EMPRESAS EN LA CIUDAD DE CALI

I was concerned that my withdrawal from the close relationships that had developed over the course of the research might harm teachers and children. Different activities were planned jointly to support the participants through the leaving process. The first activity involved the target children and me planting shrubs that I had donated to the school as a gesture of appreciation for allowing me the opportunity to conduct this research. I also wrote a personal message to each target child and teacher expressing my gratitude for their participation in the research. Another activity involved all the Year 3 / 4 team joining me and my student-teachers from the University for one day at a local reserve. The student-teachers engaged with the children in a range of Social Studies learning experiences planned as a requirement of their learning. At the end of the day, the teachers and children were escorted back to their awaiting buses by one student teacher playing his bagpipes - a poignant ritual that marked the formal severing of our research connections.

4.6 DATA ANALYSIS

This section describes the methods used to analyse data in the field as well as after the data generation period. My use of coding, memoing and writing as tools to support the analysis process are described. Computer software tools to manage the data are also described. The sociocultural analysis of data using Rogoff’s (2003) personal, interpersonal and institutional lenses is also described. Finally, explanation is offered for the presentation of data in the following three results chapters. While I was prepared for the non-definitive stages of data generation and analysis in the field, I was unprepared for the complexity and uncertainty of the analysis processes after I had left the field. Bogdan and Biklen (1998) captured my feelings when they wrote, “There, facing you is all the material you have diligently collected. An empty feeling comes over you as you ask, ‘Now what do I do?’” (p. 170).

4.6.1 Coding, memoing and writing

As noted above, the analysis process began in the field as full fieldnotes were written with my observer comments and with the teachers’ reflective comments. I began the daunting task of analysis after the data generation period by reading and re-reading fieldnotes written from Room One. I looked for patterns and manually marked

similar pieces of information in the margins, and wrote comments on post-it notes. While this was enabling immersion in the data, it soon became apparent that I needed a system to better manage the complex, iterative processes of analysing so much

data. NVivo (QSR, 2002) enabled me to do just this. An NVivo project was created

for each classroom and fieldnotes, emails, interview transcripts and RaP day transcripts pertaining to that classroom were imported. Using the “browse a document function”, I read and re-read the data set from one classroom to identify initial themes. Using the “coder”, each theme was assigned a code which sometimes was an actual word the teachers or children used, such as ‘headspace’. Each coded chunk of text was placed at a “node” and stored with similar ideas (see Appendix C1). Each node was assigned a set of properties to ensure my coding remained consistent across the long and meandering analysis process. This list of node properties became my codebook, which guided the ongoing analysis of data from the other three classrooms. By sorting the data in this way, and repeatedly browsing the text coded at a node, I began to discern patterns and themes within and across the four classrooms.

“DataBites” was another NVivo function that enabled me to write my thoughts and attach them in the coded text. Inserting databites into a coded document was indicated by coloured and underlined text so that, at a later date, I could return to my earlier thought and continue theorising about it. Later in the analysis process, I shaped these “free nodes” into “tree nodes” to group similar themes together and to show relationships between them. These nodes could be moved in or out of different “branches” of the tree enabling further clarification of key themes. At this point, making tables became a useful tool to further sort the data (see Appendix C2). To my surprise, I found the act of writing about the themes identified in NVivo supported a much deeper level of theorising. Because, the data sources were readily identifiable in NVivo, I was able to return to original transcripts to check for deeper contextual meaning to clarify my developing arguments. Writing early drafts served to highlight false leads, illuminate new paths to follow in the analysis: it became the activity in which I became creative in the analysis and felt the satisfaction that comes from the pursuit of new understandings. The teachers were sent a copy of the results chapter that pertained to their classroom for comment.

4.6.2 Sociocultural data analysis

While NVivo provided the technical tools to code the data systematically, the

institutional, interpersonal and personal lenses, as described in the previous chapter, provided conceptual tools to look at the data set. These analytic lenses were used to reveal the sociocultural context of the themes that had earlier emerged in the coding processes. For example, the theme ‘child-initiated joint participation’ emerged in the coding and memoing processes as an example of participation in a community of learners. This theme was then further examined through an interpersonal lens to identify more closely the nature of the teachers’ and children’s interactions, while temporarily backgrounding the individual child’s perspectives or understanding of joint participation (personal lens), as well as the cultural context of the classroom (institutional lens). Table 4.6 provides examples of the nature of participation observed using the three lenses as the teachers sought to develop a community of learners.

Table 4.6 Nature of participation observed through three lenses Research

Questions

Nature of the participation

Personal focus: Transformation of a teacher’s or a child’s skill, understanding, perspective, disposition or learning identity. Interpersonal focus: Transformation of interaction patterns between a child, the teacher and/or other children.

1. How does the participation of Year 3 and 4 teachers and children change as a community of learners develops in their classroom?

Institutional focus: Transformation of taken-for-granted cultural practices, routines and values framed by the teacher’s professional development goals.

Personal focus: A teacher’s or a child’s perspectives of learning and teaching and tensions therein.

Interpersonal focus: The impact of teachers’ and children’s perspectives on their ability to participate in shared activity.

2. In what ways do Year 3 and 4 teachers’ and children’s perspectives about learning and teaching shape the development of a community of learners?

Institutional focus: The impact of teachers’ and children’s perspectives on the cultural rituals, routines and values in the classroom.

Personal focus: Individual perspectives, behaviours, tensions and emotions that enable or constrain a community of learners. Interpersonal focus: Interaction patterns that enable or constrain a community of learners.

3. What factors constrain or enable Year 3 and 4 teachers and children to develop and to participate in a community of learners?

Institutional focus: Cultural practices, routines and values in the classroom or in the research that enable or constrain a community of learners.

