Gersten Jonker

Simulation at the frontier of the ZPD   71 4 Data analysis A commercial agency transcribed the audiorecorded interviews verbatim. Two authors (FG, GJ) analyzed the transcripts using a 9-step modified Van Kaam method [22]. After immersing themselves in the data by listening and reading, F.G. and G.J. carried out step 1, “horizonalization,” individually by identifying each statement referring to the experience in each transcript. In step 2, reduction and elimination, the 2 researchers organized the horizons identified in step 1 into units of meaning, called constituent themes, and clustered these in steps 3 and 4 into invariant core themes of the experience, leading to individual textural descriptions (step 5). Participants checked these descriptions to verify that they portrayed their lived experience. In step 6, the 2 researchers sought the essence of the experience by recurrently engaging in critical dialogue and applying imaginative variation, looking at the transcripts and individual textural descriptions from various vantage points. Through reflection and discussion, the researchers interpreted accounts on a more abstract level, looking at implicit meanings, leading to an individual structural description of how the phenomenon was experienced (step 7). Finally, the researchers integrated individual descriptions into a collective one, called a composite textural description (step 8, Appendix 3). From that description, they synthesized a composite structural description that describes the universal essence of experiencing the phenomenon for the group of participants (step 9). Up to this point, the other authors were not involved in the data analysis. We used the Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research checklist to guide reporting of our research [30]. Reflexivity Adoptingaphenomenologicalattitude,weaimedtobetterunderstandthephenomenon by exploring subjects’ lived experiences open-mindedly, suspending all judgments about what was significant until we had grounded the significance in the data [22, 31]. To do this, we reflexively explicated our own experience with the phenomenon and our preexisting opinions about the phenomenon. Throughout the research process, we balanced awareness of these so-called pre-understandings with setting them aside [31]. The primary interviewer (FG) had observed the students during the simulations and led the informal debriefings after each simulation scenario. When FG was unavailable, another investigator (GJ) acted as an observer during the simulation and conducted the interviews. Presence of the interviewer at the simulation served to establish rapport and allowed the interviewer to relate to the events.