The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the maintenance of peer
collaboration strategies among Black female teachers in rural Title I elementary schools located in racially “majority-minority” communities. This chapter outlines the research design and procedures applied toward responding to the central research questions of the study. The chapter explains and offers a rationale for the following areas: (a) selection of qualitative research; (b) case selection criteria; (c) human subject protection; (d) data collection and analysis; and (e) limitations.
The following central research questions guide the exploration:
a. What do rural Pre-K-3rd-grade general education teachers know about peer collaboration strategies? How, if at all, does “good” vs. “bad” peer collaboration look from their purview?
b. What types of peer collaboration strategies are engaged by these teachers for struggling, excelling, older and younger learners? When are these strategies engaged and how are they described, if at all?
c. What do these teachers describe as the key barriers or facilitators underlying their implementation and/or dismissal of peer collaboration strategies?
Research Design Qualitative Research
According to Creswell and Poth (2017), qualitative research is “an inquiry process of understanding based on a distinct methodological approach to inquiry that explores a social or human problem” (p. 15). In qualitative research, the researcher “builds a complex, holistic picture; analyzes words; reports detailed views of participants; and conducts the study in a natural setting” (p. 15). Furthermore, a case study approach to qualitative research seems most appropriate for working toward a richer description, and more in-depth understanding of the context from the perspective of the participants (Stake 1995; Yin, 2017). As such, a qualitative case study approach is most appropriate to document and examine the maintenance of peer collaboration strategies among Black female teachers in rural Title I elementary schools located in Southern racially majority-minority communities.
Case Design
As this study seeks to explore the conditions that influence the implementation of peer collaboration strategies, a process that is both complicated and contextual, it calls for a research approach that accounts for these interrelated elements (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Mills, Durepos, & Wiebe, 2009). Inspired by the concerns of Tillman (2002) and Gay (2010), this exploration also necessitates the engagement of a culturally sensitive research approach due to its focus upon the teaching and learning experiences of Black Teachers. A culturally sensitive research
approach reminds researchers to acknowledge cultural histories, knowledge, and experiences of our participants and ourselves in the designing of the research, as well as in the collection and interpretation of data. More specifically, this exploratory case study involves in-depth research into a central case, EarlyYears, and the professional experiences of three teachers embedded
analysis at two levels (i.e., Level 1: central case unit; and Level II: embedded subunit) in the unique context of North Carolina rural Title I schools (Stake, 1995).
The Case
EarlyYears is a pre-K–grade 3 project within a research institute at a large public university in the southern United States. The mission, vision, and values of the large multidisciplinary center commits to the study of young children and their families. School districts contract with EarlyYears, using Race to the Top- Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) funds. The U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services jointly administer the RTT-ELC program. EarlyYears involves a systems-based change process to improve the early school experiences for African American, Latino, and all low-income students (Ritchie & Gutmann, 2014). Professional development with EarlyYears recommends ten research-based instructional practices interwoven into a framework of classroom cultures of caring, competence, and excellence. A culture of caring consists of nurturing positive
relationships, strengthening self-efficacy and identity and developing the whole child. A culture of excellence necessitates balancing teaching approaches, integrating and balancing curriculum and building higher order thinking. A culture of competence entails encouraging peer
interactions, supporting independence, promoting self-regulation, and prioritizing
communication. Within the culture of competence, EarlyYears suggests teachers capitalize on the powerful potential of children’s relationships with each other to support their social, intellectual, and academic achievement.
The systems-based change process follows a train-the-trainer model. In the first year, professional development and coaching support the school leadership team that includes the principal and one grade level teacher from Pre-K to 3rd-grade. Bi-monthly professional
development and coaching visits support teachers as they improve their practice. In the second year of implementation, EarlyYears professional development and coaching supports the school leadership team as they promote change at their schools. In the third year of implementation, EarlyYears designed professional development to support new teachers, teacher mentors and district leadership personnel.
