Qualitative Data Analysis Workshop

1. Qualitative Data Analysis Workshop

2. Structure of the workshop • Today: Session 1 –based on examples of data analysis emerging from two research examples Potari, D. & Jaworski, B. (2002). Tackling Complexity in Mathematics Teaching Development: Using the Teaching Triad as a Tool for Reflection and Analysis. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, Vol.5, No.4. Triantafillou, Ch. & Potari, D. (2010). Mathematical practices in a technological workplace: the role of tools. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 74, 275-294. • Thursday: Session 2- based on your PhD work

3. Example 1: Mathematics in workplace: • It is an ethnographic study based on technicians’ activity in a telecommunication organization in Greece. • It is a part of the PhD work of Chrissavgi Triantafillou • The focus of the work was to identify the nature of invariant mathematical concepts and processes that emerged in technicians’ work activity.

4. The context of the study • One year ethnographic study. • Data consisted of • field notes of observations of technicians’ actions • Interviews with technicians and experts • Analysis of certain artifacts (eg. technical maps, manuals) • The activity was mediated through a number of tools that emerged from the data • A part of the analysis focused on the categorization of tools

5. An example of a representation: A telecommunication closet

6. The technicians had to trace a wire pair in the closet. The wire pairs are structured in tens and their position is determined by a number • 16 is the cable number • 141 is the number of the closet • 74 is the position of the wire-pair in the incoming frame • 39 is the position of the wire-pair in the outgoing frame • 04/9 is another representation of the position of the wire-pair in the outoing frame

7. Example of a systemic network in workplace

8. Qualitative content analysis • The data for qualitative content analysis can be all sort of recorded communication (transcripts of interviews, discourses, protocols of observations, video tapes, documents ...)

9. Basic ideas • Fitting the material into a model of communication • Rules of analysis: The material is to be analyzed step by step, following rules of procedure, devising the material into content analytical units. • Categories in the center of analysis: The aspects of text interpretation, following the research questions, are put into categories, which were carefully founded and revised within the process of analysis • Trustworthiness of interpretation through for example triangulation or coding agreement

10. Example 2: Microanalysis by using a theoretical model (the Teaching Triad) Sensitivity to Students Management of Learning Mathematical challenge

11. ML describes the teacher's role in the constitution of the classroom learning environment by the teacher and students (classroom groupings; planning of tasks and activity; setting of norms and so on. • SS describes the teacher's knowledge of students and attention to their needs • MC describes the challenges offered to students to engender mathematical thinking and activity.

12. In micro-analysis each line of data was studied carefully allowing us to 'get inside' an interaction, looking in fine detail at the language and meanings of teacher and students' in the discourse.

13. The context of the study • A partnership of two secondary school mathematics teachers and two academic researchers • Teaching in teachers’ classrooms was observed for a period of three months and discussion with the teachers took place • Meetings of the four partners every fortnight

14. The focus of the study • To use the Triad as a tool to analyse classroom data to provide insights into mathematics teaching, particularly its complexity and issues for teachers. • To use the triad as a tool to encourage reflection in all aspects of teaching.

15. Episode 1 • file://localhost/Users/despinapotari/Documents/Tallin/TTtriad example.pdf

16. 1 T. [To Tom] Brilliant, Good. That's right. OK. But, by putting them like this, which you knew was going to be bigger because (contributing voices drown her words) so, your net's going to be 776 cm2 and Stewart's net's going to be only 352cm2. Now I want you to think why Stewart's is less. • 2 S. Cause mine's higher and wider and • 3 To It's easier to fit in the trolley. [He refers to a supermarket trolley] • 4 T. It is easier to fit in the trolley, yes. • 5 S. Because mine's got more height and width than Tom's. • 6 T. Right, so it will be (many voices) consequently its been made • 7 S. Shorter • 8 T. Shorter, (many voices in background) • 9 S. More compact • 10 T. Right. Compact. Good. Right now, is Stewart's model the most compact model you can come up with, or is there anything better? Well. I don't know. Let's look at James and John's to see if they've done better. • 11 [Some interruption here from other students to whom the teacher responds] • 12 T. Stewart, you have done really well so far, OK? • 13 S. Yes. • 14 T. But you need to make sure you are listening in to the others’ designs as well.

17. Analyse by using the TT model the specific episode. • What kind of relationships do you recognize between the elements of the TT? • How is the grounded theory approach related to the TT model?