4 / 11
84
entire inquiry process. This allowed for a developmental, sequential approach to inquiry and
facilitated rich discussion among participants, project directors, and school district staff. As the
academic year progressed, the large PLC met to discuss global issues related to inquiry and then
smaller PLCs formed based on mutual interest and shared experiences. Both formats served to
support the teachers’ ability to reflect and to empower them to make their own decisions based
on the data they collected.
A pilot study examined the impact of the paradigm. Specifically, the researchers were
interested in learning about the pros and cons of the model, and participants’ perceptions of the
experience. Given today's climate of attention to student outcomes, the TIRP participants entered
this experience hoping it could be a means to improve their practice and undoubtedly the success
of their students.
Methodology
This study deployed qualitative research methods to observe, describe, and analyze
participant perception of the TIRP. The questions guiding the research probed the structure of
meaningful professional learning opportunities; teacher inquiry’s role in the PLC; and the
process of implementing EBPs into instructional procedures. Data related to these questions
were collected after each PD session. As the TIRP progressed, observations were recorded,
responses to inquiry questions were read, and final projects were examined.
At the end of the poster session, participants answered an online survey documenting
their perception of the experience. Two weeks later, the participants returned to contribute in a
focus group interview, thus allowing them to elaborate on their responses, and to add additional
thoughts developed over time.
Qualitative data were collected in the form of interview and focus group procedures. All
participants received an implied consent form prior to the focus group interview and were
allowed to ask relevant questions regarding their role. Each was assured that confidentiality
would be respected and information would be reported with anonymity. Further, researchers
employed member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) during the interview and at the end of the
analysis increase the credibility and validity of the study. The researchers built rapport with the
participants in order to obtain honest and open responses. During each interview, the researchers
restated or summarized information and then questioned the participant to determine accuracy.
Each was provided with the findings section and allowed to question any part of the report.
These member checking strategies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) provide trustworthiness to the
analysis and ensure content validity. Data were independently coded by each of the researchers
and themes provided the framework for subsequent analysis. Findings reflect data that were
triangulated in a variety of ways.
Through the interview process, the researchers ascertained and explored views from the
teachers’ and administrators’ perspective of their TIRP and the entire PD experience. The
researchers systematically evaluated data collected throughout the year using thematic coding.
Iterative analyses of the data identified important and sometimes unexpected themes that
emerged. Data were derived from structured interviews among higher education faculty and the
practitioners. Data collected also included anecdotal notes from practitioners (i.e., discussion
forum entries, conversations). Participants completed the online survey immediately after their