# data[].attributes.headline
1. Identifying 3-4 words that are characteristic of qualitative research

# data[].attributes.subject
1. Identifying 3-4 words that are characteristic of qualitative research

# data[].attributes.body
Observed, coded, analyzed, discursive, grounded theory

# data[].attributes.headline
2. How does the stance/perspective of researcher fit on continuum of participant/observer?

# data[].attributes.subject
2. How does the stance/perspective of researcher fit on continuum of participant/observer?

# data[].attributes.body
Researchers observed teachers and students through collected video footage, therefore they were a more detached observer in this study.

# data[].attributes.headline
3. What research does the researcher review? What year? Listed in Research section?

# data[].attributes.subject
3. What research does the researcher review? What year? Listed in Research section?

# data[].attributes.body
Researchers reviewed prior studies ranging from 1971-2006 and cited 57 references, building a comprehensive and long ranging view of findings about teacher/student questioning techniques in mathematics and their impact in learning outcomes for students. Their research connected to a then recent NCTM reform that suggested that “when teachers are orchestrators of student interactions, students adopt a more active role in explaining and learning mathematics.” They critiqued a series of studies on a similar topic that did not come to clear conclusions on the effectiveness of different types of questioning. Researchers also used past studies to name and define different type of questioning including probing and guiding. They cited Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” and connected questioning techniques to it as a way to maximize individual student learning. The intent of their study in comparison to others was to examine how questions influenced mathematical discourse, instead of counting and categorizing questions.

# data[].attributes.headline
4. Framework for study? A priori or grounded/inductive? Stance and involvement?

# data[].attributes.subject
4. Framework for study? A priori or grounded/inductive? Stance and involvement?

# data[].attributes.body
Researchers took a grounded theory approach to this study. Their research review established that examining questioning techniques in mathematics was important, but they did not want to commence research with preconceived notions on what kinds of questioning was most effective. They used a careful/comparative coding system to categorize types of questions, and observed paths from there through graphic displays. They were careful not to judge quality or quantity of questions or "presuppose paths that would occur."

# data[].attributes.headline
What sampling strategy was used to select the culture, group, or setting?

# data[].attributes.subject
What sampling strategy was used to select the culture, group, or setting?

# data[].attributes.body
Purposeful Sampling

# data[].attributes.body
All Middle School math teachers (grades 6-8)

5 school districts

3 years of classroom video recordings

2002 - 03: 72 videos for 18 teachers

2003-04: 71 videos for 20 teachers

2004-05: 40 videos from 10 teachers

# data[].attributes.headline
Who were the researchers, and did the researchers tell you about themselves and their relationship to the study?

# data[].attributes.subject
Who were the researchers, and did the researchers tell you about themselves and their relationship to the study?

# data[].attributes.body
Researcher conducted a one-week summer in-service to train participants in the discourse strategies under investigation

10 people were trained to identify interactive classroom discussions through coding

# data[].attributes.headline
How were key actors (the sample) selected? How many were selected? What are the characteristics of these key actors?

# data[].attributes.subject
How were key actors (the sample) selected? How many were selected? What are the characteristics of these key actors?

# data[].attributes.body
All Middle School math teachers (grades 6-8)

5 school districts
Lesson objectives were identical

# data[].attributes.body
A conceptual framework was developed based on a coding system which was used to categorize types of questions and observed paths.

# data[].attributes.body
Recordings of classroom interactions were analyzed by chunking and coding according to the communications pathways map (figure 1).

# data[].attributes.headline
Did the researchers use any metaphors? Visual representations?

# data[].attributes.subject
Did the researchers use any metaphors? Visual representations?

# data[].attributes.body
The coding system is represented as a flowchart (figure 1)

# data[].attributes.headline
How was analysis checked for dependability?

# data[].attributes.subject
How was analysis checked for dependability?

# data[].attributes.body
In their original training, the researchers were tasked with chunking and coding videos were trained until they reached a certain threshold of agreement (95%) before they were allowed to analyze videos on their own. Four different coders analyzed each video. To maintain consistency, coder groups were variable over time and coders were retrained periodically when they strayed in agreement from the other coders.

# data[].attributes.body
The results supported the research hypothesis which was that although rich discourse (in which learning outcomes are strongest) can occur in many different ways, it is strongly correlated with students engaging in questioning, or answering certain types of questions posed by the teacher (such as why questions) rather than when dialogue is purely initiated by the teacher.

# data[].attributes.body
3 years of classroom video recorded after an intervention (described thoroughly in the paper). 3-4 videos per participant were collected. Nearly 8,700 minutes of mathematics instruction were analyzed.

# data[].attributes.headline
How and where were data collected? Over what period of time?

# data[].attributes.subject
How and where were data collected? Over what period of time?

# data[].attributes.body
Data were collected over 3 years, via video recording in middle-school math classroom settings (with students and teachers both present). Data were collected from 5 school districts spanning rural, urban, and suburban communities. Diversity was relatively high among students populations sampled, with at least 55% to as much as 70% minority enrollment.

# data[].attributes.headline
How were data recorded and checked for trustworthiness?

# data[].attributes.subject
How were data recorded and checked for trustworthiness?

# data[].attributes.body
Data were recorded via video, broadly speaking. Only information chunked for "interactive discussion and questioning" was analyzed for this study, so in a sense, the specific data relevant to this study were recorded by 10 trained individuals (chunkers), and obviously by the video cameras that saved the recordings.

To ensure trustworthiness of the chunked (considered) data, training of these trained individuals included chunking/time-coding teachers across time, grade, content, and curricula. Agreement among coders had to reach 95% before coders were authorized to chunk and time code on their own.

(I realize I may have strayed into evaluating the trustworthiness of the coding/analysis portion of the study, but I'm not quite sure where that boundary exists in this study...)

# data[].attributes.body
Purpose: The purpose of the article was clearly defined in the introduction of the article. It defined it's purpose of the study as creating meaningful discourse through types of questions and were defined as student vs student and student vs. teacher conversations.
Meaningful Discourse was defined as interactive  and sustained conversations between students and teacher.
Design: This study took into consideration types of questions but also student responses through video recordings of classrooms with consistent teachers. These recordings of specific classrooms took place over several years. I would say this study was in the design of a text analysis: Qualitative document analysis.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trustworthiness: Credibility of data collection: High (H), Medium (M), Low (L)Dependability of data analysis: High (H), Medium (M), Low (L)

# data[].attributes.subject
Trustworthiness: Credibility of data collection: High (H), Medium (M), Low (L)Dependability of data analysis: High (H), Medium (M), Low (L)

# data[].attributes.body
High

# data[].attributes.headline
Transferability: High (H), Medium (M), Low (L)

# data[].attributes.subject
Transferability: High (H), Medium (M), Low (L)

# data[].attributes.body
High

# data[].attributes.body
The questions here focus on the "what is being studied?", as you indicated, it is about classroom interactions, with emphasis on questioning. Your summary goes on to include comments that should go in other categories.

# data[].attributes.body
Good summary, try to fill in how this is a text analysis study.

# data[].attributes.body
For a qualitative study this is a large sample, how were they selected?

# data[].attributes.body
Be more specific with the data that was collected, videotapes (which has a lot of data, sight, sound, etc), and what was used specifically for this study. It is a challenge to differentiate the analysis, what was collected, from the evaluation, how well was it done. You are giving a good alert to your group.

# data[].attributes.body
Very good summary of the data analysis. What role do the quotes of interactions play in the data analysis and results?