EarlyYears has a staff of eight with a Principal Investigator, one Graduate Research Assistant, a Research Specialist, one Scientist, two Investigators, and two Research Assistants. EarlyYears supports Pre-K to 3rd-grade teachers in three states, North Carolina, Michigan, and Vermont. For their Pre-K to 3rd-grade change efforts, EarlyYears receives national recognition. Context
The school district of focus is in one of four counties in the North Carolina Early Learning Challenge Transformation Zone. Due to generations of economic inequality, the zone encompasses the state’s highest-need counties and has poor outcomes for young children. The vision is to strengthen the state’s early childhood system and build its capacity to foster positive outcomes for young children. The project applied lessons from implementation science to build state and local capacity to effectively implement selected early childhood strategies with various early childhood agencies. Lessons learned in the Transformation Zone are used to develop and/or refine early childhood strategies across the state of North Carolina.
The schools are situated in a county population of 21,282 that had the following demographics: Black or African American (61%), White (36%), Latino (1.7%), Two or More Racial Identity Groups (1.1%), American Indian and Alaska Native (.6%), and Asian (.6%). Eighty-three percent of the population lives in the rural part of the county. In the county, 23.4
percent of the population lives below the poverty level. The annual average unemployment rate is 7%.
In the 2012-13 school year, the Kindergarten-12th-grade enrollment for the school district was 2,619 in four elementary schools, three high schools (e.g., STEM and Early College) and one middle school. The performance of third grade students on the North Carolina End-of-Grade Tests highlights the need for a Pre-K to 3rd-grade instructional focus. The percentage of students' scores at or above grade level in third-grade was 27.3% in Reading and 23.7% in Math.
Entry, Role, and Reciprocity
My Graduate Research Assistantship was with EarlyYears from fall 2013-2015. I supported professional development, technical assistance, and coaching activities. Due to
EarlyYears activities with teachers, I gained entry to the school district in which I have provided the most collaborative project support. Thus, I am a researcher and a participant. Rapport and trust with the participants allow for a rich engagement with the case (Marshall & Rossman, 2014).
Participants and Sampling
My sampling technique is convenience sampling from the EarlyYears teachers. The case study consists of three teachers from the EarlyYears leadership team. Due to high staff turnover, the school Leadership teams have experienced some instability since year one of EarlyYears implementation. Some team members attended and participated in all professional development sessions (two Summer Institutes, training sessions, and coaching activities). Due to teacher reassignment within schools, transfers across schools, and missed professional development and coaching sessions, some leadership teams encountered inconsistent experiences. The EarlyYears
Snapshot sub-test score of peer collaboration guided teacher identification of potential participants.
Data Collection
The three forms of instrumentation provide triangulation. The structured observations lay the foundation for individual interviews. The unstructured interview explains the context of the implementation of peer collaboration strategies. The themes of the individual interviews support the other two forms of data collection.
Structured Observations
Spring 2013, Spring 2014, and Spring 2015 observations occurred using a teacher- focused assessment, the Project EarlyYears Snapshot (Ritchie, Weiser, Mason, Holland, & Howe, 2010). The Snapshot, a time-sampling observation instrument, records children’s daily school experience in all activities from arrival to dismissal. The Snapshot, a 42-item instrument, records activity settings (e.g., whole group, small group, transitions), learning content (e.g., reading, science, math), and teaching approaches (e.g., didactic, scaffolded instruction, peer collaboration). The Snapshot, collected during naturalistic observation, occurs in classrooms throughout an entire school day. Data obtained through informal participant observation serve as a check against participants’ subjective interview. The five, Pre-K to 3rd-grade, teachers that scored the highest on peer collaboration were invited to participate. All five teachers were African-American women. Three of the five agreed to participate in the case study. Table 2 presents the percentage of the school day in which students engaged in peer collaboration activities are.
Table 2. Teachers and the Percent of the School Day Devoted to Peer Collaboration Activities. Teacher Pseudonyms 2013 2014 2015 Lily 3 8 0 Rose 4 14 8 Iris 2 13 21
Unstructured Observations and Artifacts. During the Spring of 2015, unstructured observation and collection of artifacts (i.e., faculty meeting agendas, school curriculum planning guides, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction school reports, photography of the classrooms) occurred to triangulate with teacher interviews. The two-day spent observing and gathering of artifacts of the teachers was useful for gaining an understanding of the physical, social, cultural, and economic context of the school and classroom. The observations revealed the relationships among and between teachers and students. Although the structured observations provided information about the classroom, there was no substitute for witnessing the
phenomenon of interest. The unstructured observations helped bring some clarity to data collected via interviews and structured observations.
