Open coding is “the analytic process through which concepts are identified and their properties and dimensions are discovered in data” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 101). Open coding is the initial step in the analysis process of grounded theory. At this stage, a researcher reflects deeply on the nuances and content of the data (Birks & Mills, 2015).
Prior to establishing open codes the researcher read through the entire transcripts. When developing open coding, the data are broken down into very small pieces. Then the researcher “names events and actions in the data and constantly compares them with one another to decide which belong together” by examining the data line by line or word by word (Harry et al., 2005, p. 5). Through this stage, a researcher reaches a decision on what is important in the data and is able to see the transcript in a more analytical way when the researcher reviews the whole interview (Urquhart, 2013).
105
ter v ie w ax ial and supp ort ing op en co desAnalysis was done by hand instead of using a software package such as N-Vivo. A software program helps a researcher manage data (Birks & Mills, 2015; Urquhart, 2013). However, the researcher received advice to familiarise herself with the basic concept of coding before using a software package (Urquhart, 2013). Thus, all transcripts in the current study were analysed by hand.
Memo writing was also done while coding and it continued throughout the analysis process. Memo refers to a “specialized type of written records … that contain the products of … analyses” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 117). Memoing is an on-going activity so that the researcher is able to rely on memos done in the past, to revisit earlier thinking, and to reorient the researchers’ thinking with regard to the current study when the analysis process becomes complex (Birks & Mills, 2015).
Another benefit of memo writing is that the researcher is able to manage the audit trail for the current study. Throughout memo writing, the researcher is able to consider unforeseen circumstances, planned activities, and any changes. The researcher is able to review what happens within the data through memo writing and store information. This leads the researcher to new insights (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
When working with data, the researcher interprets meaning of the interview data as outlined in Table 5.1. Memo writing helps the researcher extract meaning from the data by exploring, articulating, and questioning. Through this process, the researcher is able to increase theoretical sensitivity. Also, the researcher is better equipped to understand what has happened in the data (Birks & Mills, 2015).
Table 5.1
Types of Memos Considered within the Analysis of Interview Data (extracted from Birks & Mills,
2015, p. 42)
Your feeling and assumptions about your research Your philosophical position in relation to your research Musings on books and papers that you have read
Potential issues, problems and concerns in relation to your study design
Reflections on the research process, including factors that influence quality in your study Procedural and analytical decision making
Codes, categories and your developing theory
Table 5.1 lists what needs to be considered as part of memo writing. From this list the researcher was able to choose an appropriate type to undertake memo writing for the current study. Birks and Mills (2015) also advised to use titles that represent the context of each memo so that the researcher is able to “cross-reference efficiently within and between memos” (p. 43). Examples of memo in the study are as follows:
Memo 10-Experienced Teachers
T2 said she gain confidence from her experience with educating students with SENs. She spoke of her job-share teacher who is an experienced teacher. The job-share
106
ter v ie w ax ial and supp ort ing op en co desteacher is an unofficial mentor who mentored T2 and gave her guidance. Also the job- share teacher gave some ideas on how to teach students with SENs. From this comment, it seems to be important to have a mentor or an experienced teacher who can listen to ECTs' concerns regarding educating students with SENs and can give guidance and ideas. Other interviewees such as T1, T3, T4 also talked of having an experienced teacher who was a great help. ECTs could talk about their concerns and share strategies or ideas and the experienced teacher could give ECTs guidance with regard to educating students with SENs. A mentor or supervisor could do these roles. However, T2's experience was of an unofficial mentor, and other interviewees had no mentor or supervisor who could share this kind of experience. That might be why the ECTs in the interview mentioned mentors or supervisors because they had no help with regard to teaching students with SENs.
Memo 7-The reason why School Learning Support Officers (i.e., SLSO) is required T1 said during the interview “other students are affected by other children’s behaviours”. T1 said a SLSO is necessary when engaging with inclusive practice. Maybe because of the fact that other students are affected by other children’s behaviour? Regular primary school teachers definitely consider and care about not only students with SENs but also students without SENs. This is the normal and right thing because they need to care about every student in their class. I think it is necessary to consider the negative and positive effects of students without SENs receiving SLSO assistance. If teachers focus on managing students’ challenging behaviour during the class, then other students would be isolated from teachers’ care and this would affect students’ school life at the end. I think T3 also mentioned this … "because even when I was trying my best there would still be big tantrums and emotional outbursts or things like that – it’s not easy dealing with that while you’re trying to teach the rest of the class as well. p.2" and "Another one is by looking after the rest of the class while I work with that student and helping the rest of the class. p.4"
To analyse interview data in the current study, six interview transcripts were analysed by the researcher. When developing open coding, the researcher read one transcript and developed open coding. After finishing each transcript, the researcher moved on to the next transcript and developed open coding. This continued for the remaining transcripts. When developing open coding, the researcher constantly compared open codes and decided which belonged together which were then named. For example, an open code was named “Lack of Experience” from the quote “IT sort of after few weeks of very calm and no unusual behaviour or anything and then sort of suddenly started, um,
probably not very good because of sudden I didn’t have experienced to help him” (T1). When
developing open codes from the transcript of T4, “I think if I had my own class and it was the
beginning of the year and I knew I had a child with a disability I think would have felt almost
incapable because of inexperience, because I don’t have experience with kids with disabilities”, it was
also named Lack of Experience. This is because both teachers talked about lack of experience when they needed to engage with inclusive practice.
