teacher once, and followed up with additional questions by email for clarification or additional information as needed. I interviewed each principal and district administrator once. After analyz- ing the data and drafting my findings, I conducted member check conversations with two of the four case teachers. The third teacher and the retired teacher declined due to time constraints.
Teacher interviews. One semi-structured interview was conducted with each of the teachers who were chosen as cases. During the interviews, I encouraged teachers to describe their work life in detail in their own words, to elaborate on the questionnaire with examples and stories, and to talk about both the extrinsic and intrinsic reasons they chose to stay in their schools. The interviews were my main resource to answer my research question about experi- enced teacher perspectives, and to discover the factors that influenced their decision to stay in their small schools. I had developed an open-ended interview protocol (see Appendix D), with some possible questions, and revised it as planned after analyzing the questionnaire responses
(see revised protocol, Appendix E). My open-ended questions were in the format, “How do you feel about . . .?” “Tell me about . . ..” “Can you describe . . .?” Each initial interview lasted about an hour.
I audio-recorded the interviews for transcription, using two audio recorders in case one device gave out for any reason. I asked open-ended questions from the revised interview proto- col and/or in response to participants’ previously shared comments. After interview transcription, I followed up by email correspondence to fill in gaps or clarify statements.
Administrator interviews. I interviewed each district administrator and school principal once. I interviewed the Director of Student Support for the district, who is in charge of special education and all student services, and the district Coordinator of Special Education, who is spe- cifically in charge of special education. Of the six PK-3 school principals, I interviewed only four because two declined the informed consent due to time constraints. I conducted semi- structured interviews using open-ended questions, and encouraged administrators to describe how they were involved with the special education team and students in the district or in their particular school. I was interested in how their perception of the support they provided for spe- cial education teachers compared to the teachers’ perceptions of the administrative support given. I met with each administrator at a mutually agreed upon location and time, and recorded the interview for transcription. The interview protocol (see Appendix G) consisted of seven ques- tions, and usually lasted about half an hour.
Teacher member checks. After analyzing the data and writing up each case, I gave each teacher a draft of the description and findings, and then met at a mutually determined time and location. Two of the case teachers declined to participate in the member check due to time con- straints. We reviewed the draft together and discussed the results and findings. This constituted
the main opportunity to share our understandings, and allowed each teacher to add to, further ex- plain, or suggest revisions of her previous statements. We attempted to construct the most accu- rate and true version of each teacher’s experience, as we perceived it. Differences of interpreta- tion among the teachers, or between researcher and participant, were noted, and attempts were made to understand the differing viewpoints within the results and key findings.
Researcher memos. I took memos and created a running commentary throughout data collection and analysis detailing procedural notes, questions, and emerging hypotheses. I in- cluded my own reflections on the process and data as I collected it. I dated every entry and stated the occasion, such as “9/12/2016 - second interview with T1,” or “10/15/2016 - reflection on dis- trict meeting.” These notes created an audit trail and helped substantiate trustworthiness. They served as a way to record and check my thinking. An example of my memos follows:
9/7/2016, after district special ed meeting: Another SpEd teacher was in the room and mentioned a long term K-3 SpEd teacher who retired in 2014. She gave me his contact information. The discussion made me think about other ideas for po- tentially changing the direction of my research. I started to consider:
• Include early childhood center? One experienced teacher there. • Include 4/5? One experienced teacher there.
• At least two of the teachers currently in K-3 schools have five or more years of experience (L&V)
• Include the retired teacher with more than 20 years of experience? (He worked under a principal who is now in the administration, so she might be available for interviews as well)
Tonight I sent an email with the informed consent form attached. (Olson, Research Memos, 9/7/2016)
Procedures/Data Analysis
As stated in the Purpose of Study, my goal was to describe the perspectives of experi- enced special education teachers in small PK or K-3 schools and to explain the organizational and individual factors that influenced their decisions to stay in their schools. In keeping with my constructionist framework, in which the participants and I construct reality together (Gergen, 1985; Young & Collin, 2004), my analytical procedures were focused on interpreting all the data in a recursive fashion to help me answer those questions.
Phase 1 data analysis. The data collected in Phase 1 were intended to provide a more