Individual Teacher Interviews. Two semi-structured interviews with each of the three teachers were the primary research approach. The interviews occurred during non-scheduled work time, after school, or on weekends. The interview guide, made by the researcher, structured the interview (See Appendix 1). The interview guide was open-ended to encourage the
respondents to give long elaborated answers. One formal interview with a follow-up interview occurred for clarification. All interviews were audio-recorded. The focus was on a conversational style while taking notes and asking follow-up questions. At the beginning of the interview,
teachers provided demographic information (Appendix 2). Table 3 summarizes the demographic information provided.
Table 3. Teacher Demographic Information Teacher
Pseudonyms Teaching Years Highest Degree Teaching Years Current Grade Current Grade Lily 20 BA 17 Pre-K Rose 15 M 4 3 Iris 29 BS 1 2/3
Human Subjects Protection
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institutional Review Board (IRB) exempted this study from ethics review (Appendix 3). According to the EarlyYears professional development project data, five participants were determined to meet the inclusion criteria and permission was obtained from the district superintendent and the building principals. When three participants accepted the invitation to participate, individual interviews and observations were scheduled. Individual interviews provided privacy and comfort to the participants. At the start of each interview, participants were informed of the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, participants’ right to confidentiality, and the risks and benefits associated with participation in the study (Appendix 1). Participants were able to withdraw from the study at any time without explanation or consequence. However, no participants withdrew from the study or stopped the interview.
The UNC School of Education Black Student Alumni Association Award sponsored my travel and provided gift cards to thank participants. Participants chose to receive a $30 Amazon
research activities. The gift cards were delivered to each participant at the completion of all interviews and after all transcripts were reviewed for accuracy and clarity. In accordance with IRB requirements, the payment and the proposed method and timing of disbursement are not coercive to the participants. Participation in EarlyYears did not present an undue influence. Disclosure concerning compensation appeared in the informed consent document.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the most challenging aspect of qualitative research (Basit, 2003). During data analysis, the researcher organizes the triangulated data (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). A total of six interview sessions, two sessions per teacher participant, were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The six interviews yielded a total of 30 pages of data. Teacher codes and session numbers were developed for the organization and to maintain confidentiality (i.e., T1-1). The digital audio recordings of the interviews were emailed to a transcription service familiar with supporting local graduate students. The open transcript was emailed back to the researcher as a Microsoft Word document (doc.) and a hard copy was printed (Jenk, 2011). Hard copies were organized in a one-inch binder by participant number and session to ensure accessibility.
The transcribed interviews were then uploaded as primary documents into the qualitative data analysis program, ATLAS.ti.8. Storing and organizing files in an ATLAS.ti 8 PROJECT, ensured another level of efficiency and accuracy (Woolf & Silver, 2017). Utilizing a qualitative data analysis program did not discourage the data analysis process of moving back and forth between (a) Noticing, (b) Collecting, and (c) Thinking (NCT) (Friese, 2014). The NCT analysis seemed to be useful because of my familiarity (i.e., observation in professional development and teaching) with the participants. The computer-assisted NCT method was best for understanding the teacher participants interviews.
At the onset of the Noticing level of analysis, the transcripts of interview data were read through from beginning to end and then reread line-by-line. I built a data landscape and
description of each teacher interview. It was in the initial readings that I noticed potential preliminary codes derived inductively and deductively (Saldaña, 2015).
During the Collecting level of analysis, I had a set of initial codes generated from the peer collaboration literature review, research questions, and previous pilots that I aimed to apply to the data generated from the teacher interviews (Table 4). Further analysis in Collecting, yielded additional things that I had not noticed in the Noticing level of analysis.
Table 4. Initial Peer Collaboration Codes
Research Questions Literature-generated
codes Pilot-generated codes What do rural Pre-K-3rd-grade general
education teachers know about peer
collaboration strategies? How, if at all, does “good” vs. “bad” peer collaboration
look from their purview?
• Not identified • Academic Engagement • Academic Benefits o Literacy skills o Math skills o Social Studies skills o Science skills
Table 4. Initial Peer Collaboration Codes (continued)
Research Questions Literature-generated codes Pilot-generated codes What types of peer
collaboration strategies are engaged by these teachers for
struggling, excelling, older and younger learners? When are these strategies
engaged and how are they described, if at all?
