Chapter 3: Methodology
3.2.2 Coding the interview data
The first steps in the coding of the interview data consisted of line by line coding of transcribed interview data (open codes in
grounded theory terms). An example is shown in figure 3.1.
Review of whole group. Decision not to seek ‘mature’ students nor ‘struggling’ non- dyslexic writers
R I like to actually start writing it as soon as possible rather than reading all the references.
C How do you feel it helps you to do that?
R I just feel a bit more comfortable in myself, that I’ve actually got something written down. And also it does spread the reading out a bit, cos I’m not one that goes and sits in the library and reads all day. I tend to have quite a short attention span when it comes to reading. I’ve started using, I’ve got yellow tinted glasses, that was another
recommendation in my educational psychologist report and they help me a little bit. I still find I can’t sit down for a long time, for long periods of time and just read. The way I do my essay seems to spread the reading out and I can use the index of the book more when I’ve written a section. I can look for a word and then look for that and then just read a section of a chapter rather than having to read the whole chapter to get the basic idea.
……… ………
C How conscious of assessment are you when you’re writing the essay? R I mean generally with the essays I know it is going to be the tutor who is gonna mark it so it is something that I’m quite conscious about, especially when you’ve got a lecture on the subject. I’ve started in the last two years writing the essay before like as early as possible in the term, but then waiting until we have the corresponding lecture because then I wait and see how they structure the lecture and the important points that they bring up. So then I look at my essay again and say well they made a bigger point of this, so I’ll expand that section and then maybe reduce
Creating comfort zone
Aware of problem areas
Maintaining attention Tinted glasses Solution finding Assessment oriented Time management Strategic approach Understanding requirements Assessment oriented Interleaving reading and writing
another section. I’d say it’s one of my main concerns, who is going to mark it. I do tend to tailor it to suit that. Generally with most of my tutors, they’ve written a book about the subject, so it’s obvious, I always use that book. It is that sort of thing I do tend to look at first.
Fig 3.1: Example of open coding: Rob; Initial interview
Codes are both inferential and descriptive (Mason 2002; Miles & Huberman 1994). For example, ‘maintaining attention’, ‘tinted glasses’, ‘interleaving reading and writing’ could be seen as
descriptive. All the codes are informed by my knowledge of dyslexia and writing. In talking about his reading, Rob is describing
recognised characteristics of dyslexia. However, my intention is to view them as individual rather than dyslexic features. I did not develop high level categories around characteristics of dyslexia. In this way, there is a basis of comparison between individuals, including those not identified as dyslexic. Codes were also
informed by the writing literature. ‘Interleaving reading and writing’ originated from the discussion of planning by Hayes and Gradwohl Nash (1996); they describe this planning strategy as a way of conserving cognitive resources, precisely what Rob appears to be doing. ‘Assessment oriented’ is part of discussion about audience for writing. Strong differences between participants emerged in terms of how strongly ‘assessors’ or indeed any ‘audience’ were present and how they related to them. These lower level categories therefore arose from the data, but were informed by ‘sensitising concepts’ (Charmaz 2000:515) in the literature.
Open codes were then refined and grouped under higher level categories. The ‘browse code node’ facility in NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd 2002) was used to check for overlapping codes and for consistency in the development of more abstract categories and sub-codes. This facility allows browsing of all the data under a single code. Academic literacies concepts of identity, social relations and knowledge-making practices (Lea & Street 1998) influenced the top-level categories of ‘Self’, ‘Relationships’
and ‘Essay Practices’. Figure 3.2 shows an example of different levels of categorising in NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd 2002) and Figures 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5a and 3.5b show the higher level ‘tree diagrams’ taken from NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd 2002) of ‘Self’, ‘Relationships’ and ‘Essay Practices’. Codes and categories were constantly refined as data was generated. In the following discussion, I clarify the basis of the higher level codes and the first level of sub-categories.
SELF
(i) The Self
In the ‘Self’ category, data were gathered on how the students constructed themselves as writers. This was viewed as a balance between what the context allowed and the choices that their previous and current experience moved them towards (Hall 1997; Hyland 2009). Aspects of ‘self’ were constituted by how the
students identified themselves in their descriptions of their learning history. This included their starting points at university and in discussing this they revealed something of the ‘selves’ they bring to their writing (Ivanic 1998) from their past experience. The lasting effects of history on learning for students identified as dyslexic are also well recognised (Burden 2005; Farmer, Riddick, & Sterling 2002; Pollak 2005).
