Teachers’ Experiences of Presence in Their Daily Educational Practice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a potentially important and promising study conducted by capable and careful researchers which reports teachers’ experiences of presence in their daily educational practice. It helpfully brings to light cognitive (a term which I would suggest may be preferable to ‘mental’?), affective and psychomotor dimensions of presence which are often overlooked in educational research.

There are however a number of areas in which the article could be significantly improved. 

Firstly, the concept of presence is not consistently or coherently defined in current version of the article. For example, presence is variously described as a "state of alert awareness"; "a state of being"; "a quality"; "sensitivity to and insights into" ...; "noticing" ; “a way of encountering the world” and a "source of reflection-in-action". This lack of conceptual and theoretical coherence is I think at least in part due to the way in which seminal contributions to the discourse from the philosophy of education regarding the role of experience in education and forms of knowledge (in particular phronesis and praxis) are either dealt with in a rather perfunctory manner or are absent from the discussion.  

Secondly, while the article claims to draw upon multi-disciplinary sources the work of Dewey, Greene and Van Manen receive only cursory consideration and the authors seem to take their influence predominantly from the discipline of Psychology. In essence this means that the study takes the form of a detailed exploration of three dimensions of presence identified by Rodgers and Raider-Roth (2006). It would be more appropriate  therefore if the authors were to make the psychological focus of the study more explicit in the article rather than to lay, what is in the end, a rather tenuous claim to be multidisciplinary.

Finally, the arguments, discussion, findings and conclusion presented in the article could be strengthened if the three dimensions of presence identified by Rodgers and Raider-Roth (2006) could be subjected to some critical scrutiny by the authors rather than accepted at face value simply as a heuristic device. The inclusion of such a critique could provide the authors with an opportunity to contribute to the discourse further regarding moral dimensions of individual and collective presence as well as the role and quality of experience and importance of teacher judgment in everyday educational practice.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your valuable suggestions and comments. We highly value the detailed comments in your review and we thank you for your praise. We have revised the paper to address all comments and believe that this has significantly improved our manuscript. All revisions are explained and displayed below. What we have added or changed, is underlined and we give a reference to the line numbers in the revised manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a potentially important and promising study conducted by capable and careful researchers which reports teachers’ experiences of presence in their daily educational practice. It helpfully brings to light cognitive (a term which I would suggest may be preferable to ‘mental’?), affective and psychomotor dimensions of presence which are often overlooked in educational research.

There are however a number of areas in which the article could be significantly improved. 

Firstly, the concept of presence is not consistently or coherently defined in current version of the article. For example, presence is variously described as a "state of alert awareness"; "a state of being"; "a quality"; "sensitivity to and insights into" ...; "noticing" ; “a way of encountering the world” and a "source of reflection-in-action". This lack of conceptual and theoretical coherence is I think at least in part due to the way in which seminal contributions to the discourse from the philosophy of education regarding the role of experience in education and forms of knowledge (in particular phronesis and praxis) are either dealt with in a rather perfunctory manner or are absent from the discussion.  

Authors: We have addressed your call for a consistent or coherent definition of presence in the Introduction section and in the Theoretical Background, gratefully using your suggestion to explicate the role of experience and forms of knowledge from an educational philosophical perspective. In our view this has contributed to the conceptual clarity of our paper. It has led to the following revisions in our manuscript:

