Reply To: Block 4

[Bijoy Rai]

ACID: Shenton(2004)
Agree: As an insider, I will have to be careful to avoid my past classroom experiences influencing the way I approach data collection and analysis.
Confusing: Through purposive sampling, once you ensure honesty in informants, is there a need for iterative questioning? For dependability, it might sound good however, it could also signal your mistrust to the participant(s).
Interesting: I look forward to existing frequent debriefing sessions, peer scrutiny, conducting audit trials and, ideas on being crafty and artistic to capture peoples’ attention or imagination.
Disagree: Randomness and generalisability/transferability in qualitative research…

Plumbing in QR (Chenail)
1. Area of curiosity: Classroom practices in teaching and learning science.
2. Mission question: What pedagogical practices sustain students’ interest and engagement in science across the primary-middle school interface in Bhutan?
3. Data to be collected:
– Field notes from observation of teaching and learning happening in the class across grades 6, 8 and 10
– Video recording of teaching and learning in the science class across grades 6, 8 and 10
– Audio-taped interviews of 5 teachers twice and 14 students (4 per grade from grades 6, 8 and 10) four times across 12/4 weeks sharing their science teaching/learning experiences in the classroom.
4. Data Analysis Procedure: Grounded analysis (supported by theories and themes)
Does it look ‘plumbed’? Initially, I started with area of curiosity as ‘decline in students’ interest and engagement in science’ which, I thought, did not align well with mission question.