Open coding for seeking patterns and themes

Qualitative analysis embraces treating data bit by bit and assigning it into a category; that is, ‘coding’ data (Dey, 2003). The initial or open coding starts through “examining each line of data and then defining actions or events within it.” Ikpeze (2007, p. 258). It also means “categorising segments of data with a short name that simultaneously summarises and accounts for each piece of data” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 43).Creswell (2007) believes that technology assisted analysis enables researchers to code data through reading line by line in a more systematic manner than coding manually. I applied this approach as I read through my transcriptions and created nodes in NVivo-10.

Initially, I started with interview transcripts, then observations, and then focus groups, and reflective journal entries. By reading line by line, I created free nodes (coding) on

115

whatever I found interesting, such as challenges, early experiences, perceived benefits, and ways of using technologies. The initial node folders and some created nodes are seen in Figure 5.8. This process of reading through each piece of data and creating nodes helped me seek the commonalities among my participants. At this initial stage, I managed to create a considerable number of nodes that helped me make sense of teacher educators’ pedagogical practices.

Figure 5. 8. Node folder and nodes in NVivo-10

Coding generates the bones of the analysis, which then assembles into a working skeleton (Charmaz, 2006). The codes I created in this initial stage helped me to deepen my

understanding as I continued with other sources, seeking code consistency of these codes across the data. To achieve this, I manipulated NVivo’s annotations and memo links for clearing my thoughts and linking to references to participants’ conversations, working iteratively back and forth. Over time, the codes changed and new codes emerged as I continued with my analysis. In particular, when summary reports (NVivo-node summary) were checked through. Table 5.3 demonstrates an example of this. In this way, I could check whether the created nodes represented the experiences of teacher educators. Dexter, Doering, and Riedel (2006) found that coded summary reports were useful to foresee the congruence between codes and the original data.

116

Table 5. 3. Example of coding and later change emerging in created codes

Changes Node folder Nodes created Supported data and sources Initial coding Way of using ICT To cover heavy content

I believe it is easier for me to cover most of the content in the class, when it’s used it makes it easier to go back and forth while explaining. (IN) changes occurred during TE’s pedagogical use of ICT ICT as a pool of information

Mostly we use it for searching

information through the Internet (FG).

To find extra information, to find relevant

materials. (FG) A later time Habitual pedagogical use of ICT

Using ICT for content transmission

She asked questions that led students’ talk about several points she explained.

However, mostly she made her students

rehearse the content explained earlier.

(CO)

As mentioned earlier, during the process of open coding I was also writing memos and annotations on different nodes. These memos and annotations were linked to my field journal entries and some reflections. For example, while coding conversations related to ‘early experiences’ (a created node), memos reflected on what I mentioned in my field journal. It was helpful for capturing an in-depth-understanding of conversations. According to Charmaz (2008), memo writing is the most crucial strategy for analysing qualitative data, particularly when coding. I, therefore, needed to identify reasons for selecting specific codes for specific conversations. Charmaz, in recognising that writing memos as a way of identifying categories and generating explicit stories, also helps to identify gaps in between concepts, gave me further direction. Memos are useful for capturing ideas and internal thoughts when analysing data (Charmaz, 2006; Richards, 2009) and this helped me connect the “building blocks” (Dey, 2003, p. 48).

During initial coding, I often adopted NVivo’s memo option for assisting my analysis. I manipulated NVivo’s annotations and memo links for clearing my thoughts and linking to references to participants’ conversations. For example, when deciding a code, I justified my coding through writing memos. According to Bazeley and Jackson (2013), memos and annotation in NVivo enable researchers to reflect thinking and generate more ideas for analysing qualitative data. Through this process, I identified more gaps,

inconsistencies, incongruences, and loopholes in my participants’ data. Some of these memos include my voice and reflections regarding created nodes. One of this was a node created to categorise participants’ views about technology’s potential for increasing student engagement and interaction. However, through writing memos, I realised that their meaning of interaction was not concentrated on student thinking and enhancing understanding, rather it was merely concentrated on rehearsing the content they delivered.

117

Writing a memo was also useful for generating more ideas as given in the second example in Table 5.4.

Table 5. 4. An example of using memo in NVivo-10

Codes Participants’ conversations Memos written Interaction

but knowledge centrism

When ICT is used, it’s easier to open discussion, and it can

make the classroom much more interactive. (FG)

It makes the classroom more alive. Students become more

interactive, involved, engaged, they get more

opportunities to open their mind. (IN)

We can make our classrooms much enhanced and rich

conversations can take place.

(FG)

I noted in my observation of classroom teaching, where participants try to interact and engage students during their lessons. However, the interaction and

engagement was more on discussion of the knowledge learnt or explained. This

was much evident in some participants' teaching as they discussed answers to the

questions and definitions that students

need to be familiar with. I also

particularly asked some participants about this. What I learnt from their clarifications is that participants often tried to engage

students in order to make them learn the knowledge delivered.

ICT makes teaching easier

Instead of writing all notes on the board, my teacher writes

approximately 4 A4 sheets of writing on the board (FG). The best thing is that we go to the classroom having all that

in our slides (FG).

When just Google something or a topic which I need, I will get a huge amount of materials relevant to my lesson (FG).

Often my participants talked about technology and how it helps them to teach in classes. They believe that ICT makes everything easy in their teaching. This in fact is evident in all my participants' talk. Perhaps they adopted ICT because it

helps them teach more easily. I wonder whether the meaning of easy in these comments. Does that mean only what they need to do is dragging the materials into slides and delivering them?

Writing memos and annotations also assisted me to learn many things that are

contradicted within the conversations. For example, one of my participants mentioned many types of tools she uses in her practice. However, while reading through my journals, I realised the conversation was sort of the knowledge she knew about the technological tools, but was not entirely related to her practice. In my journal, I noted that this particular participant was stating listed tools such as Facebook, Flicker, and Twitter. However, in my field journal, I noted that she had few activities on her Facebook page. I also clarified my views about her Facebook activities in an informal conversation. Thus, writing memos helped me clear my thinking and learn more than what is mentioned in the interview conversations.