• Specific Named Strategies o Peer tutoring o Cooperative Learning • Un-named Strategies o Peer mediated o Collaborative Learning o Peer Assisted
• Organizational Components for Implementation o Grouping Age Dyad gender Assignment Ability Grouping o Format Dosage Goal Selection Structured Task Type Type of Response Monitoring Evaluation of Group Process Reward Selection (Who) Reward Type Curriculum/Training • Un-named Strategies o Helping a peer o Working together o Literature Circles • Specific Strategies o Peer Tutoring o Think-Pair-Share o Elbow Partners o Peer Supports • Additional Support to Struggling Learners • Excelling Students don’t want to be relied on as tutors
What do these teachers describe as the key barriers or facilitators underlying their implementation and/or dismissal of peer
collaboration strategies?
• Not identified • Barriers
o Stress from pacing guides to deliver content quickly o Takes too much
time to plan and implement
• Facilitators
o Planning time o Administrative
The Thinking level of analysis involved additional codes, emerging categories, pattern matching, explanation building, and identifying potential spots of cross-teacher synthesis (Yin, 2017). Table 5 identifies some additional codes and emerging categories in the analysis of data. Table 5. Codes and Categories Related to the Research Questions
Research Questions Additional codes Emerging Categories What do rural Pre-K-3rd-grade
general education teachers know about peer collaboration
strategies? How, if at all, does “good” vs. “bad” peer collaboration look from their purview?
• Centers • Stations • Talking • Application “Prove it” • Asking questions • Playing • Fussing • Arguing
• Small group class structures
• Good Talk vs. Bad Talk
What types of peer collaboration strategies are engaged by these teachers for struggling, excelling, older and younger learners? When are these strategies engaged and how are
they described, if at all?
• Peer teaching • Project Based Learning • Pairing Students • Peer Mediation • Academics: Letters, Writing, Math (Counting) • Peer Mediation • Conflict Resolution • Structured vs. Unstructured • Academics: Literacy Focused and Non-Literacy Focused
• Emotional/Social
• Conflict Resolution-Adult Facilitation vs. Student Facilitated
Table 5. Codes and Categories Related to the Research Questions (continued)
Research Questions • Additional codes • Emerging
Categories What do these teachers describe as the
key barriers or facilitators underlying their
implementation and/or dismissal of peer collaboration strategies? • Barriers: Students “Personal Stuff” • Barriers: Student Accountability and Grading • Conflict Resolution Strategies of the teacher • Teacher Planning Although the data analysis process is described linearly, it is a cyclical act (Friese, 2014). By thinking and recoding the qualitative interview data, meaning and focus of the categories, themes, and salient concepts materialize. The interpretation and analysis of the teacher interview data began immediately upon receiving the first transcribed interview instead of waiting until all interviews were transcribed. Examining the interview transcripts over the entire course of the study illuminated reliability in certain findings and therefore increased the researcher confidence in the results. Since coding is inherently subjective, more than one coder was employed. A quantitative and qualitative doctoral research assistant, on the EarlyYears Project, reviewed the coding strategies to support a systematic, inductive analysis of the interviews and the
unstructured observation.
Member Checking
Member checking establishes the validity of data and credibility (Marshall & Rossman, 2014). Member checking occurred during and after the interview. During the interview, I tried to take notes and summarize answers to participants before asking the next question. Summarizing provides participants the opportunity to correct errors, challenge wrong interpretations, confirm the data, or supplement their responses. The accuracy, authenticity, and reliability of the data
were confirmed by providing a written summary of the interview transcripts to the teachers and a follow-up interview with the teacher participants. Teacher participants, or informants, co-
assigned pseudonyms, evaluated an early outline, and re-evaluated an early draft of the findings.
Limitations
Limitations, influences that the researcher cannot control, occur in all research (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). Although several limitations are associated with qualitative case studies (i.e. bias in participant answers, biased sample), the major potential limitations or weaknesses warrant discussion. The researcher, the primary instrument of data collection and analysis, introduces researcher bias during the interviews, with the interview questions, and during interpretation of results.
First, researcher bias could have been introduced during observation and interviews. Pilot interviews and observations allowed me to practice collecting the teacher interviews and teacher observations in ways that minimize major impacts on the quality of the data. During the
interviews and observations, I tried to neutralize my facial expressions and body when asking questions and listening to responses. This prevented respondents from answering questions or