• In the Introduction section we have positioned presence within a phronesis-praxis perspective on education. This reads as follows: “Inherently, unpredictability and uncertainty are acknowledged as significant features of teaching [8]. Similarly, in educational philosophy, a renewed attention to a phronesis-praxis perspective on education is observable. Praxis refers to ‘wise action’ in a practice that is comprehensive and open-ended [9]. Phronesis signifies ‘morally committed thought’ guiding this action. A phronesis-praxis perspective refers firstly to forms of knowledge, that are “pragmatic, variable, context-dependent, and oriented towards action” [10] (p. 2). Secondly, it includes a moral component referring to teachers’ commitment to do one’s best and to act for the good of students and for the greater good in society [10]. In the context of these developments in educational research and philosophy, teachers’ estimations and judgments are considered essential [cf. 8]” [Line 39-49].
• The phronesis-praxis perspective helped us to distinguish between what presence is and what is may mean to teachers' reflections, judgments and actions:
  • Following Rodgers and Raider-Roth’s (2006) definition we have consequently referred to presence as a particular ‘state’. In the Introduction section and Theoretical Background we now refer to presence as: “a state of alert awareness, receptiveness and connectedness to what is happening in class.” [Line 58, 125-126]. Presence as a ‘state of being’ has been removed [Line 125-126]. Presence as a ‘stance’ has been changed in ‘state’ [Line 82, 94] or has been removed (Line 188]. Presence as a ‘quality’ has been replaced with the term ‘concept’, which is more neutral [Line 26]. In the Theoretical Background we have added an explanation of the use of the term ‘state’ and we have substantiated our choice for using Rodgers and Raider-Roth’s definition as a departure for our study. This reads as follows: “The term ‘state’, within the first definition, refers to presence as a phenomenon that is temporal. Citing Martin Buber, Rodgers and Raider-Roth [17] argued that: “Presentness […] arises when the ‘Thou becomes present’, when one comes to see the other and allows one’s self to be seen” [7, italics in original] (p. 284). This quote, in addition, illustrates that presence is embedded in and emerges in interaction.  Presence then, is also a relational phenomenon. For this study, we depart from this first definition of presence in teaching, being the most comprehensive and substantiated.” [Line 87-92]
  • In the Abstract and Introduction section we have removed: “Presence may be a source of reflection” [Line 10-11; 58]. Instead, we added what presence may contribute to teachers’ reflections and judgments. This reads as follows: “First, presence may contribute to teachers’ ability to approach the unavoidable uncertainties of teaching practice in a thoughtful and reflective way [cf. 12,15]. Kemmis [16] argued that phronesis – as guiding wise action – consists in “openness to experience—a preparedness to see what the situation is, in what may be new terms or new ways of understanding a situation” (p. 155). This ‘openness’ and ‘preparedness to see’ has similarities with presence as a state of alert awareness, receptiveness and connectedness to what is happening in class. Earlier studies have suggested that presence enhances teachers’ sensibility to and insights into the classroom situation [17,18].” [Line 52-58]

Secondly, while the article claims to draw upon multi-disciplinary sources the work of Dewey, Greene and Van Manen receive only cursory consideration and the authors seem to take their influence predominantly from the discipline of Psychology. In essence this means that the study takes the form of a detailed exploration of three dimensions of presence identified by Rodgers and Raider-Roth (2006). It would be more appropriate  therefore if the authors were to make the psychological focus of the study more explicit in the article rather than to lay, what is in the end, a rather tenuous claim to be multidisciplinary.

Authors: While our paper includes insights from different disciplinary sources, we did not so much meant to make a claim of multi-disciplinarity, but instead to approach a difficult to define concept from various perspectives. We do agree that in our theoretical background we build mostly on the conceptualization of presence in teaching by Rodgers and Raider-Roth (2006). In revising the manuscript, we first made this more explicit, as follows: “Rodgers and Raider-Roth [17] discerned three dimensions of presence in teaching: presence as connection to self; presence as connection between teacher and students and presence as teachers’ focused attention on how students deal with the subject matter. Their conceptualization of presence as embedded in the interaction between teacher, students and subject matter, offers points of departure to explore teachers’ experiences of student presence as well. Therefore, we will structure the continuation of our theoretical background through the heuristic of these dimensions of presence.” [Line 147-149]

Secondly, the influence from the discipline of Psychology is particularly prominent in Rodgers and Raider-Roth's elaboration of the 'relational dimension' of presence in teaching. We already explicated this in the introduction of that dimension [Line 182-183] and now have made adjustments in wording to underscore the ‘relational’, as conceptualized by Rodgers and Raider-Roth. Thus, we have changed 'connected' into 'relational' [Line 182, 184]. In addition, it is important to note that Rodgers and Raider-Roth also described the moral dimension of presence in teaching. In the original version of our manuscript, we only mentioned this but did not elaborate on this moral dimension. Therefore, in the Theoretical Background, we have now added: “Rodgers and Raider-Roth [17] emphasized the importance of the connection of teachers’ self to social and moral purposes with regard to the welfare of others and the larger society, more specifically a democratic society. Referring to Dewey, they argued that “teaching must have an ‘end-in-view’ that is moral” (p. 273).” [Line 168-171] These adaptations in the Theoretical Background have contributed to a critical reflection on the three dimensions of presence in teaching, which is included in the Conclusion and Discussion section. See the following section.

