Data analysis in the context of teacher training: code sequence analysis using QDA Miner$^{\circledR }$

Abstract

This article is the fruit of a study carried out in the field of training teachers in the French Community of Belgium. The current teacher-training course is founded on a decree promulgated by the French Community of Belgium in February 2001 outlining thirteen skills to be developed in the initial training program. One of these, which, in our view, is especially crucial, is training young teachers to look critically at their own practices. Getting student–teachers to critique themselves continually challenges both those who train teachers (How to encourage them to do so?), and researchers (How to measure it?). The response to these two questions is essential if we are to move beyond thinking of self-evaluation as merely a sort of training “slogan” (Fendler, Educ Res. 32(3):16–25, 2003). In an attempt to create a research tool that can aid in the measurement of self-evaluation events, we have turned to computer assisted data analysis tools. After a brief description of the context in which this study has been carried out, this article will present the theoretical foundations underlying the data analysis in some depth, and an overview of two data analysis software packages: Nvivo$^{\circledR }$ and QDA Miner$^{\circledR }.$ Then we will take a closer look at the main subject of this article; i.e., one of the functions in QDA Miner$^{\circledR },$ the Code Sequence Analysis Function, and its application in the analysis of two specific aspects of interaction between a student–teacher and his/her supervisor. More specifically, we shall examine the results obtained from applying code sequencing to student–teachers’ reflective processes, and to the thematic continuity/discontinuity that occurs during an interview. Finally, the conclusions outline the most significant results obtained as well as some other elements linked to data analysis tools which potentially merit further reflection.

Appendix 1

Refelctive processes	Theoretical models
Narrate/describe one’s own practises	No descriptive language
	Sparks-Langer et al. (1990)
	Descriptive writing
	Hatton and Smith (1995)
	Events labeled with appropriate terms
	Sparks-Langer et al. (1990)
Question	Questioning
	Jorro (2005)
Become aware/realize	Become aware
	Hensler et al. (2001)
Point out difficulties/weaknesses	Identify his/her problems/weaknesses
	Derobertmasure and Dehon (2012)
Justify practices on the basis of personal preferences or tradition	Explanation based on personal preference or tradition
	Sparks-Langer et al. (1990)
Justify practises on the basis of context	Explanation based on consideration of context factors
	Sparks-Langer et al. (1990)
Justify practices on pedagogical or ethical grounds	Descriptive reflection
	Hatton and Smith (1995)
	Explanation with principle or theory given as the rationale, with principle/theory and consideration of ethical, moral, political issues
	Sparks-Langer et al. (1990)
	Critical reflection
	Van Manen (1977), Fenstermacher (Fenstermacher, G (1996))
Express intent	To express one’s intention with regard to the practice
	Practical reflection (Van Manen 1977)
Evaluate a practice	To evaluate the practice
	Technical reflection (Van Manen 1977)
Diagnose	To diagnose
	Derobertmasure and Dehon (2012)
Suggest alternative practices or methods	To find (and evaluate) an alternative to one’s practice
Explore one or more alternative practices	Dialogical reflection (Hatton and Smith 1995)
Theorize	To generalize
	Reflection on action (Schön 1994/ Generalization Kolb 1984)