80 Chapter 4 a study group if all students in that group agreed to the video recording. Students who additionally agreed to the subsequent interview were scheduled for an interview within 1 week after the recorded meeting. Interviews took place in a classroom on the university campus. When a study group agreed to the video recording, we recorded one of their meetings in full. From that recording, we selected moments of students showing either signs of participation or non-participation in the learning process (e.g., asking or answering a question, staring out of the window, students having a private conversation between themselves). We recorded the meetings in June 2019, so before the COVID-19 pandemic and in a face-to-face situation. For each student, at least one moment of participation and non-participation was selected. In line with stimulated recall research recommendations (41), we watched the selected moments with the students in individual interviews as soon as possible, but no later than one week after the meeting. The moments we selected were directly related to the research questions, that is showing observable signs of (non-)participation, to stimulate best the student’s recall of that specific moment of the meeting. We chose to do individual interviews after recording a group meeting, as individual interviews are better suited to gain an indepth understanding of an individual student’s perspective, while creating a safe space for the student for reflecting on his/her behavior. The interviews were semi-structured in nature and guided by a list of questions (Appendix 4.1). We asked open-ended questions to stimulate recall of the student’s behavior, thoughts and feelings at that time. Students were also invited to select a certain moment of the meeting to review during the interview and offer any other thoughts about the meeting and their behavior in it, or their engagement in general. All interviews were audiotaped, pseudonymized and transcribed for analysis. Analyses We analyzed the transcripts using the Template analysis style of thematic analysis, and followed recommended procedures (42–44). ATLAS.ti version 8.4.18.0 was used to aid the data analysis. Analysis was done in three steps. 1. Familiarizing ourselves with the data. In the first step of the analysis, researchers JG, MMV and AC familiarized themselves with the data by reading two transcripts and carrying out inductive preliminary coding. 2. Creating, revising and applying coding template. Based on a discussion among the three coders, we agreed that Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris’ student engagement framework seemed appropriate to guide further coding of the data. We used the data from step 1, as well as the framework, to create a tentative coding template (37). The framework was thus used as a sensitizing concept (45). Three transcripts were coded with this template by JG and MMV. Using data from the interviews, we expanded and clarified the template based on discussions in the author team. We also formulated explanatory descriptions of coding categories. This expanded template was used for two more transcripts to establish intercoder agreement. Table 4.1 shows the finalized
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw