using versus coding in observation notes · using versus coding in observation notes presentation...
TRANSCRIPT
Using Versus Coding in Observation Notes
Presentation to ESP 9 /14/16
Dr. Linda S. Behar-Horenstein
Distinguished Teaching Scholar & Professor,
Education, Dentistry, Veterinary Medicine & Pharmacy
Director, CTSI Educational Development & Evaluation
Introductory remarks
ESP and purpose of this year’s program
Goals of Sessions 1-3 are to present approaches to qualitative data analysis (Versus coding, Inductive analysis, and Grounded Theory, GT)
Sessions 4-6 focus on effective facilitation of student teams, engaging students via technology, and applying quantitative and qualitative analysis in online instruction
Join session via Zoom link - https://zoom.us/j/166946383
Session Objectives
1. Explain what versus coding is
2. Describe the conditions in which is appropriate to use.
3. Practice coding -- Consider open coding versus developing a codebook
4. Develop conceptual definitions for moieties.
Objective #1. What is versus coding?
Development of Versus Coding
• Identified by Wolcott (2003) in his study of teachers versus technocrats
•He described “moiety” meaning half or one of two, and only two mutually exclusive divisions within a group.
• Saldana (2013) suggests that versus coding may lead to 3 moieties:
• Primary stakeholders
•How each side perceives and acts toward the conflict
• The central issue at stake
Development of Versus Coding, Caveats
•When open coding, use one to two word phrases
•When it is difficult to reduce to a single word or phrase, may need to use in vivo codes – actual words spoken by participant
Development of Versus Coding, Caveats
• It is rarely the case the there is a clear and distinct hero and villain or protagonist/antagonist evident in the data.
•Humans typically are in conflict with others, not abstract concepts.
Development of Versus Coding, Caveats
Not likely to find PARTICIPANTS VS. INSTITUTIONS
• MAY FIND PARTICIPANT VS. LOSS OF ALLEGIANCE
MAY FIND PARTICIPANTS VS. CONFLICTINGVIEWS WITH ADMINISTRATION
Development of Versus Coding, Caveats
•During Initial coding, ground Versus Coding in actual, observable conflicts.
•Versus coding is not grounded by an opinion, needs to be supported by the data.
•Use analytical memoing to focus on reasons why opposition exists to explain how two oppositional characteristics can co-exist in the same empirical space.
Versus coding
Identification of categories in binary terms pertaining to
• Individuals Social Systems
• Processes Organizations
• Phenomena Groups
• Concepts
Examples of Binaries For Coding
WORK VS. PLAY DEMOCRATS VS. REPUBLICANS
X VS. Y FACULTY VS. ADMINISTRATION
CHILDREN VS. ADULTS BASIC SCIENTISTS VS. CLINICANS
ADJUNCT FACULTY VS. FULLTIME FACULTY
BOYS VS. GIRLS
TEACHERS VS. PARENTS TEACHER-CENTERED VS. STUDENT-CENTERED
ADD OTHERS IN YOUR DISCIPLINE?
Objective #2. Conditions in which versus coding is
appropriate to use
When to use Versus Coding
•To suggest conflicts or competing goals among or between participants.
•Appropriate to policy analysis, evaluation research and qualitative data sets.
•Can be applied to critical ethnography when researcher deliberately takes sides with a group or with issues.
• Important diagnostic for initiating or facilitating positive change.
Objective #3. Practice coding - Consider open
coding versus developing a codebook
Observational data for this session
•Two clinical teaching observations
•Binary codes – Will need to define these terms and we will momentarily
•Teacher centered
•Student centered
Your emergent findings relative to Clinical Observation Transcripts
Clinical Observation #1 Clinical Observation #2
PRACTICE CODING
LET’S CODE LINE BY LINE IN THE FIRST FEW PARAGRAPHS OF CLINICAL OBSERVATION #1 AND
OBSERVATION #2.
• REPORT OUT
Screen Share Codebook for Clinical Observation #1
Screen Share Codebook for Clinical Observation #2
Objective #4. Conceptual definitions for moieties
Dichotomies in InstructionTEACHER-CENTERED STUDENT-CENTERED
Teacher is the central agent. Teacher guides students in constructing their own understanding.
Teachers ensures that students receive information.
Uses instructional techniques that enable students to think about complex issues.
Teacher ensures that students learn those skills that may result in the production of knowledge.
Promotes student ownership for their learning.
Students are passive learners. Promotes active learning and learning how to think.
TEACHER-CENTERED STUDENT-CENTERED
Asks taxonomically low-level questions.
Uses assessment and evaluation as tools to provide constructive feedback.
Tells students how to recognize, diagnose or treat various diseases.
Uses an interactive and collaborative teaching-learning process.
Asks convergent questions to exert greater control over interactions.
Asks questions that seek to examine students’ thinking processes.
Dichotomies in Instruction
GROUP OPEN CODES WITH CATEGORIES AND LINK TO
MOIETIES
Table 1. Codebook used in the analysis, related themes and versus codes
FTMTPC - Faculty talks majority of time
and/or presents content
Transmitting
information to
student/TC
FASQPC - Faculty asks students questions
about patient case - patient symptoms and/or
history, findings from physical exam, what
diagnostics students will do, findings from
diagnostics (labs and radiographs), what drugs
and dosage to use; what are your differentials
Contextualizing
learning/SC
SPC - Student presents case Student case
presentation/SC
FPP- Faculty provides
praise
Encouraging student
learning/SC
FOTPI-Faculty offers
technical/information
Transmitting information to
student/TC
FAA-Faculty asks and
answers question
Giving, rather than receiving
information/TC
FCESA - Faculty call error
to student attention
Challenging student
thinking/SC
FAQRFBR-Faculty asks
questions that require fact
based response
Seeking student understanding
of factual knowledge/TC
FASRR-Faculty asks questions
that require recognition
(symptoms, presentation)
Seeking student understanding
of factual knowledge/TC
FPSMI-Faculty probes
students for more information
Challenging student
thinking/SC
FCSR - Faculty corrects student
response
Challenging student
thinking/SC
FOOoC-Faculty offers opinion of
case
Deleted due to infrequency
FDSCI-Faculty directs students to
commit to interpretation
Deleted due to infrequency
FESP-Faculty explains service
procedures
Deleted due to infrequency
SAFQFI-Students asks faculty
questions about factual
information: which drug, what
dosage
Deleted due to infrequency
Read each transcript in entirety
Develop codebook, or open code line by line, or paragraph by paragraph
Take open codes, or codebook lists and group by appropriate category
Identify and define moiety
Group categories by appropriate moiety
Repeat steps
Using Versus Coding in Observation Notes
Presentation to ESP 9 /14/16
Dr. Linda S. Behar-HorensteinDistinguished Teaching Scholar & Professor, Education,
Dentistry, Veterinary Medicine & PharmacyDirector, CTSI Educational Development & Evaluation
[email protected] 682 0768