5.3 Of what was absent

A grounded theory can only be formed based on the data available, which is indeed what I have attempted to do, yet with my background as outlined in Section 1.4, it would be remiss not to speculate on what I might have expected to see from the outset.

Picking up from the preceding section, it came as a surprise when the photographs started to come in, given the way in which the project had been introduced to the participants, that so few images were taken of learning examples from beyond school. Formal learning only comprises one strand of all the learning we experience; what about that learning which is not formal? Some classify learning other than formal in two ways:

• informal learning as the lifelong process in which people learn from everyday experience; and
• non-formal learning as organized educational activity outside formal systems.

(from Smith, 2009)

Given that the cameras were, theoretically at least, with the participants all the time, why were there no images of personal learning from say TV programmes, internet activity, phone calls, game play, visits to libraries, theatre/cinema, interactions with friends and family or participations in clubs? Was this a problem with the cameras - participants couldn't see how to capture these sorts of things with a camera, one of practicality - the camera just wasn't there all the time or simply that individual projects didn't extend over a long enough period? Perhaps participants didn't recognise or value these as possible learning opportunities or am I guilty of assuming that others ought to have a similar view of learning to me?

In later interviews these omissions became increasingly apparent so to explore possible reasons why, I introduced towards the end of the interview three images (see Figure 12 Section 4.4) which weren't taken by participants, asking them to comment on the images in contrast with the others from the project. Responses were either vague or unsure as in I's response:

"Personally I think it's better to read alone. But in this one, they're reading together and they look like they're gonna have fun if they do that. If they read together ... I don't know."

Or even when quite incisive as in O's observation:

"I think it's a little bit more different because when you teach someone to ride a bike, they gain a skill and you gain a skill. While you're teaching people things, you remember how to do it; if you teach someone well enough, they'll be able to go on and teach someone else how to ride a bike."

could have referred to any strand of learning formal, non-formal or informal.

Another theme I expected to be more prevalent in the image catalogue were examples of social learning where subjects would be in pairs or groups, both formally and informally. Whilst a good proportion of photographs show two or more people, for the most part they are not interacting. It isn't that these interactions don't occur, both in classrooms, around the school and undoubtedly elsewhere; in fact quite the contrary. So why were they not captured as instances of learning? The blame surely can't be directed at the camera this time since so many images of multiples of people were in fact captured, suggesting this might be one of attitude. Pairs or groups of people 'chatting' don't have a learning connotation, unless it is taking place within a formal context - in a classroom (as indeed the few images of pair/group work are) or over textbooks.

No examples of coaching, mentoring or modelling were shown in the images, though again these are techniques which are seen daily throughout school and doubtless beyond. Whilst participants may have found photographing teachers harder (they were required to ask permission first) and so may have missed instances of coaching, there is a culture in school of older students mentoring younger ones which permeates all aspects of school life - in the curriculum, pastorally, musically, in drama and art and of course in sport. Perhaps participants simply didn't encounter situations in which these activities occurred.

That there were very few examples of play, whether serious as in competitive sports or more frivolous as in young people playing tag in the yard, was disappointing but came as no surprise. Young people (and perhaps even older ones?) don't see the value of games and play in learning as typified by M's explanation of why she had discarded the following image as being indicative of learning:

That I perceive these as omissions is of little consequence in terms of the theory - it can only be formed from what is there, not what is not. So perhaps here then we see some of my interests (games-based learning), my learning and teaching preferences (largely constructivist with a leaning towards social aspects) or my prejudices (we don't pay enough attention to learning which takes place beyond the classroom and how it could or does influence what we strive to achieve through more formal approaches). I certainly couldn't agree with E for example when she observes:

"I like that one because he's telling A how to do something. And that's learning when someone tells someone else how to do something."

My view of learning is very different to hers.

In mentioning these factors, it is my intention to reveal the baggage I bring to this study so that it can hopefully be seen that this has not impinged on the theory and that the theory arose from the data only and hopefully was not biased by my predilections. My view is that of a male, mature, independent, self-actuated learner, with an increasingly informed background in theories of learning, so should hardly expect to reflect the views of adolescent, teenage girls.