Grounded Theory (what I know about it . . .)

1. Grounded Theory (what I know about it . . .) Kathy Schuh

2. My studies • Pilot study (1998) • Dissertation (1999) • Resources I (2001) • Resources II (2003) • Resources III (2004)

3. Theoretical grounding • Constructivism • Provides that although a real world may exist, all one can know of it is a personal interpretation of that world based on unique experiences or as emergent from interactions among individuals. • Conventional definition • Learners construct their own knowledge based on their prior experience (i.e., learning)

4. Thought provoking questions • If this is an accurate account (although sketchy) of how we come to know, why don’t we see more examples spontaneously in classrooms? • If a student shares something in class that seems unrelated to the task at hand, given this definition of learning, is it really unrelated? Why did the student happen to share it at this particular moment? And could it be a potential opportunity for meaning making?

5. Pilot study (1998) • 2 elementary classrooms (grades 1 & 6) • Observation, interview, writing • Three visits to each classroom

6. “What if four children are to make Easter eggs out of one piece of paper. How can that happen?” “Get an Easter egg and trace it.” “What about the others? What would the others have to do?” she prompted about the other three children who would share the paper. “Each could draw in a corner.” “Draw two up here and two in the middle.” “We saw a bag this weekend,” Mary said. The teacher quickly acknowledged the comment and continued with the topic. She gave the piece of paper to a boy, pointing out three children that the paper would have to be shared with.

7. Mary: Like when someone gets the same half. Like two and two is equal and four is equal with two and two. . . . Researcher: Good. Is there anything else that you can tell me about fair share that you talked about in class? Mary: Well, there’s one thing about yesterday I want to tell you. Yesterday we found a Gap bag and it wasn’t a suitcase or anything. And, it had this shirt in it and a pair of shorts and my mom said that she [later, I figured out that “she” meant Tina, her sister] could keep the shorts but not me. Researcher: How come she said that? Mary: Because Tina found them.

8. Findings • Trajectory – a path. Trajectory dimensions capture characteristics of an earlier portion of the learner’s trajectory • Cues – stimuli. The common feature that links something in the present context (in this case, the classroom learning environment) with something from that learner’s prior experience

9. Cue types Sounds like Looks like Same word but different concept Same concept but different context Series Complex relationships Trajectory dimensions Acting experience Operative experience Family Friends School Society Affect/Emotion Abstract ideas Cue types & trajectory dimensions

10. Dissertation study • Given three sixth-grade classrooms that differ in degree of learner-centeredness as determined by student perceptions, what is the nature and occurrence of learners’ links to prior experience and knowledge and what characteristics of the classroom environment support or limit the learners’ use of these links to construct new knowledge?

11. Dissertation (1999) • Three elementary classrooms (grade 6) • Observation, student interview, writing, teacher interview • One unit • Outcome of analysis • Updated list of cue types & trajectory dimensions

12. Cue types Cue types - 1998 • Sounds like • Looks like • Same word but different concept • Same concept but different context • Series • Complex relationships • Sounds like • Looks like • Feels like • Is a • Same word but different concept • Same concept but different context • Same concept and same context but different content • Same concept and same context with same content • Different concept within same context • Series • Complex relationships

13. Trajectory dimensions • Acting experiences • General acting experiences • Future experiences • Operative experiences • Family • Friends • School • Society • Media • Affect/emotion Trajectory dimensions - 1998 • Acting experience • Operative experience • Family • Friends • School • Society • Affect/Emotion • Abstract ideas

14. Findings • Same concept and same context with same content followed by acting experience with school trajectory occurred only in the most learner-centered classroom (N=15, 14 of which were overt). • Students in the most learner-centered classroom were provided experiences on which they could draw and link current classroom dialog and learning. • What happened before (preface?) and after (error, ignored, acknowledged, validated, integrated) student’s link.

15. Further articulate A/E • A/E trajectory was identified in four ways: • identified by word • identified by topic • verbal and written punctuation • conceptual description • A/E cue may be an affordance for inclusion of an A/E trajectory dimension

16. Resources I (2001) • One elementary classroom (grades 5-6) • Observation, student interviews, writing, teacher interview • One unit

17. Further developments • Evolving definitions of categories for cue and trajectory types • Add function cue type • Likely remove feels like cue type • Remove abstract ideas trajectory dimension

18. Further articulate media • Spectrum of potential usefulness (academically speaking) for the learning process. • Simple Links – do not seem likely to be helpful in the learning experience • Linking Similar Ideas - can provide basic prior knowledge that allows a student to better understand a concept • Linking for Understanding – using the examples for foster further understanding of other issues

