Data Analysis

Creswell (2007: p151) argues that often data analysis is not something which can be bought ‘off the shelf’ but rather that it is something which a researcher must

‘custom build’ in order to have a good fit. Creswell also argues that it remains difficult to find the perfect predetermined data analysis tool because the researcher has a vast array of choices. For the purpose of this research, I used case study methodology, interpretivism and critical theory to frame the analysis of the data for specific themes, to aggregate the information collected into large clusters of ideas and provide details that support these themes (Creswell, 2007). I also tried to establish patterns and look for correspondence between themes (Stake, 1995).

Using NVivo software, I attempted to code the data freely, however the coding was influenced by literature and previous research in the area of active learning and therefore some of the codes and subsequent themes were ‘a priori’

(Creswell, 2007). Strauss (1987) and Maxwell (1996) explain ‘a priori’ themes as

themes which originate from definitions found in literature, from researchers’

values, theoretical orientations, and personal experiences.

In my data analysis I used, as much as possible, an inductive approach which generates new concepts and allows for the development of emergent themes.

Inductive analysis allows a goal-free approach with more freedom in the analysis process and to explore effects and understandings of a specific concept and not just planned or anticipated ones (Thomas, 2006). Furthermore, Williams (2008) suggests that emergent themes are a basic building block of inductive

approaches to qualitative social science research and are derived from the life worlds of research participants through the process of coding. Williams (2008) also mentions that emergent themes correspond with social constructionist paradigms because qualitative researchers believe that emergent themes are part of the process that lead to generalisible theories of human society.

However, aiming for generalisible theories is not the intention of this project as case study methodology instead highlights the importance of in-depth and contextualised findings for enhancing our understandings.

Throughout the analysis process I shared my emerging themes with both my research supervisors. The first step was to present the NVivo ‘nodes’ which I had created during the coding of my observation notes and the transcripts of my interviews and focus groups. In the early stages of data coding I created 41 NVivo nodes (see Table 5).

Table 5: Original 41 nodes coded in NVivo

The nodes were a mixture of ‘a priori’ themes (themes present in other

literature or answers to direct questions asked in my interviews or included in the observation schedule) and emergent themes (ideas, thoughts and opinions which were expressed by participants or myself which emerged organically and were not pre-determined). I also allowed for some ‘In vivo’ themes (Creswell, 2007) to emerge where a participant responds in a way which was particularly unique I then used their explicit words to develop a new node of that name e.g.

‘destroying the fourth wall’.

After lengthy conversations with my supervisors, my first attempt at making sense of these nodes led me to write each of the 41 nodes onto post-it notes and then place them into groups according to their commonalities. I work best when I can visualise what I am working on therefore I decided to use my dining room table as a space to set out these categories (See: Fig. 2, Fig.3, Fig. 4).

1 Active learning and

active teaching 15 Cultural Influences 29 Destroying the fourth wall

2 Clinician versus

academic 16 Collaboration 30 Commodity

3 Politics 17 Constraints 31 Edutainment

4 Power 18 Discipline specific 32 Freedom in learning

5 What makes a good

teacher 19 How students learn 33 Lectures

6 What students expect 20 Motivation 34 Passive

7 Relationship 21 Preaching 35 Observer's involvement

8 Reflecting 22 Responsibility 36 Risk

9 Storytelling 23 Teaching as performance 37 The unexpected 10 Freedom in teaching 24 Threshold Concepts 38 Tradition

11 Transferable Skills 25 Transformational 39 What is active learning 12 Tutorials 26 What does active learning

look like 40 Philosophy

13 Purpose of a

university education 27 What makes a good

learning experience 41 Routine 14 Class set-up 28 What teachers would like

to do

Figure 2: Analysis Visual - 41 nodes on post-its

Figure 3: Analysis Visual - 11 categories

Figure 4: Analysis Visual - example of ' Fundamental Issues' category

The table below is a more thorough presentation of which nodes went into each category (see Table 6).

Table 6: Original 11 categories

Category Nodes attributed to that

category

1 What hinders progressive learning and teaching? 17,36,10,14,38,4,32,41,28 2 The shared space between teacher and student 7, 22, 27

3 Fundamental issues 30, 40, 3, 27, 13

4 Transformational aspects of learning and teaching 24, 25 5 Highlighting discipline specific issues 18, 2 6 Performance and entertainment in teaching 31, 23

7 Cultural issues 15, 21, 9

8 Dealing with the unexpected during data collection 37, 35

9 Learning in higher education 8, 16, 19

10 Student experiences and outcomes 11, 20, 6 11 Investigating active learning and current teaching

methods and methodologies 39, 34, 1, 26, 33, 29

These 11 categories were very loosely formed and were inconsistent in terms of size and relevance to the research. Deciding on how to finally present the findings was not an easy process and I made many changes and

re-interpretations of the findings and the discussion sections of this thesis. Naïvely, I believed that as I had adopted an interpretivist and critical approach to this research I should ensure that every theme or issue which was discussed by participants or which I had observed in my observations should be included in the final findings and discussion section. As an interpretivist researcher with a social constructionist epistemology, I was keen not to edit or manipulate the responses of participants; I wanted the research to be an accurate reflection of the conversations I had with teaching staff and students. However, on

reflection, to try to cover every issue which was discussed or identified during the data collection would have led to the data being under-analysed and unfocused.

A joint decision was made between my supervisors and myself not to embark on rigorous cross-checking or multiple coding of data. Cross-checking or multiple coding is a way of ensuring that data which has been coded is reliable, this is normally done during supervision sessions or by independent researchers (Barbour, 2001). Although Barbour (2001) argues that cross-checking has the capacity to furnish the research with alternative interpretations, I purposely did not share the transcripts or observation notes with my supervisors. I was not working to a tight analysis framework therefore I wanted the freedom to explore the data in an inductive way. Furthermore, Mauthner et al. (1998) suggest that researchers' original interpretations may shift when they revisit previously collected data.

Although I was aware of the possibility of triangulating the data from my observations, interviews and focus groups, I decided against it. Triangulation relies on the notion of a ‘fixed point, or superior explanation, against which other interpretations can be measured’ (Barbour, 2001: p.1117). Qualitative research is usually carried out from a relativist perspective, which acknowledges the existence of multiple views of equal validity (Popay et al., 1998). The aim of my research was not to present an account of competing perspectives; it was to present the similarities and contradictions around participants’ understandings of active learning and use them to provide further insight.

Using the 11 categories (see Table 6) as an initial structure, I began to write up my findings and discussion chapters. I reviewed the 11 categories in order to decide: a) which could be used to directly answer the main and secondary

research questions, b) which were emergent themes which did not fit neatly into the research question heading but were still relevant and c) which had to be discarded as offering no significant contribution to the research.

Table 7 outlines how the initial 11 categories were re-ordered and arranged into either chapter 4 (answering the 3 research questions), chapter 5 (emergent themes) and chapter 6 (personal reflections).

Table 7: 11 Categories as presented within final structure of findings and discussion chapters

Initial Category Place within final structure

1 What hinders progressive learning and teaching?

5.1, 5.2, 5.3

2 The shared space between teacher and student

4.4

3 Fundamental issues 4.3, 4.4, 5.1

4 Transformational aspects of learning and teaching

4.4

5 Highlighting discipline specific issues 5.5

6 Performance and entertainment in teaching 4.2

7 Cultural issues 5.6

8 Dealing with the unexpected during data collection

6.2, 6.3

9 Learning in higher education 4.3

10 Student experiences and outcomes 5.4

11 Investigating active learning and current teaching methods and methodologies

4.2, 4.3