Finally, the arguments, discussion, findings and conclusion presented in the article could be strengthened if the three dimensions of presence identified by Rodgers and Raider-Roth (2006) could be subjected to some critical scrutiny by the authors rather than accepted at face value simply as a heuristic device. The inclusion of such a critique could provide the authors with an opportunity to contribute to the discourse further regarding moral dimensions of individual and collective presence as well as the role and quality of experience and importance of teacher judgment in everyday educational practice.

Authors:

We agree that we needed to critically reflect on the three dimensions of presence. We have added this to our paper, which has resulted in the following revisions in the Conclusion and Discussion section:

• We have reversed two paragraphs to allow this critical reflection to follow logically from our previous reflection on the three dimensions of presence in teaching [Line  724-763].
• As a result of your comments, we realized that the moral scope of presence in teaching in Rodgers and Raider-Roth’s conceptualization is only reflected in the dimension of connection to self, whereas our findings reveal that this moral scope is also reflected in the participants' connecting to students' learning and experiences and in their professional judgment and responses. We have supplemented our critical reflection on the three dimensions accordingly. This now reads as follows: “Rodgers and Raider-Roth’s [17] conceptualization does not contain an elaboration on the coherence between these three dimensions. Our findings indicate that the participating teachers, by being concurrently attentive and aware of students and of themselves, gained an in-depth and nuanced understanding of and sensibility to what was happening in class. This understanding and sensibility allowed them to judge what they considered best in that moment for the students and their development. In this way, our results specify what Rodgers and Raider-Roth called the “moral imperative of self” (p. 273). Moreover, our findings reveal that the moral scope of presence seems to transcend the teachers’ connection to self, which was also expressed in how the participants sensed, understood, judged and acted in trying to do good, when they were present. This implies that, in our view, the second and third dimensions of presence in teaching are not merely relational and pedagogical by nature, but also moral.” [Line 764-774]
• The next paragraph in the manuscript describes what our study contributes to the existing insights in presence in teaching. We now have added the meaning of students' individual and shared active and meaningful engagement (this is close to the codes we used) for the quality of their experiences. This reads as follows: “Finally, this study has given insight into students’ individual and shared active and meaningful engagement as a necessary condition for the significance that participants attached to presence for the quality of students’ experiences and for their academic learning and personal development.” [Line 788; 790]
• Finally, in the paragraph ‘Relevance of the study’ we elaborated on the meaning of our findings for our understanding of the moral scope and importance of teacher judgment in everyday educational practice. This now reads: “Additionally, we found that participants viewed presence in terms of making a difference to students: to their experiences, their academic learning and their personal development. These aspirations resonate with morally committed thought and action as an organizing framework for teachers’ professional knowledge [44]. Insights into the relation between presence and teachers’ moral commitment can promote our understanding of the moral scope and importance of teacher judgment in everyday educational practice. The participants’ desire to contribute to students’ broad development is in keeping with …….” [Line 824-830]

Submission Date

17 December 2020

Date of this review

31 Dec 2020 11:26:16

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, an interesting and thoughtful paper. This manuscript offers an abundance of riches in respect to cited scholarship, strong understanding of the methodology selected with an interesting angle looking at secondary school teachers’ experiences of presence in their daily educational practice. Although this research study does not claim universal representation, the findings may be of significance to educational practices.

Line 65-67 Line 70 - why are you providing the page number? did you miss the quote?

Line 70-72 - why are you providing the page number? did you miss the quote?

I have doubts about the ethical aspects of this research as the authors do not mention it. Were teachers informed of the open nature of the interview, their ability to steer the conversation toward issues they viewed as important, and that their opinions, information and statements were treated as factual and correct, and that can withdraw from the interview at any time without any judgment? Plase 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your valuable suggestions and comments and for your praise. We have revised the paper to address the comments and believe that this has improved our manuscript. The revisions are explained below, with reference to the line numbers in the revised manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, an interesting and thoughtful paper. This manuscript offers an abundance of riches in respect to cited scholarship, strong understanding of the methodology selected with an interesting angle looking at secondary school teachers’ experiences of presence in their daily educational practice. Although this research study does not claim universal representation, the findings may be of significance to educational practices.

Line 65-67 Line 70 - why are you providing the page number? did you miss the quote?

Line 70-72 - why are you providing the page number? did you miss the quote?

Authors: There seems to be some confusion here, likely due to formatting issues when converting our paper to the Education Science submission system. Line 79-81 and line 84-86 (within the revised manuscript) do indeed contain quotations. We followed the APA Style, indicating that when using a quote of more than 40 words, this quote should be displayed as a ‘block quotation’: in a new block of text by starting the quote on a new line and without quotation marks. We have adapted the layout in order to display the quotes more clearly as a block quotation. An adjustment to this is of course possible: the blank lines can be removed and quotation marks can be added.