A further aspect of ‘self’ was the concept of ‘voice’. This was
interpreted as the student’s own voice, the extent to which they felt authoritative in their subject and had the confidence to express an opinion; also their understanding of what was permissible. This emerged from discussion in the interviews of how they dealt with the content in terms of the literature and the need to present their own argument. How they used the essay title also gave insight into this. This refers to the literature on how students juxtapose the voices of the literature with their own (Groom 2000; Hyland 2004). In addition, students are expected to find their own voice amidst
(as writer and learner) Self-identity Self-management Learning History Voice Confidence Lacking confidence Self-awareness Strong Fragile Sense of Control Strong Fragile Fig. 3.3: ‘Self’ coding diagram from NVivo
the multiple dominant voices of their discipline (Barnett 2007) and the difficulties and conflicts this presents for all students are well documented (Elbow 2000; Groom 2000; Lillis 2001; Womack 1993). For students identified as dyslexic there are additional factors to be considered. The opportunity to demonstrate a
confident voice might be impeded for example by speed of reading, which might compromise a full understanding of the material in the time available (Hatcher, Snowling, & Griffiths 2002; Singleton 1999); or by lack of confidence to expose thinking or compose clear and succinct forms of expression.
The inclusion of ‘self-management’ as an aspect of self-identity was prompted initially by the data as differences in ‘sense of control’ were strongly evident. From the early stages of analysis, deciding how to code ‘difficulties’ was problematic as similar dyslexia-related difficulties were experienced but described in different ways. For some students, they were expressed as problems and had negative connotations. For others, they were expressed in the context of how they were resolved and appeared not to be problematised. I therefore drew on ideas about different levels of awareness as related to compensation (McLoughlin, Fitzgibbon, & Young 1994). My data suggests that the next stage after becoming aware did not just involve knowing an appropriate strategy, but also a particular kind of approach to applying strategies, which led to a ‘sense of control’. For example, a number of students described strategies that were designed to make them ‘feel better’ or ‘more
comfortable’. This relates to discussion in the dyslexia literature on attribution, locus of control and metacognition (Burden 2008b; Burden 2005; Reid 2009; Riddick 2010).
Relationships
Fig. 3.4: ‘Relationships’ coding diagram from NVivo
(ii) Relationships
Notions of self-identity cannot be fully realised without reference to relationships with surrounding discourses. The category of
‘Relationships’ therefore focuses on the ways in which writers interact with and are constructed by the ‘voices’ of both abstract discourses and specific individuals (Fig.2.6). The category was intended to capture whose voices were foregrounded for different students, the strength of their presence and the students’ stance towards them. This is informed by the notions of social relations (Ivanic & Lea 2006), addressivity (Bakhtin 1986; Lillis 2003) and intertextuality (Fairclough 2003) discussed in the literature review. I am interested in how the students understand and relate to the different categories within ‘relationships’.
For those identified as dyslexic, this also involved relationships with the ‘voices’ of dyslexia. How to take on a dyslexic identity was a factor (Burden 2008a) in terms of expectations arising from
institutional policy and departmental and individual tutor discourses of dyslexia (Farmer et al. 2002; Pollak 2005). I was interested in how those identified as dyslexic ‘heard’ the dyslexia-associated voices from academic and support tutors and their peers.
Disciplinary requirements Literature sources Audience for writing Academic tutors
‘Support’ Family Peers Relationships
Essay Practices
a.
Fig. 3.5a: ‘Essay practices/Understandings’ coding diagram from NVivo
Essay Practices
b.
Fig. 3.5b: ‘Essay practices/Strategies’ coding diagram from NVivo
(iii) Essay Practices
I have discussed how identities become enacted by the dimensions of self and relationships. This clearly influences and is influenced by the students’ understandings of essay writing requirements and the strategies they adopt. The ‘Essay Practices’ category (Fig 3.5a and 3.5b) therefore focuses on how the students understand what is expected and what they do to try and achieve it, hence the division between understandings and strategies.
Some of the dimensions of ‘understandings’ and ‘strategies’, such as ‘argument and structure’, ‘using the literature’ and ‘appropriate
Essay Practices
Understandings gs
Using the literature
Own opinion Appropriate language Different sorts of essays Disciplinary expectations Argument and structure Essay Practices Strategies Developing argument and structure
Using title Using the literature
Achieving appropriate
language
language’, have been discussed in the literature review. Coding was therefore informed by this as well as by my experience. The code of ‘different sorts of essays’ and ‘disciplinary expectations’ arose from students’ awareness of different kinds of essays in different
disciplines and their expressed preferences for different types of essays, e.g. essays that were more or less discursive, or compare and contrast essays.
Planning and Drafting can be seen as ‘topic-oriented’ codes (Kelle 2007) under which was gathered information on the different ways in which the students perceived and carried out planning activities. My assumption about planning is that it takes different forms for different people (Sharples 1999); that it can be used to reduce memory load (Hayes & Gradwohl Nash 1996) and that it can characterise different ways of shaping writing (Creme & Lea 2009). The ways that students do or do not plan give insight into how they attempt to shape and structure the essay and into their individual experiences and thinking preferences. Drafting processes also differed, with some working up the final version as they proceeded, and others re-visiting and revising text already written.
Overall, the coding framework is consistent with my attempt to embed the writers identified as dyslexic within a broader writing framework; my intention is that this will specify the interactions between dyslexia and essay writing in a more rounded way than a focus solely on the effects of dyslexia. The codes are not tightly tied to dyslexia, but refer to writing in general and hence apply to all the participants. However, reference is made to dyslexia in some lower level codes and is implicit in my thinking about them.