104 Chapter 5 To start, we independently engaged in initial coding and identified possible patterns in the data. During the first meeting, we discussed preliminary codes and memos, and modified the interview guide. Focused coding followed, collaboratively refining codes and concepts that gave meaning to and explained larger portions of data. Through constant comparison, we compared new interviews to previous data, identifying contradictions, expansions, and support. We explored interactions between participant characteristics and the research question to identify their potential influence on the findings. Consequently, we could identify categories and themes with increasing specificity and precision, while also explaining links between the categories and themes through theoretical coding. This iterative process was continued until a stable thematic structure developed, visualized through diagrams and storyline procedures (29,31,40). Theoretical saturation (i.e., additional data likely do not contribute new insights to the developing theory or categories) was taken as a measure to determine if the interviews had yielded the data needed to achieve our research aim (29,41). We achieved saturation after 11 interviews, after which we reached a sufficient and coherent conceptualization without any significant gaps (29,42). Reflexivity The authors have extensive knowledge of active learning through scholarship and their experiences as teachers and students in courses that employed active learning methods. AC, SR, and JG have extensive faculty development experience that might influence their findings, which were checked and discussed throughout with the entire research team. JG taught a teacher qualification course, through which he knew some participants before conducting the interviews. There was no active relationship between them at the time of the interviews. Participants were aware in advance that JG would be the interviewer and had the option to decline participation or request a different interviewer. RK is a teacher in the tutoring course, but not a participant in the study. Her experiences were discussed during team meetings and helped facilitate the conception and execution of this study. AC had experience in the methodology and guided the team through the study. Ethics and consent Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Review Board of the Netherlands Association of Medical Education (dossier number 2020.5.1). Before partaking in the interviews, participants received an information letter about the study, which they could read at their convenience. Then, if they agreed to participate, they signed an informed consent form, and the interview was scheduled. The participants did not receive compensation for participating.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw