methods with an Excel Spreadsheet. A simple check of the video log sheet revealed the gender
of the students, and this was cross checked with the video itself.
Interpretive Validity
There is subjectivity in this research. Interpretive validity asks if what is interpreted from
the observations is true to the data. That is, what is the meaning of the observations and does it
reflect what the participants (i.e., the students in the groups) actually did? Maxwell notes, “Like
descriptive validity, then, interpretive validity, while not atheoretical, refers to aspects of
accounts for which the terms of the account are not themselves problematic. Interpretive
accounts are grounded in the language of the people studied and rely as much as possible on
their own words and concepts” (Maxwell, 1992; p. 289; emphasis added). The guarantor of
interpretive validity in this study is the manner in which the interpretation developed. There was
an interactive process. For example, the flowcharts refer to the transcripts, and indeed one must
read the transcript of an episode to understand the flowchart.
Likewise, there was an iteration process. I view the progress through this research as a
helix. There is constant forward movement but I continually returned to the same groups or the
same ideas. For example, the four groups in session four formed the basis of the coding system.
When I was satisfied with the coding, the system was extended to the other 10 groups.
Flowcharts were drawn for Groups 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D. When I was satisfied with the results, I
extended the flowcharting to the other 10 groups. Then I faced the question of what to do with
the additional claims in an episode. After identifying the Alternate Claims and Modified Claims
in the four groups, I went back to the remaining 10 groups. They were recoded to account for
the Alternate Claims and Modified Claims. Next, the revised flowcharts were drawn for Groups
4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and then for the remaining groups. In other words, instead of plowing boldly