19. Resources II (2003) & III (2004) • Resources II • Two elementary classrooms with the same teacher (grades 5-6) • Observation, conversations, writing processes artifacts, open-ended writing, student interviews about open-ended writing • Resources III • One elementary classroom – same teacher as Resources II (grades 5-6) • Observation, conversations, writing processes artifacts, open-ended writing

20. N6 • What the analyzed data look like at this point.

21. My evolving methodology • Pilot – a qualitative study • Dissertation • Case Study – understand the particularity and complexity of a case. • Collective – each classroom is a specific complex functioning unit (Stake, 1995). • Instrumental – gain an understanding of an issue or phenomenon (Stake, 1995). • Now – have encountered grounded theory

22. What’s a theory?

23. Theory . . . • “denotes a set of well-developed categories (e.g., themes, concepts) that are systematically interrelated through statements of relationship to form a theoretical framework that explains some relevant social, psychological, educational, nursing, or other phenomenon. The statements of relationship explain who, what, when, where, why, how, and with what consequences an event occurs” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 22). • “is more than a set of findings; it offers an explanation about phenomena” (p. 22).

24. Theories . . . • Can be substantive – “one developed from the study of one small area of investigation and from one specific population” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 267) or formal – less specific to a group or place, and as such, apply to a wider range of disciplinary concerns and problems” (p. 23). • Have various properties, and when analyzed, they also can be located along certain dimensions and ordered conceptually” (p. 23).

25. Grounded theory • Is a methodology – a way of thinking (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). • Difference between theory building and doing description – abstracting, reducing, relating as events, acts, and outcomes are conceptualized and classified. • The data are what is relevant, not the particular case or individual. • Conceptual ordering [“the organization of data into discrete categories according to their properties and dimensions and then using description to elucidate those categories” (p. 19)] is prior to theorizing.

26. Some definitions • Phenomena – Central idea in the data represented by concepts. • Concepts – A labeled phenomenon. The building blocks of theory. • Categories – Are concepts. They are derived from the data and stand for the phenomena. • Properties – Characteristics of a category, the delineation of which defines and gives it meaning. • Dimensions – The range along which general properties of a category vary, giving specification to a category and variation to the theory. • Subcategories – Concepts that pertain to a category, giving it further clarification and specification.

32. Process/Tasks • Writing memos – capturing analysis and thinking process. • Open coding – conceptualizing. From the data, identify concepts, their properties and dimensions. • Axial coding – begin to reassemble the data that were fractured during open coding. • Relate categories to subcategories along the lines of their properties and dimensions.

33. Process/Tasks • Coding for process • Look for action/interaction and trace it over time to note if it changes or what enables it to remain the same with changes in structural conditions. • Structure – the conditional context in which a category is situated. • Selective coding - Integrating and refining the categories. • Choose a central category • Basically, tell the story (using the categories) around this central category.

34. Phenomenon

35. My studies • Where am I? • I think I’m working on open and axial coding. • Phenomenon • Knowledge construction processes of learners (in school settings?) • Concepts/categories – pieces of the phenomenon • Cues • Local snippets of learners’ trajectories • Do I have properties and dimensions for these?

36. My studies • Subcategories • Cue types • Trajectory dimensions • Have varying degrees of properties and dimensions • Structures • Descriptions of the classrooms • Processes/categories/concepts • What happened before (preface?) • What happened after (error, ignored, acknowledged, validated, integrated)

37. Potential outcome • Lots of work to be done!

38. Beyond the process • “The usual canons of good science have value but require redefinition to fit the realities of qualitative research and the complexities of social phenomena that we seek to understand” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 266).

39. Generalizability • What is it? • What guarantees that research findings will be generalizable? • How do you assure generalizability in qualitative research? (and given the philosophical foundations of the methods is that ever possible for any method? – See Lincoln & Guba, 1985, chapter 5).

40. Explanatory power • “The purpose of using a theory-building methodology is to build theory. Thus, we are talking more the language of explanatory power rather than that of generalizability” (p. 266).

41. Explanatory power • Explanatory power – predictive ability • Specify the conditions that give rise to a particular phenomenon and explain what consequences occur as a result. • Developing a substantive theory (rather than a larger more general theory) has less explanatory power because it does not build in the broad variations. The more systematic and widespread the sampling, the the more conditions and variations will be discovered.

42. Transferability • “Degree of transferability is a direct function of the similarity between the two contexts” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 124). • “Qualitative research, including observational and case study methods, forms more generalizable theories because the results are based on natural classrooms and learning events that encompass many of the factors that influence learning and student behavior” (Grabinger, 1996, p. 685).

43. Transferability • What must be done to ensure transferability? What would you want to know so you could determine if the outcomes of a reported study were relevant to your own situation?