shape what is taken to be true. A class repeatedly described as “lazy” comes to be a lazy class. A class repeatedly described as “talented” comes to be a talented class. The descriptions are not innocent.
Discursive analysis asks, “what is the language doing here?” It treats words as actions, not as transparent labels.
Choosing the right level
The three levels are tools, not a hierarchy. A useful teacher chooses the level that fits the problem.
A problem about why a class greets the teacher in a particular way is ethno-methodological. A problem about why a student is silent is hermeneutic phenomenological. A problem about how the school’s language about students shapes what teachers expect is discursive.
Models should be used to trigger broader reflection rather than as ends in themselves. Teachers need to understand that different models engage different levels of complexity and need to be used selectively. Students should also be helped to see the strengths of different models and methods of reflection.
Presenting one model as if it were the only way reflective practice is done is a mistake. The point is to have several tools and to know when to use each.
Why all three levels matter
A teacher who only uses one level of analysis tends to read every problem through the same frame. The ethno-methodological teacher sees unspoken rules everywhere. The phenomenological teacher sees student experience everywhere. The discursive teacher sees language at work everywhere.
Each frame is useful. None is sufficient on its own. A teacher who can move between the three levels reads classroom problems more fully than a teacher who is stuck in one level.
The three levels also map onto different kinds of teaching decisions. A behaviour management decision often needs ethno-methodological analysis. A decision about how to help a struggling student often needs phenomenological analysis. A decision about how to talk about students in staff meetings often needs discursive analysis.
Ethno-methodological (unspoken rules of social behaviour), hermeneutic phenomenological (the learner’s experience), discursive (how language constructs social truths)
The three levels are tools, not a hierarchy. The right level depends on the problem. A teacher who can move between them reads classroom situations more fully than one who is stuck in a single frame.
How was this article?