110 Chapter 4 related to identity but not to mission, and educators in the ‘Inspirer’ profile had assigned codes that related to both identity and mission. The categorisation of a participant to a profile was determined holistically, based on the whole transcript, including the labelled fragments. We followed the analytic process as described by Ottenhoff-de Jonge et al.22 Beliefs about teaching and learning In Step 2, we selected those text fragments that related to the participant’s beliefs about teaching and learning. To categorise these beliefs, we used a beliefs framework previously developed within the medical education context4 which is based on an earlier framework of Samuelowicz and Bain.8 The framework consists of a matrix and describes teaching beliefs in terms of belief orientations and belief dimensions (for convenience, we have provided the framework in Addendum 4.2). A belief orientation represents a global, composite set of beliefs about teaching and learning. In the framework, there are six different belief orientations, indicated in the columns in the matrix, ranging from teaching-centred to learning-centred. These six belief orientations are defined by nine dimensions, indicated in the rows in the matrix. Each dimension represents a different aspect of the belief orientations regarding teaching and learning. Within each dimension three or four beliefs can be distinguished. For example, the three beliefs listed within the dimension ‘Students’ existing conceptions’ are: ‘not taken into account,’ ‘used as basis for developing expertise,’ and ‘used to negotiate meaning.’ These beliefs are ordered on a continuum from teaching-centred to learning-centred. We labelled the text fragments according to the beliefs as identified in the framework, and subsequently determined a belief orientation holistically, meaning that we used the whole transcript, including all of the labelled fragments. For Steps 1 and 2, the first and third author (MO and IvdH) independently analysed the interview transcripts to ensure credibility, using Atlas-ti qualitative data analysis software. Both authors had experience in the analysis procedure related to both models used. We discussed our labelling jointly and reached consensus on the categorisation of each participant‘s teacher profile (‘Critic,’ ‘Practitioner,’ ‘Role model,’ or ‘Inspirer,’ respectively) and belief orientation (ranging from I to VI). In a separate interview, the first author performed a member check by asking all participants if they agreed with our conclusions on the assigned teacher profile and belief orientation, by providing them with a relevant selection of the labelled fragments from their previous interview.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw