Project Overview
This study investigates the teaching methods used by two instructors of qualitative research methods at two different academic institutions (Site A and Site B) to integrate data analysis instruction into their curricula. Situated within the theoretical frameworks of active learning, this work draws upon contemporary scholarship that underscores the importance of student engagement through hands-on analytical activities. We specifically focus on the concept of “shared data” – defined as data collected or archived by others, such as datasets sourced from online repositories or anonymized collections prepared by educators for teaching demonstrations – and examine how these resources are utilized. Employing a qualitative case-study design, this project analyzes how each instructor leverages shared data differently to facilitate skill-building in qualitative data analysis, specifically considering both an introductory and advanced context. By juxtaposing these instructional practices, this study offers insights into the nuanced applications of shared data in qualitative research education and highlights the role of data type, course level, and instructional environment in shaping students’ analytical competencies.
Data and Data Collection Overview
Site A is located at a university associated with a “Research 1” classification. The course observed was an advanced graduate-level qualitative methods course that required two prerequisite qualitative methodology courses. The course was taught using a 16-week term in the Fall 2021. Class observations and participant interviews occurred during the three weeks surrounding class sessions focused on data analysis.
Site B is also located at a university associated with a “Research 1” classification, but in a different region of the United States. Site B’s graduate-level qualitative methods course is an introductory qualitative methods course, and thus had no prerequisite courses. The course was taught using a 13-week term in the Spring 2022 semester. Class observations and participant interviews occurred in the weeks surrounding class sessions focused on data analysis, spanning two weeks.
Site A’s instructor reported a total of 19 years teaching in higher education, with six of those at current institution teaching qualitative methodology courses, including the one observed for this study. Site A’s course contained 15 full time students who enrolled in face-to-face courses. The class included all full-time and on-campus students, with 13 domestic students and two international students. Multiple disciplinary programs were represented, including juvenile/criminal justice, special education, counsellor education, and qualitative research. Of those enrolled in the course at Site A, one student agreed to participate in an interview.
Site B’s instructor reported a total of 14 years teaching in higher education, with all of those years at her current institution. She reported a total of 14 years teaching introductory and graduate qualitative methodology courses, including the course observed in this study. Site B’s course contained 22 full time students. All students were enrolled in graduate programs, with one student in a master’s program, 18 in Ph.D. programs, and 3 in Ed.D. programs. Given the introductory nature of this course, most of the students had no prior training in qualitative research. Multiple disciplinary programs were represented, including special education, curriculum and instruction, and higher education. At Site B, four students agreed to participate in an interview.
Data sources from Site A consisted of three live classroom sessions, recorded via Zoom and shared with the research team over a three-week period. Each session involved teacher-led discussions and group conversations focused on data analysis, with sessions averaging two hours and 25 minutes in length, ranging from two hours and 15 minutes to two hours and 36 minutes. Due to privacy concerns, these lecture recordings are not being shared. Additionally, only one student consented to participate in an interview. The instructor used two PowerPoint presentations in sessions centered on teaching qualitative data analysis, but the files were not shared with the research team. Instructor interviews at Site A included a preliminary interview lasting 60 minutes and a post-session interview lasting 58 minutes. These interviews generally addressed the structure and content of the class sessions, with a focus on teaching qualitative data analysis and fostering student engagement.
Site B data sources included one live classroom observation (and subsequent recording) using a researcher-monitored video recording device within the classroom. The research team placed the camera in the classroom during the relevant portion of class and retrieved it once the class session ended. Most of this classroom session consisted of instructor-led lectures with some student feedback. Due to a lack of student consent, the in-class activity related to data analysis was not recorded. As such, the recorded classroom session lasted only 36 minutes in total. Due to the lack of comprehensive consent and also privacy concerns, recordings are not shared as part of this deposit. Pedagogical artifacts at Site B included a coding activity to support a data analysis lecture and an empirical paper (Rossetti, Z., Burke, M. M., Hughes, O., Schraml-Block, K., Rivera, J. I., Rios, K., Aleman Tovar, J., & Lee, J. D. (2021). Parent Perceptions of the Advocacy Expectation in Special Education. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 438-457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921994095). Instructor interviews for Site B included a preliminary interview, lasting 54 minutes, and a post-class session interview, lasting 44 minutes. In addition to general questions about teaching qualitative analysis, these interviews discussed the nature of the class session related to research methods pedagogy and student engagement.
All transcripts were processed by the depositors to only use pseudonyms for the participants and remove other direct identifiers. After an additional disclosure risk review as part of QDR’s curation process (and in consultation with the depositors), a handful of additional indirect identifiers were removed (designated by square brackets and capital letters for the redactions).
Selection and Organization of Shared Data
The data files consist of nine interview transcripts: three are from Site A (two from instructor and one from a student) and six from Site B (two from instructor and four from students). Eight documentation files include the consent forms for instructors and students, interview questionnaires (pre- and post- for instructors and one questionnaire for students), a codebook, this data narrative and an administrative README file. |
