In our research on pedagogical constructs of teachers we connect to the theoretical standpoint that teaching is a pedagogical endeavor by its very nature (Ax & Ponte, 2008; Van Manen, 1991). The theoretical underpinning of this standpoint is most of the time directed at the following characteristics of teaching (Buzelli & Johnston, 2002): 1. The nature of teaching: a. Teaching is a relational activity b. Teaching implies intervening in pupils lives in the light of prescribed goals 2. The characteristics of teaching: a. Teacher – student interactions touch upon teachers’ personal values and beliefs b. Teaching situations are unpredictable, this asks for continuing (re)negotiations with regard to what is right in (unexpected) teaching situations c. Teaching requires a continuing reorientation on the way pupils are treated A variety of authors mirror the above mentioned life world perspective on the pedagogical dimension of teaching against a contemporary performativity perspective (Jehaes & Simons, 2005). This perspective is primarily concerned with efficiency and effectiveness. Schools, classrooms and families are considered corporate units, suitable for input – throughput – output models. As a consequence the focus of this perspective lies primarily on what can be measured and valued in terms of predefined goals. The way we see the pedagogical dimension of teaching does not fit this ‘corporate’ blueprint thinking. In our view the pedagogical dimension of teaching is congruent with moments that can’t be programmed in detail beforehand (Biesta & Miedema, 2002). Because the pedagogical dimension, understood from a life world perspective, is hard to objectify and unspecified by nature, it’s difficult investigate the particularities of this perspective. In this contribution we will describe the way we operationalised the pedagogical dimension of teaching in to an applicable analytic framework. Jehaes & Simons (2005) argue that phenomenological methods are especially suited to investigate the every day pedagogical dimensions of teaching. For this purpose we developed in our first study a phenomenological repertory grid (*Van Kan, Ponte, Verloop, 2009) that is attuned to the everyday life world of teachers. Teachers were asked by means of a thorough interview protocol to interpret their every day teacher - pupil interactions. These teacher–student interactions may seem trivial at first sight, for example: A pupil shouts the right answer trough the classroom without raising his hand. The interpretation of such a ‘bumpy moment’ was centered around the question what the teacher felt was in the best interest of the particular pupil(s).

To develop an analytical framework that enables a systematical ordering of teachers’’ interpretations of these everyday bumpy moments, we examined the pedagogical foundations that form the basis of these interpretations, by means of a literature study (among others Smeyers & Levering, 2005). These pedagogical foundations could be considered grounding questions that make it possible to investigate different views with regard to education and the upbringing of children. In a focus group, that consisted of pedagogues, teachers and students, these initial grounding questions were critically examined. On basis of the input from the focus group a preliminary analytical framework was construed and applied to our data collection. After the first analyses, the adequacy of the initial analytical framework will be further tested and if necessary examined a second time by the aforementioned focus group.

The goal of our pedagogical analytical framework is to make the grounding principles that underlie teachers’ interpretations of their every day interactions with their pupils accessible. Some examples of the fundamental pedagogical questions in our analytical framework are the following; what do teachers consider their pupils to be; what should the relationship between teachers and their pupils consist of, what (curriculum) content is worthwhile teaching; what should be the goals in the upbringing of pupils? In this contribution the process of developing our analytical framework will be further elaborated on. The desired applicability of our pedagogical framework will be illustrated by means of the first analyses of our empirical data. The supposed adequacy of our presented pedagogical analytical framework will be questioned in the discussion; are the fundamental pedagogical questions sufficiently clear articulated for the purpose of analyzing and understanding teachers’ interpretations of their interactions with pupils in pedagogical terms?