ABSTRACT
Data for this chapter were taken from a larger qualitative study Elizabeth conducted looking at secondary content area teachers’ conceptualizations of tech-
nology and literacy (Stolle, 2007). Sixteen teachers, both male and female, from two high schools within a high-achieving school district (as evidenced by test scores above state and national averages) voluntarily participated in this study. Their teaching assignments included ninth through twelfth grade English, social studies, and science, and their professional experiences varied from one year to 31 years. The teachers were divided into two categories: primary participants and secondary participants. Four teachers became the primary participants of the study, and each was observed for a total of 25-30 hours during the spring 2006 semester. Observation schedules varied from week to week, but each teacher was observed for 1-4 hours per day, 1 or 2 days per week. Teachers were observed during different periods of the day, capturing a complete picture of their lives in the classroom. The observations followed Werner and Schoepfle’s (1987) systematic approach in naturalistic settings, keeping detailed observational notes. This approach progresses through three types of observations-descriptive, focused, and selective-to gain a comprehensive depiction of the setting. The observations were complemented with three in-depth, semi-structured interviews with each teacher. The interviews followed an interactive, situational, and generative approach by posing open-ended questions that initiated dialogue (Burgess, 1984; Fontana & Frey, 2000). As ideas and stories emerged, further questions were asked, helping teachers elaborate, explore, and describe their thinking and experiences. Furthermore, response data (St. Pierre, 1997) was gathered from these four teachers by conducting one final interview. All of the primary participants’ interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. In addition to the observations and interviews, four focus groups were conducted, with another 12 teachers labeled as secondary participants. During the focus group meetings, the discussions followed a structured approach, centered on questions from a prepared discussion outline. This was done to keep the discussion concentrated on the topics of interest (Morgan, 1997) and to address similar topics between the two high schools. All of the focus group interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. Finally, a researcher’s journal was kept throughout the project (Richardson, 2000). In it memos were written to: (1) record the concrete details of what was seen and heard while in the teachers’ classrooms; (2) articulate the data collection process; (3) connect what was being seen and heard with what was being read professionally; (4) encourage the use of multiple perspectives to navigate, shift, relocate, and renegotiate the thinking and analysis; and (5) record the raw feelings and emotions experienced as a researcher. During the data collection process, the classroom observations were used to create focus group questions, and the focus group discussions were used to guide and direct the observations. Additionally, themes and conceptualizations observed during the classroom observations were compared and contrasted to the themes and conceptualizations noted in the focus groups. The researcher’s journal provided a space to explore the interplay between the data
sources and to see how the themes and ideas noted during classroom observations and in-depth interviews were then corroborated during the focus group interviews. Finally, the response data interviews were used to move the analysis “toward the unthought” (St. Pierre, 1997, p. 410).