I have doubts about the ethical aspects of this research as the authors do not mention it. Were teachers informed of the open nature of the interview, their ability to steer the conversation toward issues they viewed as important, and that their opinions, information and statements were treated as factual and correct, and that can withdraw from the interview at any time without any judgment? Plase 

Authors: Thank you for this very helpful comment. Indeed, we have taken into account the ethical aspects by following an informed consent procedure. We have added a description of this informed consent procedure in the method section. This reads as follows: “We followed an informed consent procedure in which the participants were informed about the open nature of the interviews, the voluntary character of participation and the possibility to withdraw their participation and consent at any time, and about the anonymization and use of the data for scientific publication and presentation.” [Line 290-293]

peer-review-10024125.v1.pdf

Submission Date

17 December 2020

Date of this review

20 Dec 2020 16:58:18

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I was pleased to read the text on the basic category of being a teacher. On the one hand, the text by Dutch scientists can be seen as a very elementary study in the area of pedeutology. On the other hand, it brings a phenomenological view of rituals, elementary processes resulting from being a teacher. The text is a typical pedeutological study based on a double interview. Researchers have done titanic work related to the analysis of more than 300 transcription pages. The text acquires a new meaning when the experience of teachers from the last year is taken into account, when all processes related to "presence" have been strongly mediated by the Internet. I have only one question for the authors - to what extent does the material obtained from the interlocutors allow to saturate the variables (categories)? It is a text that is especially recommended for students of teacher training.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your praise and for placing our study into presence in education in the perspective of being and becoming a teacher and in the area of pedeutology. Following your question, our answer is described below. The question also made us aware of a necessary addition to the manuscript, which is explained below, with a reference to the line numbers in the revised manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I was pleased to read the text on the basic category of being a teacher. On the one hand, the text by Dutch scientists can be seen as a very elementary study in the area of pedeutology. On the other hand, it brings a phenomenological view of rituals, elementary processes resulting from being a teacher. The text is a typical pedeutological study based on a double interview. Researchers have done titanic work related to the analysis of more than 300 transcription pages. The text acquires a new meaning when the experience of teachers from the last year is taken into account, when all processes related to "presence" have been strongly mediated by the Internet.

I have only one question for the authors - to what extent does the material obtained from the interlocutors allow to saturate the variables (categories)? It is a text that is especially recommended for students of teacher training.

Authors: You requested an explanation of the extent to which “the material obtained from the interlocutors allow to saturate the variables (categories)?” In our view, the data obtained do allow to saturate the variables (categories). We have two reasons for this. First, while collecting data, after nine to ten interviews no new insights or variations became apparent. Second, when - at a final stage of data analysis - we moved back and forth again between the categories (‘themes’ in our study), codes and the original data, we identified a significant level of saturation of the themes, as they appeared to be clearly grounded in the data. To clarify this, in the description of the process of data-analysis in the method section, we have added: “Finally, when moving back and forth between themes, codes and data, no new or further insights in the themes and codes were found.” [Line 403-404].

Submission Date

17 December 2020

Date of this review

28 Dec 2020 09:23:29

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I commend the authors for the careful and thoughtful ways that have responded to my comments and suggestions. In my view this paper  is now much stronger regarding coherence of argument. I offer the following as suggestions which could strengthen the paper even further. They are not requirements for revision.

The authors’ definition Praxis refers to ‘wise action’ in a practice that is comprehensive and open-ended [9]. The philosopher Joseph Dunne in his book Back to the Rough Ground  (1993, p.10) offers what I think in the context of this paper is a more helpful definition of praxis as, “conduct in a public space with others in which a person without ulterior purpose and with a view to no object detachable from himself acts in such a way as to realize excellences that he has come to appreciate in his community as a worthwhile way of life”. Here Dunne brings the moral dimension of praxis to the fore in ways which the authors’ current definition does not.

The authors’ define of phronesis signifies ‘morally committed thought’ guiding this action. While this definition is particularly helpful in drawing attention to the moral dimension of phronesis, I think in the context of this paper it could be extended to include the philosopher Wilfred Carr’s definition of phronesis in his book For Education (1995, p. 72)  as, “the union of good judgement and action”.

I hope the authors find these suggestions helpful.