An open code of Sharing Behaviour Management Strategies was named from comments made across all participants. Participant T2 commented: “I was prepared going into the classroom and so it
107
ter v ie w ax ial and supp ort ing op en co desmeant that especially because we’re in a job-share means that we have to have very similar behaviour management style, always that consistency.” (T2). When reading and developing open codes from the
T4 interview, “so sometimes it’s just very simple. It’s the most simple things like just having that
there it really helps you” was also named as Sharing Behaviour Management Strategies. This is
because T2 and T4 talked about their experience of receiving support from school colleagues. Table 5.2 shows more examples of open codes.
Table 5.2
Example of Open Codes Developed from the Interviews
Open codes Interview transcript
Observation The counsellor coming and observing in class time
Going to other class observing if they have similar students
Differentiation How do you differentiate at a curriculum level, at a programming level and programming
I think differentiation is always the key thing.
Future career intention-Yes In five years? Teaching somewhere in the public education system.
Teaching a class I would say here still
Counselling from counsellor Just having a meeting with the school counsellor led to a lot of things happening
There is a counsellor at the school that you would go and ask for advice.
Yes-expectation of others ECTs teach students with SENs
Yeah. I would think they do because we're very-our school is very disability heavy, if that makes sense. Yeah, I would believe so
Advice and guidance from more experienced teachers
Having someone else saying hey I have tried this before why don’t you try this in your classroom
Just asking for advice and guidance from colleagues-
the more experienced teacher
The most frequently presented open codes were A Unit of Study in Special and Inclusive Education Undertaken at Uni, SLSO, Advice and Guidance from More Experienced Teacher, Yes- Expectation of Others ECTs Teach Students with SENs, and Future Career Intention-Yes. The following are examples of the most frequently mentioned open codes. Among the most frequently mentioned open codes, SLSO was the most dominant. SLSO was named when the interviewees talked about how they received support from a SLSO or required support to engage with inclusive practice. The examples of SLSO were, “they give me support with things like … they make sure that the
108
ter v ie w ax ial and supp ort ing op en co des“another one is by looking after the rest of the class while I work with that student” (T3) and “you can
prepare the task yourself with the aide, you prepare itself” (T2).
Advice and Guidance from more Experienced Teachers was also a frequently mentioned code. This code was named if the interviewees talked about how they received support from school
colleagues. Examples of this code were, “having someone else saying ‘hey I have tried this before
why don’t you try this in your classroom?” (T1), “ask some advice from colleagues, [and] professional colleagues” (T3), “just asking for advice and guidance from colleagues-the more experienced teacher” (T2), and “I go to the next-door teacher and ask like ‘what do I need to do specifically to help this child’” (T4).
Yes-Expectation of Others ECTs Teach Students with SENs was a code presented a number of times across the interviewees. When the interviewer asked about whether other school staff members considered that ECTs needed to educate students with SENs, Yes-Expectation of Others ECTs Teach Students with SENs was coded if the interviewees answered ‘yes’ or talked about how they
considered others’ opinion relating to ECTs educating students with SENs. Examples of this code were, “yeah, I would believe so. … in my experience most students … who have had disabilities have
been in mainstream classes.” (T5); “well, yes. … Given them [students with SENs] more in the mainstream setting yes they [teachers] have to do in a way.” (T1); “the people that I sort of spend most of the time with, yes definitely” (T2); and “yeah. I would think they do because we’re very-our school is very disability heavy, if that makes sense.” (T3).
The actual language of interviewees was used as open codes as well. This is called ‘in vivo’ coding (Urquhart, 2013). ‘In vivo’ enclosed in single quotation marks in this study (e.g., ‘’). There are three different ways of using ‘in vivo’: (1) general terms which have significant meaning; (2) terms that the interviewee innovated; and (3) terms that are used in an organisational setting (Urquhart, 2013). In the current study, for instance, ‘take home book’ and ‘reward chart’ were used as ‘in vivo’ codes. These terms are used in educational settings with specific meaning so these terms belong to the third way of using ‘in vivo’. The researcher continued open coding until categories began to form (Birks & Mills, 2015). A total of 159 open codes were drawn. A full list of open codes is listed in Appendix P.