4.6.3 Data presentation

In reporting the findings, direct quotations are taken from the data set to amplify the teachers’ and the target children’s voices. These data sources are identified in Table 4.1 (p. 71). The pseudonyms used for the four teachers and the sixteen target children are shown in Table 4.2 (p. 76). Evidence for the development of a community of learners is provided as teachers’ and children’s transformation of participation in the classroom. These transformations are presented in the following three results chapters according to the personal, interpersonal or institutional lens through which they were observed. Table 4.6, above, identifies the kinds of data reported through each of these lenses in relation to each of the research questions. By presenting the results in this way, the mutually constituting nature of the development of a community of learners can be understood: transformation reported through one lens, can be seen to shape and be shaped by, changes observed through the other two lenses.

The first two research questions, stated at the beginning of Chapter Three, guide the presentation of data in Chapters Five and Six. Chapter Five presents the transformations of participation in Room One, as well as the impact of Rick’s and the target children’s perspectives on their joint participation. Chapter Six presents separately the transformations of participation in Rooms Two, Three and Four, as well as the impact of the perspectives held by Amy, Tiare and Kelly, and their target children. While data are presented for all three teachers and all their target children through the institutional and interpersonal lenses, only the activity of each teacher and one target child from each of the three classrooms is reported through the personal lens. The decision to choose this target child was made using three criteria: the quantity of data, the triangulation of these data, and the ability of the data to reveal different aspects of the transformation process. Some target children had been absent when I was observing or were less confident to talk with me, which left me with less data about their participation. Data about some children had only been revealed through one source and was, therefore, less dependable than data generated from multiple methods. The third criterion for choosing a target child required a decision to be made about the nature of his or her transformation and the contribution it made to my reporting a full and rich picture of the development of a community of learners. Chapter Seven presents data in response to the third research question.

4.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter has described and summarised how the qualitative methods, theorised in the previous chapter, were used in this collaborative action research to generate and analyse data at, and beyond, the school site. The ethical processes of selection, entry and exit were outlined, as were the procedures used to generate data in ways that minimised potential harm to the teachers and the target children. The methods used to analyse data during and after the data generation period were described using a sociocultural perspective. Finally, the presentation of data across the three results chapters as described.

The chapter concludes with an overview of this study in Table 4.7. While the same qualitative methods were used throughout the study, the table highlights the structure that held together the emergent and iterative cycles of CAR. Our first RaP day, held at the end of Term One, signalled the first of three cycles of CAR where teachers set individual goals to develop unique features of a community of learners in Term Two. At the end of this second term, data from my fieldnotes were summarised in relation to each teacher’s goals in preparation for our conversations on our second RaP day. This second RaP day marked the beginning of the second CAR cycle where new and revised goals were set to focus action and data generation over Term Three. At the end of this third term, I summarised the data for teachers to support our reflective conversations about the achievement of their goals at our third RaP day. This third RaP day enabled teachers to set new and revised goals to focus action and data generation over the third CAR cycle in Term Four. Our fourth and final RaP day was held at the end of Term Four.

Table 4.7 Overview of the study Research

focus

• Identify teachers’ and children’s transformation of participation in learning and teaching.

• Identify ways in which teachers’ and children’s perspectives shape the development of a community of learners.

• Identify factors that constrain or enable teachers and children participate in a community of learners.

Methodology Collaborative Action Research

Methods Semi-structured interviews with teachers and children Participant observation in classroom and other school settings Document analysis

Messy talk time with teachers and children

Photographs of teachers and children in learning and teaching activity Reflection and Planning Days with teachers only

Participants Children n = 16 F = 7 M = 9 Age range 7.4 – 8.8 years Teachers n = 4 F = 3 M = 1 Age range 25 – 35 years Research site Four Year 3 / 4 classrooms in a full primary (Year 1-8) school Sequence of the study in 2003 Term 1 Reconnaissance Document analysis Observations in each class 1st _teacher interviews 1st _interviews with children 1st _{Reflection &} Planning day Term 2 1st _{CAR cycle} begins Observations in each class Face-to-face dialogue 2nd _interviews with children 2nd _Reflection & Planning day

Term 3

2nd _{CAR cycle} begins Observations in each class with photos

E-mail and face- to-face dialogue 3rd _interviews with children 3rd _Reflection & Planning day

Term 4

3rd _{CAR cycle} begins Observations in each class with photos E-mail, dialogue and 2nd teacher interviews 4th _{interviews with} children 4th _{Reflection day}

CHAPTER FIVE

A COMMUNITY OF LEARNERS IN ROOM ONE

The question from a participation view becomes understanding the transformations that occur in children’s participation in particular kinds of activities, which themselves transform. (Rogoff, 1997, p. 274)

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The line of reasoning presented by Rogoff (1997), above, highlights the importance of understanding how teachers and children in this study changed their participation in classroom activities, which themselves transformed. The aim of this chapter is to present the results of these transformations of participation in Room One as Rick sought to develop a community of learners. The presentation of results from just one classroom enables management of substantial quantities of data, as well as provides a structure to advance understanding of transformation in the other three classrooms. Details of the setting and cultural context of Room One are first provided. Data are then presented through the institutional lens to show new forms of culturally organised activity. Using an interpersonal lens, data are then presented to demonstrate new forms of collaborative interaction. Finally, data are presented through the personal lens to reveal Rick’s and the four target children’s new perspectives of teaching and learning, their new learning identities, and their new capacities for collaboration. These results illustrate how transformation observed through one lens shaped, and were shaped by activity observed through the other lenses.

The analysis of data in this chapter responds to the following two research questions. How does the participation of Year 3 and 4 teachers and children change as a community of learners develops in their classroom?

In what ways do Year 3 and 4 teachers’ and children’s perspectives of learning and teaching shape the development of a community of learners?