The next levels of analysis were cross-case analysis and synthesis. The purpose of cross-case analysis was to explore similarities and differences with the hopes of increasing understanding and identifying more patterns and common themes (Bazeley, 2013). By analyzing the data in this way, I was able look at codes I created from different perspectives. After comparing the cases, I synthesized to create a common narrative that helped me better understand the essential relationships across cases. This synthesis was important, as comparative analyses do not typically provide enough information to answer research questions. Bazeley stated “comparative analyses are rarely an end point, rather they are just one tool among many on the analytical journey” (p. 280). Cross-case synthesis helped provide answers to the implications of the
similarities and differences found in earlier data analysis. It also brought the level of understanding back to the whole in the hermeneutic circle.
Individual and group interviews. To analyze across cases, I used NVivo to sort the coded material by different categories. Bazeley (2013) described three steps in the process of comparison I used in my analysis. First, I sorted and sifted the data using the query function in NVivo, allowing me to compare multiple categories at the same time. Next, I identified and summarized key points for each group, creating appropriate diagrams, including matrices, webs, and Venn diagrams. Finally, I interpreted and summarized the data, noting any differences and possible reasons for these differences.
Categories for comparison across the cases included years of experience, years of experience in the current grade level, teacher education training, mandates to use prescriptive curriculum, support from administrator, and support from families. I also compared the schools and/or districts in which the educators teach. I kept memos and reflected upon each comparison I my field notebook.
Observations, document analysis, and field notebook. I reread the
observations and documents, allowing me to consider the whole before I looked at the parts. An electronic query, using NVivo, was used on the data from the observations and document analyses to help uncover any patterns or themes that did not emerge during previous analysis. It also helped me to identify further connections or relationships between patterns and themes. The field notebook was analyzed in a similar way. I reread my notes, reflecting on the understandings that arose during the data collection period and the previous levels of analysis. These further connections and relationships were used to support the cross-case synthesis. Data that opposed the synthesis was carefully considered.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical conduct is important in all types of research, including qualitative
inquiries (Glense, 2011). It was my responsibility as a researcher to ensure this research meets the highest of ethical standards. Upon approval from my committee, my study was submitted to the Institutional Review Board at the University of Oklahoma. I also followed proper procedures for getting permission from the school districts and
Ethical considerations were also given to the participants, as described by Glense (2011). All participants signed informed consent papers. I fully informed each participant about all aspects of the study, giving them the opportunity to ask questions. This allowed them to determine whether or not they wanted to participate. It was made clear that participation was voluntary and participants could remove themselves from the study at any point without consequence. Pseudonyms for the participant, school, and district were used to ensure anonymity. Overall, I treated participants with respect as I sought to co-construct understanding of their experiences as early childhood educators who used constructivist approaches in an era of high-stakes accountability.
Trustworthiness
Quantitative researchers use the constructs of reliability and validity to validate their research. For example, external validity is concerned with the ability to generalize from the research sample to the population (Merriam, 1995). However, external
validity not an appropriate term to apply to qualitative research because the purpose of qualitative research is to focus on a specific population rather than to generalize (Glense, 2011). Based on this purpose, a qualitative researcher focuses on
trustworthiness to “persuade his or her audiences (including self) that the findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 290). Lincoln and Guba listed four terms typically used in quantitative research and their qualitative counterparts. The quantitative terms are internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity. The qualitative counterparts used to demonstrate the trustworthiness of this case study included credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
Credibility
I had prolonged engagement with the participants by conducting multiple individual interviews, multiple observations, and a group interview. I kept an audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) by writing memos regarding
decisions that I made during data collection and analysis.
I ensured triangulation by collecting multiple sources of data (individual interviews, observations, group interview, document review, and field notes) to report the experiences of the participants. I also demonstrated triangulation by connecting my research back to the existing body of literature.
I participated in peer debriefing by meeting weekly with other students in the early childhood doctoral program who hold impartial views of the study.
During this time, I we discussed my methodology, transcripts, documents, notes, and analyses. My peers helped me determine areas in need of improvement, find new ways of thinking about my study, and have an overall better
understanding of my research.
I used member checking by having the participants read the individual and group interview transcripts, checking for errors or changes to ensure accuracy before analysis. Member checking occurred shortly after each data collection.
Transferability
I used detailed descriptions described by Bazeley (2013) as thick, rich
descriptions to allow readers to use the data to see similar relationships in their world. These descriptions included contextual information and significance.
Dependability and Confirmability
I kept an audit trail so others could see how I collected and analyzed the data throughout the study, as evidenced by memos and my field notebook.
I collected multiple sources of data (individual interviews, observations, group interview, document review, and field notes) to ensure triangulation.
I used both process notes and reflective notes (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) in my field notebook.
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion
The purpose of this qualitative research was to examine the experiences of early childhood educators with philosophies that align with constructivist theory who teach in the era of high-stakes accountability. Specifically, the primary research question was: What does it mean to be an early childhood educator who uses constructivist
approaches in an era of high-stakes accountability? There were three sub-questions for this study:
1) What experiences have these teachers had regarding their teaching practices from parents, colleagues, administrators, and others?
2) What factors have impacted these educators’ teaching practices?
3) How have these teachers’ instructional decisions been affected by policy initiatives at the school level, district level, and government level?
The findings in this study have been organized into the three major themes and several sub-themes that emerged from data analysis of the individual interviews, group
interview, observations, document review, and field notebook. The three major themes were: 1) trust, 2) academic pushdown, and 3) teacher resistance. In the spirit of
exploring the lived experiences of the participants, the themes and subthemes have been titled using words and phrases stated by the teachers during data collection.