4.1 Design
4.2.2. Design of the study
4.2.2.5. Analysis
In order to adhere as closely as possible to teachers’ verbalized visions of agency- supportive instruction, first cycle interview analysis began with in vivo coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Following first cycle analysis of each interview, in vivo codes were analyzed for common themes, as well as for disconfirming cases. These themes were then analyzed within and across each participants’ interviews, to explore both commonalities across time and instances of conceptual change within teachers’ visions, resulting in the creation of teacher vision profiles. In order to increase trustworthiness, a research assistant independently double coded four teacher interviews to create vision profiles. Meetings were held to resolve minor discrepancies, via a process of re-examining transcripts and discussing interpretations in order to arrive at consensus.
Although in vivo coding offers affordances in the analysis of teacher interviews, it has less utility for examining the interplay of ideas during professional learning. Therefore, coding within each CFG meeting centered on the speech acts identified within those meetings. Speech acts represent a theoretical category based in pragmatic linguistic theories and are defined by the actions performed by a speaker’s words (Austin, 1962; Cutting, 2002; Ruytenbeek, 2021; Searle, 1976, 2005). For example, a speaker who states, “You bumped into me,” may be expressing a
82
declarative (making clear that the act of bumping occurred) or an indirect directive (requesting or demanding an apology). Speech acts are analyzed within three concentric contexts:
1. The situational context, which refers to the immediate shared context—in this case, the Zoom CFG meeting;
2. The background knowledge context, which refers to the knowledge and ideologies shared about the world and each other—in this case, this largely centered on knowledge and ideologies around pedagogy, students, and educational systems; and,
3. The co-textual context, which refers to shared knowledge of what other discussants have been saying—in this case, the ideas expressed across this and previous meetings (Cutting, 2002).
By coding speech acts, I hoped to engage with speakers’ intended purposes for their words, situated within their own unique understandings, experiences, and visions, as well as within the larger dialogue occurring within and across the CFG meetings (Hildayat, 2016).
Although speech acts have typically been defined according to five macro-types (declaratives, representatives, commissives, directives, and expressives) (Searle, 1976), numerous sub-types have been identified, ranging from “apologizing” (Bayat, 2013) to “expressing gratitude” (Pishghadam & Zarei, 2011). Because of the situated nature of visioning-based professional development, I endeavored to create categories of speech act derived from an initial subset of the data. Inductive analysis of three CFG meetings identified seven types of speech act that performed functions contributing to or indicative of conceptual change within the CFG:
1. Problems of practice: Declaration of the problem stymying enactment of vision of agency- supportive instruction, request for assistance
2. Proposed affordances: Declaration or question implying resources/people/contextual factors which may be helpful in achievement of vision of agency-supportive instruction
3. Proposed constraints: Declaration or question implying resources/people/contextual factors which may be detrimental to achievement of vision of agency-supportive instruction
4. Goals of instruction: Declaration or question aimed at clarifying goals for instructional practices in relation to larger vision of agency-supportive instruction
83
5. Reframes of vision/affordance/constraint: Declaration or question in which participants bring new perspectives to bear on the meaning of agency-supportive instruction, or the various affordances and constraints impacting its enactment
6. Reimaginings of vision: Declaration or question in which participants concretely defined new ways in which their vision might be enacted within the classroom
7. Foreclosures of teacher capacity to enact vision: Declaration or question in which participants precluded enactment of vision of agency-supportive instruction
In particular, reframings and reimaginings were conceptualized as instances of conceptual change, wherein educators negotiated amongst their lived experiences and shared formal knowledge to create new meanings around agency-supportive instruction. The most important difference between reframings and reimaginings was the level of concreteness applied to the speech act—reframings were operationalized as abstract, comprising instances where elements of the vision, or of the affordances and constraints impacting it, were redefined. Reimaginings, conversely, were operationalized as concrete, comprising instances in which teachers concretely outlined how a vision might be enacted in a new way in their classroom. For example, in the May 2022 meeting, Olivia reimagined providing students rotating roles in their group presentations—
this was a concrete reimagining of how she might enact her vision of agency-supportive instruction as offering opportunities for students to teach each other. However, this concrete reimagining was undergirded by an abstract reframing—that is, a new perspective that it supports students’ agency to have rotating group roles during presentations, because this gives them opportunities to develop mastery over different elements of content. In some instances, a sentence would include both a concrete reimagining and the reframing of perspective that led to that reimagining woven together;
in these instances, the sentence would be coded as both speech acts.
These seven types of speech act were then used in a form of inductive-deductive coding;
while each speech act was deductively coded with one of these seven speech act types, each was also coded inductively with the illocutionary force behind each speech act.
After each meeting was coded in this way, these codes were placed into concept maps detailing themes and relations between ideas (see Figure 4.2 for an example). Working under the
84
assumption that individuals working in dialogic spaces often bring to their communities ideas and perspectives that accord with their values and visions (Lave & Wenger, 1991), I analyzed participants’ engagement across these meetings. Though tracing conceptual change is a complex and imperfect science, I attempted, through this temporal and relational analysis of engagement, to determine how participants’ visions were expressed, expanded, refined, and otherwise changed during the CFGs. After coding individual interviews and CFG meetings, I engaged in a structured memoing process detailing changes I noticed across participants’ visions, people and events contributing to those changes, and my own impressions of the data, including within them excerpts that struck me as particularly noteworthy. Finally, to ensure that my interpretations and understandings accorded with those of the participants, I shared with each participating educator the portion of this investigation centered on her own interpretative work and asked for her commentary, though I only received a response from Bee (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).