PROCESO PREVENTIVO

There are many guidelines but no absolute rules for qualitative data analysis; the challenge lies in making sense of massive amounts of data (D. Gray, 2014; Patton, 2002). Analysis therefore involves reducing the volume of information, separating out what is significant for the particular inquiry from what is less relevant, identifying patterns and themes, and building a framework for communicating the findings. As Patton suggests, the main goal should be for the researcher to strive to represent the data and communicate the findings fairly. Similarly, Cohen et al. (2007) suggest the researcher should be guided by the issue of fitness for purpose. According to Cohen et al. (2007), there are five ways of organising and presenting data analysis. The first two are by people – individuals and/or groups, the third is by issue, the fourth by research question, and the fifth by instrument. In this research three of these approaches were used at different times in the analysis process. First, interview data were analysed and presented in separate matrices for each individual participant. Second, they were combined for the whole group so that similarities and differences between participants within and between schools could be identified. Data were also organised by instrument with analysis of interview data, which was the main source of data, and separate analysis of classroom observations and field notes, which provided a means of triangulating and enriching the interview data. Documents such as classroom activity sheets and teacher planning documents, which were gathered where possible, also provided a means of triangulating, and in some cases adding more detail to interview data.

Each round of interviews was transcribed as soon as possible after the interviews were conducted, and sent to participants for member checking. Classroom observation notes were written up in the form of a narrative soon after they took place, and field notes related to meetings and communication were written up promptly. Notes were written during and after the workshops, and audio recordings of the workshops were listened to and notes made of key ideas and quotes deemed relevant and useful.

Analysis began with identifying and coding key ideas and themes in the interview data, as recommended in various guidelines for qualitative analysis (Bryman, 2004; Cohen et al., 2007; Ryan & Bernard, 2000; Stake, 2010). Coding involves identifying key ideas, sorting and grouping similar ideas together, and classifying them according to topics, themes and issues that are important to the study. The process of coding forces the researcher to think deeply about the data and to begin to make judgements about meanings (Ryan & Bernard, 2000). It also helps to gradually reduce the quantity of data and make it more manageable. It is advisable to start coding data as soon as possible to increase understanding of the data at an early stage, and to help avoid being overwhelmed by the volume of data (Bryman, 2004; D. Gray, 2014). Having three separate sets of interviews in this research provided the ideal space for early coding to begin on the first set of interviews to allow initial ideas and themes to be identified at an early stage, and allowed time for follow up questions to be added to the next round of interview questions if required.

For each round of interviews analysis was an iterative process. Transcripts were revisited many times as codes and themes were reviewed and amended (D. Gray, 2014). Categories and themes related to the overall aim of the research were derived from review of the literature (which also informed the interview questions), and induced from the text itself (Ryan & Bernard, 2000). With each subsequent round of interviews previous interview data were revisited to identify evidence of progression and change in teachers’ perspectives and pedagogy, and factors that influenced these.

Coding of key ideas and themes was done using the Track Changes function in Microsoft Word. This was done separately for each round of data collection and was reviewed and refined a number of times. Following this, relevant data were transferred to matrices where categories, themes, and evidential quotes were recorded. Where data were relevant to more than one category or theme, they were duplicated. As mentioned, matrices were generated for both individual participants and for all participants combined. Separate matrices of individuals allowed a whole picture of each participant to be presented and interpreted (Cohen et al., 2007), while the group matrices allowed comparisons to be made between participants and schools. Interview summaries were written for each individual interview as well as an overall summary of each round of interviews. This helped to provide a concise overview, which enabled the data to be more easily compared and contrasted between the participants and the schools.

Coding is only the starting point of analysis. The researcher still needs to interpret and synthesise the data, and reflect on the significance of the findings for the research questions and in relation to the research literature (Bryman, 2004). Although, as Ryan and Bernard (2000) point out, once the researcher has identified and refined themes a number of times, a lot of interpretive analysis has already been done, as was the case in this research.

After coding the first round of interviews, contextual data were interpreted and used to write a narrative about each participant and school context, which helped stimulate deeper thinking about the data and emerging themes, and provided a fuller picture. These narratives were sent to participants for feedback if they wished to. Key details from these narratives are reported in Chapter five and summarised in Table 5.1.

Evidence of components of TPACK in participants’ reports of their practice was also identified and coded after each round of interviews. Interpretation of data relating to participants’ initial TPACK from interview one is reported in Section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, and summarised in Table 5.2. Analysis of participants’ developing TPACK throughout the research is reported in Chapter six.

Data were further interpreted in writing up Chapter Six, which reports on, and compares and contrasts, findings relating to each participant as they participated in the research intervention. A deeper level of interpretation occurred in the process of writing the discussion chapter, Chapter seven.