evident researcher with an emphasis in teaching and assessment and the other with an —one emphasis in district-level administration and strategic reform initiatives. To identify both common and contrasting interpretations, this section will draw from the independent coding, analysis, and theoretical development that each of the two researchers conducted. Contrasts in independent coding Each of the two researchers began from the same coding procedures to produce a unique set of codes (see Figure 1) in order to arrive at distinct coding development, theory, and analysis. Researcher A created a positive versus negative coding structure related to teacher evaluation. Many of the codes could have been negatively or positively coded depending on the framework (e.g. discord, control issues, inequality, and time consuming versus goal-setting). This categorization analyzed effect within themes and distinguished between positive, negative, or neutral association with a summary of focused codes within themes. Researcher A isolated some codes as neutral (neither positive or negative) and context dependent neutral (could be positive or negative depending on the context within the interview). For Researcher A, some codes were labeled as one category (i.e. negative); yet, during analysis, recoded as another category (i.e. neutral) dependent upon the interviewee’s context. Researcher A generated the two themes of power and teacher support; a third unidentified theme categorized context dependent codes, not directly associated with the other two. For example, the code control could have been negatively labeled with an interviewee who is a district administrator yet issues neutral with a non-district administrator; the district administrator may provoke the control issues while a non-district administrator may be constrained by the control issues. <Figure 1 here>
evident —one researcher with an emphasis in teaching and assessment and the other with an emphasis in district-level administration and strategic reform initiatives. To identify both common and contrasting interpretations, this section will draw from the independent coding, analysis, and theoretical development that each of the two researchers conducted. Contrasts in independent coding Each of the two researchers began from the same coding procedures to produce a unique set of codes (see Figure 1) in order to arrive at distinct coding development, theory, and analysis. Researcher A created a positive versus negative coding structure related to teacher evaluation. Many of the codes could have been negatively or positively coded depending on the framework (e.g. discord, control issues, inequality, and time consuming versus goal-setting). This categorization analyzed effect within themes and distinguished between positive, negative, or neutral association with a summary of focused codes within themes. Researcher A isolated some codes as neutral (neither positive or negative) and context dependent neutral (could be positive or negative depending on the context within the interview). For Researcher A, some codes were labeled as one category (i.e. negative); yet, during analysis, recoded as another category (i.e. neutral) dependent upon the interviewee’s context. Researcher A generated the two themes of power and teacher support; a third unidentified theme categorized context dependent codes, not directly associated with the other two. For example, the code control issues could have been negatively labeled with an interviewee who is a district administrator yet neutral with a non-district administrator; the district administrator may provoke the control issues while a non-district administrator may be constrained by the control issues. <Figure 1 here>
AndersonGuerreiroSmith.docx