132 Chapter 5 METHODS Design and procedures To explore the maturation of educators, we performed a qualitative follow-up study with a baseline period of 2008-2010 (first interview, Phase 1), and a followup period in 2018 (second and third interviews, Phases 2 and 3). In Phase 1, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with senior educators (n=23) from two medical schools. We used the interview guide as reported by Ottenhoff-de Jonge et al.16 (see Addendum 5.1). We started with the primary questions regarding what qualities make a good teacher, and what obstacles there might be to being a good teacher. Due to our selection of exemplary teachers, the participants identified with the notion of ´good teachers´ and related these questions to themselves. By asking for examples from their teaching practice, we further ensured that the participants elaborated on their own teaching experiences. We explored the preclinical educational contexts during the interviews because experiences of being an educator may vary according to the level of teaching17 and we wanted to avoid participants answering the questions in a clinical context. In the preclinical setting, learningcentred education is more carefully designed and implemented. To answer our first research question, in Phase 2 we repeated the interviews in 2018 with the same participants who were still available (n=21), to examine whether educators matured through a growing awareness of their educational qualities over a 10-year period. The educator phenotype model provided the framework for data analysis in Phases 1 and 2. In Phase 3, we conducted a third interview with those educators who showed maturation towards a more inclusive educator phenotype (n=6) to answer our second research question. We prepared a document that included relevant excerpts from these participants’ first and second interviews which illustrated their growth in awareness of their educational qualities between the first and second interviews. We added specific questions related to underlying factors that might have contributed to their maturation. The document served as a prompt and was sent prior to the third interview to give the participants ample time and encourage them to reflect on these excerpts. The aim of the third interview was twofold. First, we checked whether the educators agreed with the categorisation of the initial and new phenotypes (member check). Second, we explored which factors they perceived to be instrumental to their maturation as educators.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw