Preliminary analysis in the fieldwork

A preliminary analysis of the data during Phase One and Two was carried out while I was involved in the fieldwork. In both cases, the goal of this preliminary analysis was to observe the outcomes in order to make decisions for subsequent plans of improvement. In the case of the exploratory phase, I made decisions for an action plan in the intervention phase; and in the case of the intervention phase, the analysis and reflection on the data helped me decide on the actions needed to help the PSTs in the process of reflection throughout the five cycles of AR undertaken during the study.

4.5.1.1 Exploratory phase

The instruments used in Phase One of the study helped me triangulate the information because I constantly compared responses from the questionnaire to responses in the FG, the PSTs’ journals, and seminar observations (notes). However, it was not my intention to start assigning codes or categories during the exploratory phase (mainly due to time constraints). Hence, my initial or preliminary

119

analysis followed a more basic examination of data in order to observe and consider what the PSTs reflected on, if they reflected, and to identify their level of reflection. The preliminary analysis of instruments in this phase was as follows:

 Observations: using the two-column form (described in 4.3.1) as an instrument of analysis, I highlighted what I considered important aspects of the sessions in terms of evidence (or lack) of reflection, and wrote notes or comments on them. This initial analysis helped me identify the PSTs’ level and focus of reflection during their seminars (RQ1). Even though I had not initially planned to evaluate the mentor teachers’ manner of eliciting reflection, I also paid attention to the questions that they asked in order to see if those questions were triggering the PSTs’ critical reflection on the topics that they discussed in class. As I stated in my research journal,

I think this interest is because I’m trying to figure out the kind of questions I’ll need to consider during the intervention phase in order to foster reflection.

(RJ/28-08-13/ll58–61)

 Questionnaire: I concentrated the results in a Word document in which I summarised and analysed the responses provided by the PSTs (see Appendix 2 for questionnaire). This instrument helped me identify information related to how the PSTs engaged in RP (RQ2).

 Focus group: before transcribing, I started a preliminary analysis of it by watching the video of the interview and writing down the PSTs’ responses as a summary. My aim was to identify and analyse extended responses which showed the PSTs’ opinions on RP, the way in which they reflected, their habits of reflection, and, additionally, their previous experience of reflecting upon the class, the peer observations that they had completed, and the co- teaching work that they were carrying out at that time. When I finished the

120

transcription of the video, I read it to corroborate information.

 Journals: due to time constraints (27 PSTs submitted from six to nine entries of their journals at the end of the term, leaving only two weeks before the start of the intervention phase), I randomly selected some of the PSTs’ journals to explore and identify the focus and level of reflection. I underlined aspects that I considered relevant and wrote some notes or comments about the aspects on which they reflected, how they reflected, and if there was a sign of a certain level of reflection.

During the exploratory phase, I compared the outcomes from activities and instruments, looking for connections and relationships among data in order to reflect on the PSTs’ level, focus, and habits of reflection (time, place, and systematisation). This preliminary analysis helped me create a plan of action for the next phase.

4.5.1.2 Intervention phase

There were five cycles of AR during the intervention phase. After every cycle, I did a preliminary analysis as follows:

 Dialogic journals: During the whole process of the DJs, I wanted to keep track of the PSTs’ reflections. Consequently, I created a Word document per participant in which I wrote comments on the main topics that they focused on, the level of reflection they were developing (if this was so), and how they were responding to my questions and comments. My purpose with the latter was to notice and reflect on the way in which the dialogic process was working in the journals. Even though I did not aim to make an individual analysis per PST, this form was a record of how the PST’s reflection was developing per cycle. This record was very useful to me when I was analysing

121

their reflections and deciding on the next step in my AR cycle during the intervention.

 Group reflections: after each session, I watched the video and took notes on the responses of the students. My intention was to observe the topics they reflected on, how they responded to my questions and their peers’ questions and comments (interaction), and any type of information that would help me identify the process and development of reflection (e.g. a certain level of reflection). After watching and taking notes, I compared the results of the session with the DJs. Both of them also helped me define the questions and strategies for the subsequent cycle.

 Facebook group: I posted questions, articles, or pictures related to teaching for the PSTs to reflect. As mentioned before, this did not work as I expected, but the response of the PSTs to some of the entries helped me see what the interaction among them was like and how they reflected on the topics addressed.

This second phase of the study included all the stages of AR: plan, act, observe, and reflect. The logical sequence, once I implemented my plan, was to observe and evaluate the results of the acting phase. Then, I reflected on them in order to make sense of the outcomes and findings of the intervention. The DJs and the GRs are the core of this study, mainly because they were the most systematic tools used during the interventions by all the participants.